PAGENO="0001"
OVERSIGHT ON EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED
CHILDREN ACT, 1980
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
OVERSIGHT ON PUBLIC LAW 94-142, EDUCATION FOR ALL
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
~TULY 29 AND 31, AND SEPTEMBER 10, 1980
PART 2
0
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-3320 WASHINGTON: 1980
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITI'EE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri WILLIAM L. ARMSTRONG, Colorado
ALAN CRANSTON, California GORDON J. HUMPHREY, New Hampshire
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
Ls~rIT1A CHAMBERS, Staff Director
SvEvus J. SACHER, General Counsel
MAJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk
DAvID A. WINSTON, Minority Staff Director
SuBcoMMrrrEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
PAERI.& FoRSYTHE, Subcommittee Staff Director
SUE Eu.EN W~RmGE, Minority Research Assistant
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980
Page
Montague, Gen. Robert M., Jr., executive director, the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr.
Foundation and Special Olympics, Inc., accompanied by Bill Bagshaw, stu-
dent; Nancy Moultrie, city of Alexandria, recreation for special needs office;
and Peter Wheeler, Special Olympics office 2
Akerley, Edward M., representing the National Society for Autistic Children,
accompanied by Mary S. Akerley, Mrs. Doris Weber, parent, National Gov-
ernment Activities Committee, Kansas City, Mo., representing United Cere-
bral Palsy, accompanied by Kathy Roy, assistant director, UCPA Govern-
mental Activities Office; Dorothy Crawford, board of directors, Scottsdale,
Ariz., representing Association for Children With Learning Disabilities; and
Jacqueline Z. Mendelsohn, Silver Spring, Md., representing International
Association of Parents of the Deaf, a panel 17
Rice, Francis R., advocate and legislative chairman, Vermont Association of
Learning Disabilities, Montpelier, Vt 87
Saxman, Ruthann, chairman, Committee on the Handicapped, Blessed Sacra-
ment Church, Alexandria, Va 108
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980
Shanker, Albert, president, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, ac-
companied by Greg Humphrey and Marilyn Rauth 116
Noshpitz, Joseph D., M.D., professor of psychiatry, George Washington School
of Medicine; staff psychiatrist, Children's Hospital, Washington, D.C., repre~-
senting the American Academy of Child Psychiatry and th~Xii~eric~ax~
Ps ~aIi~Assb~tn,t~ 164
Ro inson, Dr. Sharon, director, National Education Association's Program for
Instruction and Professional Development 181
Ramage, Jean, Ph. D., executive manager, professional relations, National
Association of School Psychologists, and David R. Williams, M.D., Thomas-
ville, N.C., representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, a panel 195
Boschwitz, Hon. Rudy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota 267
Fillbrandt, Aubrey W., principal, Winfair School, elementary director of ele-
mentary schools, Windom, Minn., representing American Corrective Ther-
apy Association; James G. Foshee, Ph. D., assistant commissioner for
mental retardation, Tennessee Department of Mental Health/Mental Re-
tardation, representing the National State Mental Retardation Program
Directors, Inc., Lana Ford, regional occupational therapist, assistant profes-
sor, occupational therapy curriculum, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va., representing the American Oc-
cupational Therapy Association, Inc., a panel 268
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1980
Martin, Edwin W., Jr., Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education, accompanied by
James Stearns, Percy Bates, Robert Herman, Ed Sontag, Shirley Jones, and
Jerry Vlasak 344
Ahart, Gregory J., Director, Human Resources Division, U.S. General Ac-
counting Office, accompanied by Joe E. Totten and Alvin S. Finegold 438
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
STATEMENTS
Ahart, Gregory J., Director, Human Resources Division, U.S. General Ac- Page
counting Office, accompanied by Joe E. Totten and Alvin S. Finegold 438
Prepared statement 448
Akerley, Edward M., representing the National Society for Autistic Children,
accompanied by Mary S. Akerley, Mrs. Doris Weber, Parent, National
Government Activities Committee, Kansas City, Mo., representing United
Cerebral Palsy, accompanied by Kathy Roy, assistant director, UCPA Gov-
ernmental Activities Office; Dorothy Crawford, board of directors, Scotts-
dale, Ariz., representing Association for Children With Learning Disabil-
ities; and Jacqueline Z. Mendelsohn, Silver Spring, Md., representing Inter-
national Association of Parents of the Deaf, a panel 17
Joint prepared statement 20
American Academy of Pediatrics, David R. Williams, M.D., chairman, State
chapter, prepared statement 221
American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc., prepared statement 327
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, prepared statement 568
Association for Children and Adults With Learning Disabilities, Dorothy
Crawford, board of directors, prepared statement 65
Boschwitz, Hon. Rudy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota 267
Fillbrandt, Aubrey W., principal, Winfair School, elementary director of ele-
mentary schools, Windom, Minn., representing American Corrective Ther-
apy Association; James G. Foshee, Ph. D., assistant commissioner for
mental retardation, Tennessee Department of Mental Health/Mental Re-
tardation, representing the National State Mental Retardation Program
Directors, Inc.; Lana Ford, Regional Occupational Therapist, assistant pro-
fessor, occupational therapy curriculum, Medical College of Virginia, Vir-
ginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va., representing the Ameri-
can Occupational Therapy Association, Inc., a panel 268
Prepared statement 271
International Association of Parents of the Deaf, Jacqueline Z. Mendelshohn,
executive director, prepared statement 80
Martin, Edwin W., Jr., Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education, accompanied by
James Stearns, Percy Bates, Robert Herman, Ed Sontag, Shirley Jones, and
Jerry Vlasak
Prepared statement 398
Mentkowski, Thomas M., teacher/counselor, Silver Spring, Md., prepared
statement
Montague, Gen. Robert M., Jr., executive director, the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr.
Foundation and Special Olympics, Inc., accompanied by Bill Bagshaw, stu-
dent; Nancy Moultrie, city of Alexandria, recreation for special needs office;
and Peter Wheeler, Special Olympics office 2
_Prepared~statement.(with attachment) 6
National ~Association of Social Wórkers,Jnc., Helen Tyler, on behalf of, pre-
pared statement 520
National Association of State Mental Retardation Program Directors, Inc.,
prepared statement 307
Noshpitz, Joseph D., M.D., professor of psychiatry, George Washington School
of Medicine; staff psychiatrist, Children s Hospital, Washington, D.C., repre-
senting the American Academy of Child Psychiatry and the American
Psychiatric Association 164
Prepared statement 166
Ramage, Jean, Ph. D., executive manager, professional relations, National
Association of School Psychologists, and David R. Williams, M.D., Thomas-
ville, N.C., representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, a panel 195
Prepared statement 199
Rice, Francis R., advocate and legislative chairman, Vermont Association of
Learning Disabilities, Montpelier, Vt 87
Prepared statement 91
Robinson, Dr. Sharon, director, National Education Association's Program for
Instruction and Professional Development 181
Prepared statement 183
Royer, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,
prepared statement 340
Saxman, Ruthann, chairman, Committee on the Handicapped, Blessed Sacra-
ment Church, Alexandria, Va 108
PAGENO="0005"
V
Saxman, Ruthann, chairman, Committee on the Handicapped, Blessed Sacra-
ment Church, Alexandria, Va-Continued Page
Prepared statement 111
Shanker, Albert, president, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, ac-
companied by Greg Humphrey and Marilyn Rauth 116
Prepared statement 120
Sims, Mozelle, V.I.P.S.-Vancouver Involved Group/Seattle, prepared state-
ment 525
Tice, Walter, vice president, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,
prepared statement as presented to the House Subcommittee on Elect Edu-
cation on October 9, 1979 (with attachment) 134
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., prepared statement 39
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Articles, publications, etc.:
Determination of Eligibility for Special Education, memorandum from
the Department of Education, State of Vermont, June 26, 1980 101
Draft Final Report for a Study of Teacher Concerns With Public Law 94-
142, prepared for the Bureau for Education of the Handicapped, from
Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., October 6, 1978 149
Final Draft Policy Paper on Individualized Education Programs (IEP's),
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, May 23, 1980... 359
Going Wrong With Handicapped Rights, from the New York Times, July
21, 1980 161
Implications of Noncategorical Special Education, by Laurence M. Lieber-
man, Ed D., from the Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 13, No. 2,
February 1980 104
Patterns of Physician Participation in the Evaluation of Handicapped
Children for Special Education Programs: A Report on State Regula-
tions, excerpts from 242
Policy statement on implementing Publc Law 94-142, State-Federal ad-
ministrative questions regarding the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, from the Council of Chief State School Officers 483
Result of a National Survey on Parents' Experiences in Participating in
Individual Educational Plan Provisions of Public Law 94-142 by Na-
tional Committee for Citizens in Education, October 1980 529
Sensorimotor Integration Program, preliminary assessment forms 287
Communications to:
Randolph, Hon. Jennings, chairman, Subcommittee on the Handicapped,
from:
Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, Octo-
ber 22, 1980 (with enclosure) 560
Kinney, Stephen M., SPED coordinator, Orange Southwest Supervi-
sory Union, Randolph, Vt., September 24, 1980 517
Martin, John F., director, Federal-State relations, Council of Chief
State School Officers, Washington, D.C., September 4, 1980 482
Perrone, Michela, Ph. D., executive director, the Joseph P. Kennedy
Institute, Washington, D.C., September 5, 1980 506
Stafford, Hon Robert T., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont from:
Auld, Representative Susan, House of Representatives, State of Ver-
mont, August 28, 1980 444
Hall, Keith L., superintendent of schools, Addison Northeast Supervi-
sory Union District, Bristol, Vt., September 23, 1980 512
Johnson, Charles B., superintendent of schools, Montpelier Public
School System, Montpelier, Vt., September 24, 1980 510
Lewis, Thomas E., superintendent, Windham Central Supervisory
Union, Newfane, Vt., September 25, 1980 509
Lincoln, William A., superintendent of schools, Washington West
Supervisory Union, Moretown, Vt., September 22, 1980 515
Messier, Norman R., special programs director, Orleans-Essex North
Supervisory Union, Derby Center, Vt., September 29, 1980 518
Murphy, Francis V., director, special education, Colchester School
District, Colchester, Vt., September 29, 1980 526
Pearl Houghton D., superintendent of schools, Rutland Windsor Su-
pervisory Union, Ludlow, Vt., September 29, 1980 508
Pentkowski, Raymond J., assistant superintendent, Addiston-Rutland
Supervisory Union, Fairhaven, Vt., September 22, 1980 516
PAGENO="0006"
VI
Communications to-Continued
Proulx, Raymond J., superintendent of schools, Barre Town School Page
District, Barre, Vt., September 25, 1980 514
Rocray, Barbara, director of special services, Windham Southeast
Supervisory Union Special Services Center, Brattleboro, Vt., Sep-
tember 29, 1980 519
Questions and answers:
American Academy of Pediatrics responses to questions asked by Senator
Randolph 239
American Federation of Teachers, responses to questions asked by Sena-
tor Randolph 162
American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc., responses to questions
asked by Senator Randolph 336
Association for Children and Adults With Learning Disabilities, responses
to questions asked by Senator Randolph 75
Filbrandt, Aubrey, principal, Winfair School, Windom Public Schools,
Windom, Minn., responses to questions asked by Senator Randolph 284
International Association of Parents of the Deaf, Inc., responses to ques-
tions asked by Senator Randolph 85
Martin, Edwin W., Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Reha-
bilitative Services, Department of Education responses to questions
asked by Senator Randolph 420
National Association of School Psychologists, responses to questions asked
by Senator Randolph 206
National Association of State Mental Retardation Program Directors,
Inc., responses to questions asked by Senator Randolph 320
National Education Association responses to questions asked by Senator
Randolph 192
National Society for Autistic Children responses to questions asked by
Senator Randolph 34
Noshpitz, Dr. Joseph D., M.D., professor of psychiatry, George Washing-
ton Sehool of Medicine responses to questions asked by Senator Ran-
dolph 179
Special Olympics, Inc., responses to questions asked by Senator Randolph. 14
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., responses to questions asked by
Senator Randolph 59
U.S. General Accounting Office responses to questions asked by Senator
Randolph 476
Vermont Association of Learning Disabilities responses to questions
asked by Senator Randolph 99
PAGENO="0007"
OVERSIGHT ON EDUCATION FOR ALL
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT, 1980
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room
4232, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jennings Randolph
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Randolph and Stafford.
Senator RANDOLPH. A pleasant good morning to all who are
present for this hearing.
We ask the witnesses who are to counsel with us to come to the
testimony table.
We hope to have members of our subcommittee present for the
hearing. Our schedule in the Senate is difficult with the nuclear
waste legislation in the Senate under discussion and with impor-
tant votes scheduled. That measure is under the jurisdiction of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee as well as the Commit-
tee on Environment and Public Works, with an added interest
expressed, more by way of amendment than jurisdiction, by the
Governmental Affairs Committee. It is a very complex bill, and it
is very crucial that members give close attention to amendments
that are pending.
So we will have some difficulty today, because members of our
subcommittee are necessarily going to have to be on the Senate
floor.
General Montague, even before my statement, will you introduce
those who are sitting at the table with you?
General MONTAGUE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I have brought with me Bill Bagshaw, who is a student; Miss
Nancy Moultrie, who is from the city of Alexandria, Recreation for
Special Needs Office; and on my right, Mr. Peter Wheeler, from the
Special Olympics Office. They are simply backups, and then I will
introduce Bill at the end of my testimony.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, General Montague.
We are particularly gratified that this morning we can welcome
those who come from our neighbor country to the north.
I would like to ask those Canadians who are here from the
Parliament and with the group to stand so that we may all ap-
plaud you. [Applause.]
I have been to Canada recently in connection with the Parlia-
mentary Conference between Canadians and Americans, which was
helpful, as these conferences always give us an opportunity to
(1)
PAGENO="0008"
2
exchange our thinking and to hopefully cooperate in many pro-
grams and projects on a broad scale between our two nations.
I particularly recall last year when I was at Campobello Island,
which is the international peace park, as you well know, between
Canada and our own country. We were having there a Peace and
Human Rights Conference in the structures that are still standing
of the Franklin Roosevelt family.
My many, many visits to Canada have always been not only
interesting and pleasant, but very, very informative. I correspond
with a Dr. McBride, who sends me his newest poems. He writes
poetry, as well as taking care of the medical needs of people on
Campobello Island.
This is the 13th in a series of oversight hearings on the imple-
mentation of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, which we began 1 year ago, in July of 1979. During
these hearings to date we have heard over 100 witnesses and have
received written testimony from many more who share our com-
mitment to the goals contained in Public Law 94-142.
These hearings were organized so that the subcommittee could
hear first from parents and teachers of handicapped children and
from handicapped students themselves, as well as local, county,
and State administrators. It was our hope that having heard from
these groups who must work on a day-to-day basis to implement
this important legislation we would know more about the problems
and difficulties they are experiencing with implementing this law;
this data could then be brought before not only this subcommittee
but before the administration and national advocacy groups in
hopes that by working together we can help them find alternatives
or solutions to their problems.
We are pleased that all of the national organizations, with the
exception of one, who were invited to appear are here today. It is
our hope that you have had an opportunity to review the testimony
presented to date, and we welcome your comments and recommen-
dations at this time.
Our first witness this morning is Gen. Robert M. Montague from
the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation.
You have introduced those men and women with you, so Gener-
al, we ask that you proceed.
We want the full value of your statement, but if your statement
is running 30 or 40 minutes, we ask you to summarize it. Your full
statement will be included in the published record, but you might
touch on those points that you feel need special attention. I believe
we have even said we hoped you could do it in 5 minutes' so the 5-
minute rule is in effect.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ROBERT M. MONTAGUE, JR., EXECU-
TIVE DIRECTOR, THE JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, JR. FOUNDATION
AND SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC., ACCOMPANIED BY BILL BAG-
SHAW, STUDENT; NANCY MOULTRIE, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,
RECREATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OFFICE; AND PETER
WHEELER, SPECIAL OLYMPICS OFFICE
General M0N'rAGUE. I think we can do that, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased that I have been invited to testify on the
physical education aspects of Public Law 94-142. This subcommit-
PAGENO="0009"
3
tee has been a major force in improving and expanding physical
education as one component of full education for handicapped chil-
dren.
At the urging of the Kennedy Foundation and many other orga-
nizations and individuals, the subcommittee saw that physical edu-
cation for all handicapped children was mandated by Public Law
94-142:
As I will report in a minute, that congressional mandate is not
being carried out effectively and properly, in our opinion.
First, let me quickly establish the credentials of the two organi-
zations of which I am pleased and honored to be a part, the
Kennedy Foundation and Special Olympics.
In the early 1960's, complementing President John F. Kennedy's
emphasis on physical fitness of all Americans, and especially chil-
dren, the Kennedy Foundation, whose efforts concentrate on help-
ing mentally retarded individuals, focused a great deal of its atten-
tion on physical fitness and physical education of mentally retard-
ed children. The foundation learned through its research and re-
search and study by others that appropriate physical education
benefited the physical growth, self-concept and even intellectual
development of mentally retarded and other handicapped children.
The foundation also discovered that pitifully few handicapped
children were receiving adequate physical education in schools.
The Kennedy Foundation responded to this unfortunate and
unfair condition, by creating in 1968 Special Olympics-a program
offering year-round physical fitness and sports training and athlet-
ic competition to mentally retarded children and adults as well.
Through Special Olympics, the foundation wanted to do more
than provide opportunities to participate in physical fitness and
sports training; it hoped to educate the public about mental retar-
dation and to get public support for programs and legislation such
as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
We believe that we have been quite successful. For example, the
success of Special Olympics is shown by the following: There are
now more than 1 million participants; 97 percent of the counties of
the United States have special olympics programs; more than
20,000 Special Olympics events take place each year; over 350,000
volunteers supply the manpower; public awareness is very high;
public acceptance is remarkable. Partly because of Special Olym-
pics' active promotion of physical education and advocating its
necessity, physical education was made a mandated service in
Public Law 94-142.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your personal support of the
Special Olympics in West Virginia.
Because of our minute-by-minute involvement with the extensive
special olympics programs reaching practically every school district
in the United States, we are acutely aware of the continuing inade-
quacy of physical education being provided mentally retarded and
other handicapped children. This is directly contrary to the stated
wishes of Congress.
Congress indicated its interest in physical education of handi-
capped children when in Public Law 94-142 it highlighted physical
education in defining special education as: "Special education"
means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to
PAGENO="0010"
4
meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, including classroom
instruction, instruction in physical education, home instruction and
instruction in hospitals and institutions.
Unfortunately, not a great deal is happening in schools across
the United States. Physical education for handicapped individuals
is being left out of school programs nationwide. In November 1979,
the Kennedy Foundation sought to document the situation regard-
ing the provision of instruction in physical education in public
schools. We conducted a telephone survey of all directors of special
education in State departments of education. This survey revealed:
A majority of States have no policies or standards to assure that
physical education is considered in the process of placing or refer-
ring handicapped children.
A majority of States have no policies or standards to assure that
physical education needs of handicapped children are properly as-
sessed through testing procedures.
In November 1979, the Kennedy Foundation sought to document
the situation that I have just described, regarding the provision of
instruction in physical education in public schools. We conducted a
systematic telephone survey of all directors of special education in
State departments of education. This survey revealed what I have
shown on this chart.
It shows, Mr. Chairman, that in the States, physical education is
not included in the placement/referral process of handicapped stu-
dents in 62 percent of the States.
The physical education needs of handicapped children were not
being assessed through testing in 71 percent of the cases. Criteria
were not established for determining when adapted physical educa-
tion was needed in 81 percent of the cases. Physical education was
included in the individual education programs for handicapped
children in about 75 percent of the cases; that was very good.
Adapted physical education personnel are not being certified in
90 percent of the States. Now, in the United States, certification is
a State and local function, and not a Federal function.
Now, we found that in 64 percent of the cases, there was no
physical educator on the committee which this committee estab-
lished in each State, the comprehensive system on personnel devel-
opment committee; so we did not have any physical educators
guiding the planning and implementation of the law in the States.
The States, in 73 percent of the cases were monitoring physical
education; this is, of course, a good result.
So I think those results are fairly dramatic, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. We will ask that the chart be a part of
our hearing record.
General MON LAGUE. We do have that with the testimony.
Now, I contend that the survey supports my statement that
physical education for handicapped individuals is being left out of
school programs nationwide.
We recommend that: One, Congress reemphasize its mandate
regarding physical education; two, that the Department of Educa-
tion insure that State department directors of special education
make an increased effort to carry out the letter and spirit of the
law; that the Department of Education emphasize the need for
more training programs to prepare teachers to provide appropriate
PAGENO="0011"
5
physical education for handicapped children, and finally, that the
Department of Education recognize exemplary programs which are
successfully implementing the physical education requirements of
the law and use them as models.
Before I leave, I would like to introduce, Mr. Chairman, Bill
Bagshaw, a 17-year-old handicapped student from Alexandria De-
velopmental Center, who will describe what physical education and
sports training and competition gained through the Special Olym-
pics has meant to him.
Mr. BAGSHAW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I have been in the Special Olympics for 8 years. I have learned to
throw a softball, to jump, to run fast, and to bowl. This year, I was
in the standing long jump; I jumped 1 meter, 60 centimeters. I ran
the 50-meter dash at 11.2 seconds. I went to the bowling tourna-
ment. My bowling average is 89.
I have gone to the Virginia State Special Olympics 2 years in a
row. This year, I won two bronze medals. I went to Special Olym-
pics training camp. I learned to hit the tennis ball with a tennis
racquet.
I like Special Olympics. I like bowling very much. I feel good.
When I win, I can show people how good I am in sports.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Bill. I think you are
wearing a medal or two, aren't you?
Mr. BAGSHAW. Yes.
Senator RANDOLPH. That is good. What do you roll, duckpins or
tenpins?
Mr. BAGSHAW. Tenpins.
Senator RANDOLPH. You know, in my days of bowling, it was
more duckpins than tenpins, but you never see duckpins around
anymore. I do not know the reason. I guess people are stronger
now and can handle that tenpin. You can be a little more accurate
sometimes in duckpins.
Mr. BAGSHAW. Yes.
Senator RANDOLPH. We are happy to have you.
General MONTAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RANDOLPH. Now, we will give you some questions in
writing. Your responses will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of General Montague and the chart and
questions with responses follow:]
PAGENO="0012"
6
TESTIMONY OF
ROBERT B. MONTAGUE, JR., BRIG. GEN. USA (RET.)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
THE JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, JR. FOUNDATION
AND
SPECIAL OLYMPICS, INC.
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
OF
THE SENATE LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
WITH RESPECT TO OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN A~T OF 1975
PAGENO="0013"
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommitee, I am
pleased that I have been invited to testify on the physical
education aspects~of PL 94-142, the Education for All Handi-
capped Children Act.
This Subcommittee has been a major force in improving and
expanding physical education, as one component of full educa-
tion, for handicapped children. At the urging of the Joseph
P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation and many other organizations and
individuals, the Subcommittee saw that physical education for
all handicapped children was mandated by PL 94-142.
As I will report in a moment, that Congressional mandate
is not being carried out effectively and properly.
~But first, let me establish the credentials of the two
organizations of which I am pleased and honored to be a part--
the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation and Special Olympics, Inc.
In the early 1960's, complementing President John F.
Kennedy's emphasis on physical fitness of all Americans, and
especially children, the Kennedy Foundation, whose efforts
concentrate on helping mentally retarded individuals, focused
a great deal of its attention on physical fitness and physical
education of mentally retarded children. The Foundation
learned through its research and research and study by
others that appropriate physical education benefitted the
physical growth, self-concept and even intellectual develop-
ment of mentally retarded and other handicapped children.
The Foundation also discovered that pitifully few handicapped
children were receiving adequate physical education in schools.
PAGENO="0014"
8
The Kennedy Foundation responded to this unfortunate
and unfair condition, by creating in 1968 Special Olympics--
a program offering year-round physical fitness and sports
training and athletic competition to mentally retarded child-
ren and adults as well. Through Special Olympics, the Founda-
tion wanted to do more than provide opportunities to partici-
pate in physical fitness and sports training; it hoped to
educate the public about mental retardation and to get public support
for programs and legislation such as the Education for All Handi-
èapped Act. We believe that we have been quite successful.
For example, the success of Special Olympics is shown
by the following:
* There are now more than 1 million participants.
* 97% of counties of U.S. have Special Olympics
programs.
* More than 20,000 Special Olympics events take
place each year.
* Over 350,000 volunteers supply the manpower.
* Public awareness is very high; public acceptance
is remarkable.
* Partly because of Special Olympics' active
promotion of physical education and advocating
its necessity, physical education was made a
mandated service in PL 94-142.
Because of our minute-by-minute involvement with the
extensive Special Olympics programs reaching practically
every school district in the U.S., we are acutely aware
PAGENO="0015"
9
of the continuing inadequacy of physical education being
provided mentally retarded and other handicapped children.
This is directly contrary to the stated wishes of Congress.
Congress indicated its interest in physical education
of handicapped children when in PL 94-142 it highlighted
physical education in defining special education as:
"Special education" means specially designed in-
struction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the
unique needs of a handicapped child, including
classroom instruction, instruction in physical
education, home instruction and instruction in
hospitals and institutions.
Unfortunately, not a great deal is happening in schools
across the U.S. Physical education for handicapped indivi-
duals is being left out of school programs nationwide. In
November, 1979, the Kennedy Foundation sought to document
the situation regarding the provision of instruction in
physical education in public schools. We conducted a
telephone survey of all Directors of Special Education in
State Departments of Education. This survey revealed:
* A majority of states have no policies or stan-
dards to assure that physical education is
considered in the process of placing or referring
handicapped children.
* A majority of states have no policies or standards
to assure that physical education needs of handi-
capped children are properly assessed through
testing procedures.
PAGENO="0016"
10
* A great majority of states have no criteria for
determining if a handicapped student needs
adapted physical education.
* A majority of states do have policies or stan-
dards to assure that physical education is in-
cluded on handicapped students IEP's, although
the responses to the first 3 questions indicate
no policy for determining a handicapped child's
physical education needs.
* A great majority of state have no certification
requirements in adapted physical education.
* A majority of states have no physical educator
~epre~ented on the stat sCornphen~v~ System
of Personnel Development (CSPD) Committee.
* Although a majority of states say that they monitor
physical education, the responses to the previous
questions leave much speculation as to what they
in fact do monitor.
Note: Chart attached showing detailed
results of the survey.
I contend that the survey supports my statement that physical
education for handicapped individuals is being left out of
school programs nationwide.
Since the survey results show, as of November, that
Congress' mandate regarding the inclusion of physical educa-
tion in the overall education of handicapped children is
not being followed, we recommend that:
PAGENO="0017"
11
* Congress reemphasize its mandate regarding physical
education.
* The Department of Education insure that State Department
Directors of Special Education make an increased
effort to carry out the letter and spirit of the law.
* The Department of Education emphasize the need for
more training programs to prepare teachers to
provide appropriate physical education for handi-
capped children.
* The Department of Education recognize exemplary
programs which are successfully implementing the
physical education requirements of the law and use
them as models.
Thank you for inviting me.
I would like to introduce Bill Bagshaw, a 17-year
old handicapped student from Alexandria Developmental Center
who will describe what physical fitness and sports training
and competition, gained through Special Olympics, has meant
to him.
68-332 0 - 81 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
12
ABSTRACT.
Congress indicated its interest in physical education of hand-
icapped children when in PL 94-lL,2 it highlighted physical educa-
tion in defining special education as:
"Special education" means specialty designed instruction,
at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of
a handicapped child, including classroom instruction,
instruction in physical education, home instruction and
T~istruction in hospitals and institutions.
Unfortunately, not a great d ~al is happening in schools across
the U.S. Physical education for handicapped individuals is being
left out of school programs nationwide. In November, 1979, the Ken-
nedy Foundation sought to document the situation regarding the
provision of instruction in physical education in public schools.
We conducted a telephone survey of all Directors of Special Educa-
tion in State Departments of Education. (Please see attached chart.)
Since the survey results show, as of November,- that Congress'
mandate regarding the inclusion of physical education in the over-
all education of handicapped children is not being followed, we
recommend that:
* Congress reemphasize its mandate regarding physical
education. - -
* The Department of Education insure that State Depart-
ment Directors of Special Education make an increased
effort - to carry out the letter and spirit of the law.
* The Department of Education emphasize the need for
more training programs to prepare teachers to provide
* appropriate physical education for handicapped child-
ren.
* The Department of Education recognize exemplary pro-
grams which are successfully implementing the physical
education requirements of the law and use them as
models.
PAGENO="0019"
13
PL 94-142 TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS
ATTACHMENT
THIS CHART REPRESENTS CURRENT POLICIES OR STANDARDS REGARDING
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE HANDICAPPED AMONG ALL STATES.
IS PHYSICAL EDUCATION INCLUDED IN
PLACEMENT/REFERRAL PROCESS?
ARE PHYSICAL EDUCATION NEEDS OF
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ASSESSED THROUGH
TESTING?
ARE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR DETERMINING
WHEN ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION IS NEEDED?
IS PHYSICAL EDUCATION INCLUDED ON IEP'S?
ARE ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL
CERTIFIED?
IS A PHYSICAL EDUCATOR REPRESENTED ON
CSPD COMMITTEE?
DO YOU MONITOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION?
QUESTION
!~
~Q
37%
26%
18%
75%
9%
28%
73%
62%
71%
81%
24%
90%
64%
24%
All percentages do not total 100% since some states did
not respond to all items.
PAGENO="0020"
14
AUG 25 ~BO
SPECIAL OLYMPICS, INC.
lnrernohorsol and Nohonol Headquarters
1701 K Sr. NW.. Suite 203. Washington. D.C. 20006 (202) 331-1346
August 21~ 1980
The Honorable Jennings Randolph S
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
United States Senate -
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
Thank you for inviting me to testify during the over-
sight hearings on Public Law 94-142, a most significant law
affecting the lives of millions of handicapped children and
their families and friends.
I am pleased to provide the attached brief responses
to your questions. The Kennedy Foundation and Special
Olympics, Inc. are prepared to assist you and the Committee
in improving implementatiO Public Law 94-142.
Robert M. Montague,
Executive Direction
RMM/klc
End.
SPECIAL OLYMPICS. ft'IC.
Eunice Kennedy Shrivet. President
Robert fk Montague. Brig. Gets. USA (Ret.). Execunve Director
Thomas B. Songster. Phd. Director of Sports and Recreation
Stanley Srartzell. Director of Coaching and Training
Created and sponsored by The Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundedon
PAGENO="0021"
15
Question
1. What criteria would you suggest be developed to help
implement physical education for handicapped children?
Response
To cause states, school districts and schools to provide
mandated and necessary physical education to handicapped
children will require, in my opinion, a long-term and intense
effort by the Department of Education. First, the Department
should reiterate the requirement for physical education to
be part of each handicapped child's IEP. This necessitates
that the Department stress that physical education be con-
sidered during the referral process and that physical educa-
tion needs to be a specific part of any assessment. Second,
the Department, in its contacts with the states, should pro-
vide information and assistance regarding adapted physical
education curricula and stress the great need for inservice
training of physical educators and teachers. Third, the De-
partment should require the states to monitor and report on
the extent to which handicapped children are receiving ap-
propriate physical education.
Question
2. Would you please comment on the availability and appro-
priateness of physical education for handicapped youth
at the secondary education level?
PAGENO="0022"
16
Response
The testimony I presented lumped primary and secondary
education together. Hence, I cannot respond specifically to
the question of availability of physical education at the
secondary education level. However, based on our experience
in Special Olympics, it appears that the physical education
for handicapped students in secondary schools is even less
available than for handicapped students in primary schools.
Yet, physical educators point out that for handicapped child-
ren, whose maturation is usually slower than for normal child-
ren, physical education is especially important to those of
secondary school age.
Senator RANDOLPH. Are there any other comments? Yes, Mr.
Wheeler?
Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the survey, I think it is
important to point out that these were State policies. Many States
did not have any State policies concerning the referral and screen-
ing process. The same is true with the assessment process. But the
States did say that physical education was included in the IEP. If
the States have no screening, referral, or assessment process, how
could they determine the physical education needs of the child to
be written in the IEP?
There is another questionable response concerning monitoring.
Although 75 percent of the States were monitoring the physical
education, the responses to the previous questions left much specu-
lation as to what in fact to monitor. I think these points needed to
be clarified and are found in the testimony.
Senator RANDOLPH. We will bring these needs to the attention of
Dr. Martin, of the Department of Education. Thank you very
much.
We thank the entire group for your appearance.
Now, will the panel members-four in number, I believe-come
to the witness table: Mrs. Weber, Mr. Akerley, Mrs. Crawford, and
Ms. Mendelsohn.
Mr. Akerley, would you begin for the panelists, or however you
would desire?
PAGENO="0023"
17
STATEMENTS OF EDWARD M. AKERLEY, REPRESENTING THE
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN, ACCOMPA-
NIED BY MARY S. AKERLEY, MRS. DORIS WEBER, PARENT,
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, KANSAS
CITY, MO., REPRESENTING UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY, AC-
COMPANIED BY KATHY ROY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UCPA
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES OFFICE; DOROTHY CRAWFORD,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ., REPRESENTING
ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES;
AND JACQUELINE Z. MENDELSOHN, SILVER SPRING, MD.,
REPRESENTING INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PARENTS
OF THE DEAF, A PANEL
Mrs. AKERLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not our witness today-this is a very proud moment for
me-our son is. But I would like to introduce him if I may, because
I think some knowledge of his background will make his testimony
more meaningful for you.
Senator RANDOLPH. Just to interrupt, we are delighted that you
are here, and if you will take over at this moment, then we will
move into the testimony. Thank you.
Mrs. AKERLEY. Thank you.
Until Ed was 3, his only mode of communication was screaming.
Until he was 5, he fled in wordless, uncomprehending terror from
such gentle things as raindrops and small animals. He did not play
with toys like other children until he was 7. His behavior in public
was unpredictable and frequently embarrassing.
In short, in less enlightened times, he would most likely have to
have been institutionalized.
He has had a lot of help-medical, social, educational. And my
husband and I believe the last was the most significant. His first 7
years of school were in private, segregated, special education pro-
grams, but all publicly-funded, because we live in Maryland, and
we had a law that mandated comprehensive services even before
94-142. I believe that kind of intensive help was essential, just as is
now the opportunity for him to be in a less restrictive and more
normal setting: a program for students with learning disabilities in
our neighborhood public school.
The decision to move to public school was his own, and he was
right. His courage and his persistence, even when things did not go
smoothly, tell us something about the importance of letting people
take risks in order to grow.
His statement is reproduced, exactly as he wrote it, in our writ-
ten testimony, and we request that the whole document be made
part of the record. You will see that the child who once could not
hold a pencil now writes very legibly; who once would not put two
words together intelligibly now produces pages of coherent narra-
tive; and who once could not bear unfamiliar surroundings has
taught himself to use public transportation. In fact, when we leave
here today, I will go to my office, and he will take Metro home on
his own.
We are really pleased to have this opportunity today to present
to you one of the young people whom you and this legislation have
helped so much, my son Edward.
PAGENO="0024"
18
Mr. AKERLEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ed Akerley. I am 15
years old. I live in Silver Spring, Md. I have autism.
I went to Hillcrest when I was 3. Sometimes, I used to run away
after eating lunch. Sometimes, I got into serious trouble for that.
Also, I used to beat up the kids over there, which was bad, and
when I did a bad thing again, sometimes Mr. Stoddard, my teacher,
pinned me to the floor. I screamed and cried while being pinned. I
did not like being pinned at all.
Once, when I had art, I ran off. When I came back, the teacher
said, "Do not leave the art room." Much later, I was still there, and
someone said, "Why are you still sitting in the art room?"
Then, I switched to Christ Child School. First, I was in group 1,
then in group 4, where Tammy was in my class. Sometimes, I had
Tammy chasing me around the playground, which was having fun.
Sometimes, we went on some field trips. One day, we went to
Washington, D.C., and I went to the top of the Washington Monu-
ment with my class.
One day, I wanted to go to public school to be with normal kids
and do what the normal ones did. Then I told Mom I wanted to
walk or ride a bus to school and not in our car anymore.
I had a talk with my teacher, John Marston, about going to a
new school to be with normal kids. Marty, my other teacher, heard
about it, too. When John had a talk with the principal, Burt Lones,
about me leaving Christ Child, Burt wanted me to come back after
summer vacation, so I had to go back to Christ Child for a while,
for Burt to see if I was ready. Then, by close to Christmas, I was a
new boy at Dennis Avenue School. At first, I went to Christ Child
in the afternoon. Later, I stayed the full day. My teacher was Mrs.
Siegel. A boy named Eric had so much trouble learning when he
was mad, sometimes it cracked me up, making me laugh. I tried
not to laugh and tried to be more normal, even if it was a joke
about Eric. Then, next year, I was in Mrs. Kugler's class. At the
beginning of the year, Jean Edeson teased me, which I did not like.
Chris and Jerome were in my class. Nathaniel was there in the
beginning only because he was having trouble being good. So it was
lots of fun in the class. Our teacher gave us Winnie the Pooh
coloring books. They were more like fun. I did work first, then
when it was finished, I colored Winnie the Pooh. It was my favor-
ite, because I was young.
I took Hot Wheel cars to school to play when work was done.
Sometimes, I even used to read Curious George books to Chris.
Sometimes, they picked on me a little bit.
Then, when there were not enough students, I had to switch to
Forest Grove School, so I worked hard the next year. Miss Bur-
roughs was my teacher. I was teased before then they acted nice to
me. I was in the Halloween parade, and I dressed up like a girl. So
I liked the kids at school.
Sometimes, I had speech. I liked that, too. By the end of Septem-
ber, I went to Marlu Ridge with the sixth graders and the kids
from Four Corners School. I had a good time except for being
teased by some kids, which I did not like. Maybe they thought they
were more important.
I knew a girl named Michelle Osborn. She had long hair; that is
why I thought she was good looking.
PAGENO="0025"
19
Next year, I stayed there for one more year. Sometimes, that last
year at school, I got picked on again, so when Mom heard of it, she
said, "Do you want to go back to private school?" I said, "No.
Maybe the kids do that to make themselves feel more important."
So I worked hard every day.
One day, Mom took me to two junior high schools, Eastern and
Key. Then, when school was out, I picked Eastern because I
thought it would be the best. So in the summer, I had orientation
for 4 days at the new school. I liked it a lot, because it has nice
special eds.
When I was in seventh grade, I had trouble with geography,
because it was a little bit hard. I got a failure notice that I did
poorly. I had to study more.
After having art with Mr. Fierstein, I went to Home Ec. In the
sewing class, there was too much confusion. I was being teased by
two boys, hitting me on the head with pencils. So Mr. Hedderman
finally pulled me out of there, and I went back to having art with
Mr. Fierstein. Back in the art class, there was no teasing. After
art, I again went back to sewing. Then there was no teasing. A girl
in my sewing class was nice to me by helping me thread the
machine and do my sewing. Her name is Tern Gala.
Those two boys that caused the trouble should have got pulled
out of there. Their names are Kevin and Timmy. I was not bad,
they were. I should have stayed in that class. I was not trying to
cause trouble in sewing.
Mostly in my work, I did pretty good, which Mr. Hedderman
said. This year, I finished eighth grade. I have music first period;
and second, I work on two pages in phonics and some days, lan-
guage. At third, I have gym; at fourth, I have science, about land
animals. Then I have lunch. After lunch, I have math. After math,
I have reading. After reading, I have geography. After geography, I
went home when the bell rang. I still ride the bus to school.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Edward. This is very
much a human document to me, and I am intensely interested in
what you were saying. If I might say, I taught speech for many,
many years, and I found that you were able, in the reading of your
testimony, to give the appropriate inflection and emphasis. Wheth-
er you realized you were doing it or not, you were bringing out the
points in a way that the listener could understand.
This will, of course, be made part of the record, and we will ask
questions in writing for your response.
Will that be agreeable?
Mr. AKERLEY. I guess so.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We will try it, then.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. and Mrs. Akerley and the
question and response follows:]
PAGENO="0026"
20
STATEMENT
OF
THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN
ON
PUBLIC LAW 9~+-1~+2
SUBMITTED TO
THE SUBCOI4MITTEE ON HANDICAPPED
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AUD HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
JULY 29, 1980
Witness:
Edward N. Akerley
10609 Glenwild Road
Silver Spring., Maryland 20901
Accompanied by:
Mary S. Akerley
PAGENO="0027"
21
SUMMARY
The statement of the National Society for Autistic Children is addressed
to two problems in the implementation of P.L 9~-1~~2:
1) Placement Thea~e is evidence that children are being placed in classes
according to their diagnostic labels rather than according to individual
evaluations of learning strengths and deficits and specific educational
needs. This appears to be the result of misunderstanding of the law and
its requirements, administrative inertia, and lack of resources.
2) Mainstreami~ig This concept is misapplied and misunderstood. Moreover,
regular education teachers are not being given sufficient preparation for
accommodating students with disabilities. Finally, the preferences of the
students themselves are not being given sufficient weight when placement
decisions are made.
NSAC's recommendations are addressed entirely to modifications in
implementation. No changes in the law itself are suggested. The Society's
points are illustrated by its witness's first-person account of his own
experiences, first in segregated special settings, then in special classes
in neighborhood public schools.
PAGENO="0028"
22
I W'CSV~*~ 4'O `t'\~\\cx~* Qn~v\ I ~v'~c ~ I
-~~b v~v.r~ a'~*c'r ~ ~ ~ 1.-. ~o*- \`e~O
5 -~~s ~A\~ 4~o~ ~ç a~so L ~o~cd +~ J~t~e+ ~o
` f ~
£ - L ~5_~ c~ ~ I
~ ~. c~x\ec~ `~J\~r ~
5--'
~`\ ~t' I~'~ ~`i'-ç
0 ~
\~c~e ~ ~ y-~~r~'r~\
* S `\ `5*-
-S S~~\ I rni- tlL'~ *)~~ `~*
~ ? ~cr I
~ \-V~ ~ ~\1C~Y~ -\-o Cv~'r\~
* ~Ii~ ~ \V\ 3V~\f) -L )t~r~ ~ ~
-i ~ ~ ~ \r~y~ T~'iV:i / \1V~V~. ~
C - jJ f I
~ ~- ~ c;~~'\ N\~ 4&~'
- ~j ~ -
\.~J\\[r5\S5) I\5~-'f\ ~ S
I L'-; -~-~-~ *-~c
CV~rc A 5 - c SO" ~
-` c~ ~i -
-` /
(~-r ~-\L \~-:~
S-S-S 1 ~~~_-_- 1'~1 ç1 I
* I
j
5 G1 - Nc ~K~5 ~, ~ ~ N
PAGENO="0029"
23
1 ~\~pSc~i~\
~ T\~~i'tL~p\I ~N\T'f\ ?~J\~r~~ `\J\~5k ~C~Jt~ 1'J~I5, ~c kew~
\~
W\ ~
~o ~ L ~ C\~ A~C~
-I-. \fi\~~\ ~vYtc ~- \~ci~n C I
a- \\c \N\~cV\ ~\~* \~~~\A~s ~ ~\A~V ~ \~ccw ~ c ~
C~. +c CO\rne o~~\\ ~ ,P: ~
I -~
\J ~cc~v ~ov~ Jo 1. \AIC~ ro oc~c
~ `N~V\~ -F0 \( `~\ ~ ~ro ~C~e L \I'~(i:;
C ~ ~ I `IVi$ ~ Vl~
~ ~ Ofl 5~V~ \j5 W~ ~ ~
1 ` ~ fr ~ vi~ ~t ~ ~
A~ j~\t~4 5 ~
I 0UJ Tfl~ ~ S ~
~ ~ ~ ~ \fJ~5 I
~f ~`M ~ ~ ~
~~\c ~ ~ ~ Mrs.
C ~ ~ I ~CA~
1 C\~~ ~ V/C i
t ~ T~ ~v~iv~ o~\y ~c~e ~e ~
V'~ ~` ~ S ~ Wac 1 ot~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oci<ç +~ y W~ VC / )`~ Y~
~ L d~d ~!c~r~ ~ ~ \AiV~c~~ `~ \A/~ ~v~b~iecL.i c5o\cvcd
`~t~ w~ kJ\j~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-w ~ ~ ~`V~v t OfrlC
~ J~ M~d~ ~ a~c~4- P00t~ iv q ~ac~ c~
i 5o~\e ~ ~ t~ 5~0ü) ~e~ovc +~ p\~ ~
\AJw ~ç ~ ~. 5ow~ -h rj~ç~ -/-~e~i 7~ rc~
~e~nq~ +o C~v~A-~w~, ~ Thy ~~ck~d ôv "~ ~
PAGENO="0030"
~drvk~oa~ ~4~j~i\ 7~GV()O~&. ~tki\ -t ~ \~\L\~ `A-k-~J\ I~i'~ ~ ~ I
~ TI. v~\W\ ~s~~?c~ç ~)t~J~ cVç~~ L\~ )5'~:o
491 ~ ~ )ç )\J
*~- `~r ~ LA (I~ `p:U~J~, ~ \J\~W\\~L~
_)___ ~` °~ ~ 3 ~ t~~: It\ - -~ - -~
~ \A7L~[~,~ "~1~\_L ~/\i'~\ ~ )L~ ~-~4- ~
?\~J >~OC~ -~c v~u. ~ v\c)t~ç\ ,.c: 3(~~
~-k~+ M1~M I~t~ç~ ~o f~t~p c~?~\? ~]\`~\ ~! i~J~\f\ T ~`
~ )?2.1 0A ~ R4"[~ ~rl& `-~`~~ ~ -~ ~
t v ~\-fl;~~o\ )VQ4~~AtJv\ ~2t\ ~ ~ ~kc
-~ ~:~Li\ ~-V~OtjV' v\W~j~A oc ~ \íV.' ~ ~ -~~ ~ 4V~ i~~)/\
~c\ ~ ~ ?W~O5 ~I~l?\ ~AO~A ~AO ~~L- ~A)\J\4ç ~ç -~
J\\?}\ -k-UN ~ ~3b «=tci' ~ V~&(L~k ~iL /~V~j\ c-~ov~k
~ ~ ~ ?~ç ~tAM~cQ ~~k~\N ~1W.'OV\ \%~ IJ M~U
~ ~J~v~o4Ac t1 ~jC~/~J~ ?A~?/~A A~v~+ ~~4~rii ~U~4f /~U'ft~ ~-ov~j~. i~:k62 `~ /
1~\ ~QV PIP ~ ~ ~ ?~4a~ LC~ t~~-(-- t2~I~c~ ~
»=Vvi~k \~Qc76 ~ ~iX~\ L ~~M- `~>k ~ &~c~) A~ `~k\1"
~ «=- ~ ~ ~ W °± 4~A~M -1: ~ ç cj0
I ) ~
~v; ~ ~ ~-~-t~ ~ ~ -~- -)
~ `doi~ç ~o1L )6fr~1) ?1'~W~4~ i~ A~1?~ ~ \I~4L øç
AW ~V~A ~M?~,'~\ Q %~ k°~ ~~Y~-+ ~W c~V~(~
~ ~\ `\°°~c k~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ c n~c c
_+d ;-3V~O ~ ~ `~V~JQ?SV\ \~At'~O `V cj;~-~ I
~ ~ ~ oJ~J~ ? ~
~ ~W
1 ~-`
~ L ~
p iNs. LC ~/~flO (A~ iO~A 2'A)PJ\ )A~~M- ~A)~kPJ\ `~A
PAGENO="0031"
25
i~w~ ~a ~ AW~ ~ `o~cfi~\J\se, ~-
\NL~5 4 1~Th~ ~ ~ ~
d~ \~z~ +~ S~\/ ~ ~
Ar\~ \N\W\ i\r\c~ ~\ ~ we vr3r -i-a How~ ~
Iv~ ~ 5~ ~iv\ C~\ct~ +\`We \M~5 -~oc~ MRc\'~ Co V&M$ )Q~t
w~ ~ ~`J ~ ~OW~ ~ ~
1W ~ ~ ~ ~ /~\~ r\'~~
*1 Sn ~ ~ ~ -~ ~
~ w~ N\r. ~ ~(1C~ ~ Q ~
V\Ic[~ V~O ~ ~ o~* 1 we~'4~ ~-
~5w\~, T~c~ `~ \~5 r~a fc~'i~9. A ~
`icc ~c ~
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~1~~ ~
~ ~
-*r~' ~ ~
~ ~e +(~~\e ~
~ ~`fljv~ ~ `~ ~v~- Kevw~ ~
I ~* I S~O~1~
~$ ~ *~- ~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~ i\:~ `:VC~~
-~ d ~ ~ M~ H~udry~~ Said,
I ~ I\\L~~ 1~
I e~
)`~
~
A~-~ \~v\~ L `v~,r~ yecd~.
VI c.~i' ~
t\c ~
PAGENO="0032"
26
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Mary Akerley. I am a past president of the National
Society for Autistic Children and have served as the staff director ofthe
Society's National Affairs Department. Our witness today is my son, whose
remarks will illustrate how P.L. 9~+-1~+2 can work it if is sensitively
implemented.
I am introducing him because I think some knowledge of his background
will make his testimony more meaningful for you. Until he was three, his
only mode of communication was screaming; until he was five, he fled in
wordless, uncomprehending terror from such gentle things as raindrops and
small animals; he did not play with toys like other children until he was
seven; his behavior in public was unpredictable and frequently embarrassing -
in short, in less enlightened times, he would most likely have had to be
institutionalized. He has had lots of help - medical, social, educational;
my husband and I believe the last was the most significant. His first seven
years of school were in private programs, all publicly funded. (Maryland
had comprehensive services even before the passage of P.L. 9If~1Lf2.) I believe
this kind of intensive help was absolutely essential, just as is the
opportunity for him now to be in a less restrictive setting: a program for
students with learning disabilities in our neighborhood public school.
The decision to move to public school was his, and he was right. His
courage and persistence, even when things did not go smoothly, tell us
something about the importance of letting peoPle take risks in order to
grow. His statement is reproduced exactly am he wrote it in our written
testimony, which we request be made part of the record. You will see that
the child who once couldn't hold a pencil now writes very legibly, who once
~~~ldn~t put two words together intelligibly now produces pages of coherent
narrative, who once could not bear unfamiliar surroundings has taught
himself to use public transportation.
PAGENO="0033"
27
-2-
We are pleased to have thisopportunity today to present to you one
of the young people whom you have helped so much. Ed Akerley's story is
the strongest statement we can make in support of FL. 9'+-1~+2. It is a
good law; it is not always well implemented. Our formal statement will focus
on two areas where, at least for youngsters with autism, most problems seem
to occur.
PLACEMENT In spite of the law's clear statement that placementis to be
based on the child's IEP, there is heavy reliance on diagnostic labels
rather than on individual needs. This is particularly damaging for students
with autism because of the sti~l prevalent misconception that autism is an
emotional disorder. The problem is compounded when a state or school
district relies on canned programming for the sake of expediency. It is
easier to place a child into an already existing program, based on a
diagnostic label, than it is to program for him individually. The results
for autistic children are often disastrous - and completely contrary to
the intent of the law. -
Most classes for children with emotional handicaps are based on the
belief that the students are normal learners whose psychological, usually
environmentally induced, problems interfere with their behavior to such
an extent that real learning cannot occur. The usual intervention is
therefore primarily psychiatric in orientation: psychotherapy, a supportive
irLiiieu, an often permissive aparoach to "acting out." Not only are such
techniques totally ineffective for the autistic child, but they can be
actually harmful.
Autism could be regarded, at least for educational purposes, as the
direct opposite of emotional disturbance. Autistic children cannot learn
in any normal fashion; and it is this inability to learn which causes their
deviant behavior, not the other way around. Consequently, they require
68-332 0 - 81 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
28
-3-
a program which utilizes specialized educational strategies (such as task
analysis) in a highly structured setting. The psychotherapeutic approach
has been proven ineffective by several studies; the reason has become
increasingly obvious as medical research has identified several areas of
neurological dysfunction underlying the disorder. However, the National
Society for Autistic Children files contain ample evidence that students
with autism are being placed in classes for emotionally handicapped s;udenos.
Although the parents appeal such decisions, they are not always successful;
school authorities cite the regulation and past practice, outdated though
that may be. Even when it becomes obvious that the placement is actually
harming the child, the authorities do not relent; instead they find ways to
punish the parents for being troublesome.
Joseph, 11 and severely autistic, lives with his parents in a soulhern
Virginia city, where he has attended several day programs. The most
successful was one designed for mentally retarded children (i.e., the
accommodation was to learning rather than psychiatric problems). The :dme
did come when the teacher felt that in order to keep Joseph in her class,
she would need additional help. Joseph was evaluated and the recommended
placement was a special program for autistic children based on the old
psychiatric model, the only such one was residential, and some distance from
the family horse'. Nevertheless, the parents consented to a trial placement.
Joseph regressed and the parents took hin home. They were told that tke
only possible day placement was a class for emotionally handicapped children;
once again they were willing to try. And once again Joseph regressed. But
this time was worse; there were personality changes as well. The once docile
happy child had become hostile and aggressive. When Joseph's mother visited
the classroom everything seemed fine (she could only visit on a prearranged
basis), but finally a teacher's aide gave her the clue she needed: Joseph
PAGENO="0035"
29
-If-
was routinely chained to a chair. Mrs. S. quite rightly felt her son would
be better off with no program and decided to keep him at home. The state
promptly charged her with violating the law. It insisted Joseph needed
residential care; she maintained he did not, only an appropriate day program.
The battle dragged on for over a year. The family finally won but only
after hiring a lawyer ~nd forcing the former Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped (BEB), now the Office of Special Education, to investigate.
Huge sums of money and nearly three years of a human life have been wasted
in the process, where, ironically, the family was asking for a program (the
MR class with an additional teacher or aide) which cost far less than either
of the two totally inappropriate ones the state attempted to force on them.
Three years ago, Andrew, then six, was making good progress in a special
public program in Michigan. It was designed for autistic children and
included such appropriate related services as speech therapy. Last year
the therapy was dropped when the therapist became ill; the school system
refused to replace her, and Andrew's parents were forced to provide this
service themselves at considerable personal expense. At the end of the school.
year the officials decided to discontinue the autistic program entirely and
place Andrew in a traditional E.I. (Emotionally Impaired) classroom. The
parents immediately requested a hearing and were finally forced to hire an
attorney to overcome the school's delaying tactics. ~)hen a decision was
finally handed down six monLhs. later in favor of An~rews earlier type
program, it and the results of a recent evaluation were ignored. Instead
Andrew was given a `trial placement in the E.I. class. He began showing
medical symptoms of stress; he stopped eating and developed a heart murmur.
Faced with a program that was not only educationally inappropriate but
actually life-threatening, Andrew's parents kept him home. The school
system has consistently thwarted their attempts to obtain due process but
PAGENO="0036"
30
-
has sued them for truancy!
The Office of Special Education has recognized this problem and is
planning to move autism out of the Seriously Emtionally Disturbed
category in the regulations. We believe this will help tremendously,
in that it will remove formal justification for such placements. However,
what we have just described is symptomatic of the larger problem of placing
children solely on the basis of diagnostic labels. We suspect that this
happens because of misunderstandings, inertia and budgetary difficulties
at the implementation level. For example, last December the Office of
Special Education issued a memo of clarification on the regulations: the
categorization of children by handicap was solely for the purposes of the
required child count and was ~ to be used for programming. We published
this information in our national newsletter. This was apparently the only
source of that information to some public school professionals; we received
inquiries from staff persons in two states because they could not get
information from their education officials.
Clearly, funding is another major impediment to full and proper
implementation. The promise of federal assistance no meet individual needs
has been only partially kept. It is, therefore, somewhat unfair to
criticize states and LEAs for only partial performance. For example, states
were lead to believe that they would receive approximately $3 billion in
federal assia;ance in 1982 for the state grant component of 9~+-1h2. It is
a disappointment that the Administrations request for FY 1982 is only $922
milliod, and that past Congressional appropriations have fallen far short
of the authorized amount.
MAINSTDEAMJ11~ This term has become a sort of verbal Rubicon, separating
good guys from bad. Of course, which is which depends entirely on
individual bias; because mainstreaming per ~ is neither a panacea nor a /
PAGENO="0037"
31
-6-
lethal weapon.
We listened attentively to witnesses at the Senate Oversight Hearings
last summer. Their conflicting views on mainstreaming, as parents and as
teachers, indicated that both the concept itself and its application under
P.L. 9~+-1tf2 are still misunderstood. Ed Akerley's statement does highlight
the mainstreaming dilemma and also suggests a solution, one which is
actually written into the law but not always enforced.
P.L. 9~~11+2 requires that the parents and, where appropriate, the
handicapped student participate in the formulating of the IEP. One of
the decisions which has to be made is that of placement. And here it is
very, very important that the student's preferences be taken into account.
When Ed indicated he had enough of private school, that he wanted to
be with normal children, the learned professionals in the Montgomery
County School System went into a state close to panic. Everything from
the larger classes to riding the school bus was going to be `traumatic."
If he and his parents insisted on a public, school placement it would have
to be in an EH Classroom with psychotherapy - on the outside and naturally,
at the family's expense. Fortunately, the familyhad identified an LD
Class in a nearby school with a vacancy and a willingness to try. The
school system compromised with "half-hearted" mainstreaming: gradual
introduction to public school. So, for nearly four months, Ed Akerley
had to go to two schools every day, the worst possible arrangement for a
child whose educational handicap demands consistency in management.
Honetheless, as you saw today, he has survived - "thrived" might be a better
word. Now `mainstreamed," he has told you of his problems - nearly all
social - and of his still strong preference, in spite of them, for the most
normal environment. He,, more than any of the "decision-makers" in his
world, knows the reality of public and private school and which is now best
PAGENO="0038"
32
-7-
for him. There are other Eds who are not listened to; they are ignored
and their parents "participation" in the IEP is limited to signing an
already completed form. If professional pre-set opinions on who can and
cannot be mainstreamed are allowed to prevail, we may as well drop the
"I" from IEP. If students and their families are listened to and their
recommendations followed, there will, of course, be mistakes made; just
as there are when `experts" make all the decisions. But they will be
normal errors based on normal desires to grow, with the risk-taking that
requires, not artificial traps based on someone else's limited expectations~
for another human being.
We must also deal with teachers' fears that they cannot handle
handicapped children in their classrooms. Some of that fear is legitimate;
the one great flaw in P.L. 9~+-V+2 is its lack of provision for training
of reg~1a~ classroom teachers and of. support personnel. Even when a
teacher is willing to try, he/she must be taught what to expect, what are
realistic goals. One young teacher, after completing her first year with
an autistic child in her classroom, and doing a very good job, had to be
consoled by the student's mother when she indicated she felt she had failed
because the child still wasn't behaving or learning normally.
One of the Senate witnesses described her deaf child's public school
experience as "the most restrictive environment possible." In his "deaf
school" all the children signed and his ~iorld, although silent, was
essentially normal. In "normal" school he was isolated by his deafness.
Does this mean he should not have been mainstreaxned? Or does it mean
the school personnel and his classmates should have been taught to sign?
This was how placement of a deaf girl was managed in a Northern Virginia
public school. Her classmates thoroughly enjoyed the experience and
carried it over to junior high school, where the young lady's mainstreaming
PAGENO="0039"
33
-8-
successfully continues.
We hesitate to suggest amendments to the law as solutions to the
problems we have discussed. We agree that Hard cases make bad law."
We do believe that enforcement must be more rigorous, and that rigorous
enforcement will eventually lead to acceptance of the principles on which
the law is based. Until that happens, we must find no excuse acceptable
for compromising the right of every child to appropriate education in the
least restrictive environment.
PAGENO="0040"
34
~.JESTIaN FOR ED AKERLEY 1980 I1tJ~ 1 ~ 2: Q~
1. What plans have you made to continue your education and training beyond
high school?
When I finish High School , I want to go to a training
school to get some good jobs . Fixing street lights
in an orange snorkel truck , Being a milk man
Making sodas, Being a trash can. When I have a good job,
I want to buy, a house, get carried and have some
children. When I have my own house I want a vegetable
garden in my backyard , Some cats and a dog. First I
will live in an apartment with my wife.
When my wife goes to the hospital to have a baby
then I want to start buying my house. I will be living
in Arizona by then. I willw *ant to know how to drive
a car and a truck.
Mrs. Mary Akerley
10609 Glenwild
(ONA~E~FORUT~STIC'
PAGENO="0041"
35
Senator RANDOLPH. Doris Weber, parent, from Kansas City, Mo.
It has been hot out there, hasn't it?
Mrs. WEBER. Yes, sir.
Senator RANDOLPH. Pull the mike closer, that our guests might
hear you.
Mrs. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to introduce Kathy Roy, of the National UCPA
Governmental Activities Office.
I am the parent of eight children, three of whom are classified as
"developmentally disabled." My testimony is the result of many
years of experience of attempting to obtain an appropriate educa-
tion for those three children, and as the result of an involvement
with the protection and advocacy system in our State, the various
boards and committees for United Cerebral Palsy, and a parent
advisory council that was formed with the local school district.
Our experiences over the years have been varied, from good to
bad, as is true with most parents in attempting to get their chil-
dren introduced into a school system of any kind.
My other children were fortunate enough to be able to attend
private schools, but because of the types of handicaps of my three
younger children, they were not able to take advantage of that
system, so we introduced them to the public school system.
I am not sure who introduced whom to what, except that I know
that my children discovered that school personnel did not always
receive them with open arms; that oftentimes, the school personnel
and the other students did not understand what a disability was or
were able to discern between the different disabilities, and that
occasionally-a little too often-their peers were cruel.
Over the years, I have seen some of these circumstances change.
I have some very great concerns. My first concern is that the
school systems are still not alerting the parents as to the implica-
tions of Public Law 94-142. I know this is true from sitting on a
parent advisory council and on the initial visits with them, learned
that most of them had fought to get their children in school with-
out even being aware that the law existed. We have a gap some-
where.
I am sure that school administrators are leery of educating some
of these parents too fully, probably figuring that there is going to
be a marching band walking into their offices, demanding more
than what they feel they can accomplish. I do not believe that is
true, but I would hope that more school districts would begin to
implement some parent training or more surrogate parent train-
ing.
The next thing that I am concerned about is that we are lacking
awareness training both with the students and the teachers. As a
result of insensitivity, my daugher, who is 15, whose name is
Bernadette, had her hair set on fire by her "normal" peers last
October.
Senator RANDOLPH. Where did this take place?
Mrs. WEBER. On the schoolbus.
As a result of that, she psychologically was so damaged that she
had to remain out of school for 2 months while the school system
tried to make a decision as to what the next step would be.
PAGENO="0042"
36
Senator RANDOLPH. Why did it take 2 months to make a deci-
sion?
Mrs. WEBER. Well, it took 2 months because I was requesting
some private placement for Bernadette to ease her through the
trauma and also to provide a more appropriate setting for her, at
least for the next year or so. They were having difficulties with
purchase of service agreement at that time.
Senator RANDOLPH. I do not want to be too detailed on it, but
this is a very unusual case.
Mrs. WEBER. Yes, it was to us.
Senator RANDOLPH. What happened to the individual or individ-
uals who set her hair afire?
Mrs. WEBER. Well, it so happened that this was a youngster who,
for some unknown reason, had been attending the wrong school for
2 months. They did not even realize that the youngster was attend-
ing the wrong school until the incident occurred and was reported
by the bus driver, and at that point, the school records showed that
he did not belong on that bus, nor did he belong in that school.
I left it up to the school administration to take care of the
legalities as far as what occurred with the child, only wishing for
him to obtain some assistance so that that type of thing would not
occur again.
Yes, it was unusual. Thank goodness, Bernadette was not phys-
ically hurt. The fire was put out quickly. But psychologically, Ber-
nadette would not take a bus again whether it was public transpor-
tation or school transportation, nor would she walk in the door of
that public school again.
So eventually, we did obtain a purchase of service agreement
with a private school.
The sad thing is that that is not necessary. The fact that her
peers, her "normal" peers, saw it necessary to tease her in that
sort of way means that our community as a whole, or society as a
whole, has a lot to learn.
What I have learned also is that teachers are some of the most
wonderful people on Earth, and they have given my children a
reason to want to succeed from one day to the next. But I also find
that many of them do not understand what the various disabilities
are. That has been lacking in their training. We are attempting to
make up for that now, through different classes that are required
for these teachers. I am very anxious to someday see mainstream-
ing occur, but I believe my idea of mainstreaming and others may
be a little different, only because I do not see every child in a
normal classroom. But what I do wish to see is that every child
have an opportunity to be integrated into a normal pattern of life
and to receive an education to the extent that that child will feel
like a whole person. I do not think that is an impossible feat.
We need to look at vocational and prevocational training to a
much greater extent than we are now. My 17-year-old son, Phillip,
has a great desire to work, like his five older brothers and sisters.
That responsibility is not going to be his unless the school system
accepts their responsibifity to provide some vocational training for
Phillip. More than once, the need for that has appeared on his IEP,
but it has not been implemented because the school system said
PAGENO="0043"
37
they really did not have the capabilities to provide the type of
vocational training that I and Phillip felt was necessary for him.
In one instance, he was in a vocationally oriented class, and in
mid-semester, that class was withdrawn, and Phillip was left with-
out vocational training again.
I do not believe this is unusual. Vocational training does not
seem to be a priority yet; it needs to be, because if we are going to
put so much emphasis on providing an appropriate education, a
well-rounded education for our youngsters in the elementary
stages, via Public Law 94-142, then the natural end result is that
these individuals will be able to be employed. To be employed, they
need vocational education. It is a natural.
I do not believe we have looked at that as sincerely as we need
to.
I feel very fortunate that my three children are still in school
due to many of the circumstances that we have encountered. I
know that administrators are becoming more open-minded. I know
that they are not relegating our children to the far corners of the
facilities now, as they were. I know that teachers' education is
being expanded. And I have a hop.e for all three of my children for
the future. Bernadette this year will be going back to school in a
different school system. She will be provided with prevocational
training, as well as her academics. Phillip is going to have voca-
tional training as well as academic. And Thomas, hopefully, is
going to attempt to be what many of us call "mainstreamed". He
will be in a normal classroom approximately 80 percent of the
time. The other 15 percent, he will be in a learning center.
This means that we are making great progress with Public Law
94-142, but it also means that we have got to look at the monitor-
ing of the system from both a Federal and State level. I know from
working with the protection and advocacy system that this has not
been done, not to the extent which is necessary. The courts should
not be the end result or the way to force the systems to implement
this law. I would hope that, through more thorough education of
our school personnel and the community at large, that we can
accomplish this in a different method.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Doris Weber. I noted
earlier that we would be joined by, and that he would be chairing
the subcommittee hearing-I refer to, for our guests from Canada
especially, the former governor of Vermont-Senator Stafford. I am
delighted that Senator Stafford is here, and he will continue with
the hearing.
May I have the privilege of saying again to the group of Parlia-
mentarians and representative Canadians who are our guests that
we know of your schedule, of course. We wish that you might be
here for all of the hearing, at least, during the morning.
I just was thinking this morning, with reference to Canada, of
Leonard Robinson, who was such an advocate and leader in our
program for the vending facilities for the blind. I will have one or
two of these books made available to you-he tells the story of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act in the book, "Light at the Tunnel End".
And the reason I want you, if you would, to carry it back to
Canada, is that one chapter concerns the assistance that we had in
PAGENO="0044"
38
the early thirties from Mr. Joseph F. Clunk of the Canadian Na-
tional Institute for the Blind. I remember Joe Clunk so very well
and the inspiration and the knowledge that he brought to us.
Senator Stafford, this program has been tried on a smaller basis in
Canada. And we will have several copies of the book sent to you.
I wish to say, Mrs. Weber, that we will send you questions to be
answered for the hearing record. I enjoy nothing more than listen-
ing, listening, listening, but the time element, for us as well as
others, is something that we have not yet conquered. We are aware
of it, and we cannot do anything about it. On the Senate floor,
there is certain legislation which is identified with the committee I
mentioned earlier, Environment and Public Works.
Now, we feel that these hearings have brought a series of infor-
mational, and often inspirational testimony. There are those within
the Congress who work on this subject matter. There are others
within the Congress who only are involved when we bring legisla-
tion to the Senate or House floors, really. So this hearing process is
a means of letting those who are not closely associated with the
legislation know that this effort is meeting with at least partial
success in some areas and, we hope, with substantial success for
handicapped children in other areas.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Weber and the questions and
responses referred to follow:]
PAGENO="0045"
39
1g)
STATEMENT
BESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON THE HANDICAPPED
ON
Oversight Of P.L. 94-142, The
"Education For All Handicapped
Children Act"
On Behalf Of
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc.
The Chester Arthur Building, Suite 141
425 "Eye" Street, H.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Witness: Doris Weber
Parent/Advocate
Kansas City, Missouri
Accompanied By: Kathleen Doy, Assistant Director
UCPA Governmental Activities Office
July 25, 1980
U.C.P.A. Governmental Activities Office Washington, D.C.
PAGENO="0046"
40
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUNNARY 1-2
INTRODUCTION 3-4
RELATED SERVI~S 5
Interagency Agreements and Their Effects
Upon Related Services 6-7-8-9
Recommendations Regarding Related Services 9-10
THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE
10-11-12
THE IEP AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES 12-13
Recommendations Regarding the IEP and Due
Process Procedures 14-15
DORIS WEBER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES 16-17-18
PAGENO="0047"
41
SUMMARY
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 94-142, many affiliates of United
Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., provided handicapped children with
special education and related services. Many of our affiliates, through a
variety of funding sources, continue to help LEA's provide related services
to handicapped children. We feel that agencies such as ours can provide
a great deal of positive direction to school systems in their provision of
related services. We also firmly believe that interagency agreements between
the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped and other federal agencies can
enhance the provision of related services to handicapped children. In
order to insure that handicapped children receive these related services
which are required by P.L. 94-142, we have made the following recommendations:
* We firmly believe that full implementation of the above-
mentioned interagency agreements will help assure that
the range of related services are provided to handicapped
children.
* While such interagency agreements will increase the likeli-
hood that these services will be provided, more funds will
be necessary to meet this objective. Thus we recommend
that the Congress consider providing more monies to meet
the mandates of 94-142.
* We feel that the provision of related services is so im-
portant to the overall objective of providing handicapped
children with a free appropriate public education that
Congress may wish to target funds specifically for this
purpose.
* Either Congress or BEH must specify who has `first dollar"
responsibility and who has "last dollar" responsibility
for the provision of related services. This responsibility
was clearly stated in the November 29, 1978 BEN-Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) joint program interpretation
regarding the provision of educational services to residents
of Medicaid Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally
Retarded and Developmentally Disabled. Other interagency
agreeernents must be just as specific regarding exact financial
responsibility.
* No amount of funds nor interagency agreements can replace
the importance of strong and consistent Congressional over-
sight. Such oversight is essential if the mandate of P.L. 94-
142 is to ever become a reality.
Also of concern to our organization is the IEP and the implementation
of due process procedures. These two provisions were created so that
parents of handicapped children had an opportunity to articulate their
childrens' needs. Yet, in many instances,this has not been the case. Our
testimony therefore makes the following recommendations:
* Additional financial resources and administrative supp
for parent training must be available. School systems
PAGENO="0048"
42
should be responsible for sone portion of these training
activities, but independent parent training centers, advo-
cacy organizations and state P&P~ systems must also be assisted
to provide additional parent training.
* Technical assistance and in-service training for all teachers
and administrators must be more widely available.
* School systems must provide positive support (in-service
days, recertification credit, release time) for teachers
who participate in training activities.
* Training must include information about
* the unique needs of children with various
disabilities, and
* the possible effects on educational performance
of those disabilities as well as
* skills to work effectively with children with
a variety of needs, and
* adequate information about the contents of P. L. ~4-
142 especially the IEP process which is the heart
of a free appropriate public education.
* The same information about disabilit~ies, methodology and
the law must be included in all degree-granting programs
responsible for the preparation of future teachers.
Finally, Mrs. tmris Weber is prepared to articulate her experiences in
trying to educate three handicapped children in Kansas City, Missouri. Her
testimony complements the points made earlier in this statement regarding
both the provision of related services and the difficulty which many parents
have experienced in obtaining an acceptable IEP for their handicapped child.
PAGENO="0049"
43
INTRODUCTION
Appearing on behalf of United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., is
Mrs. Doris Weber, Special Projects Director for Inland Industries, Inc. in
Lenexa, Kasas. Mrs. Weber is the mother of three handicapped children,
Phillip, Bernadette, and Thomas. She currently serves on both the
Governmental Activities Committee and the National Advocacy Committee of UCPA.
She is the President of T.A.L.L. (Training Alternative for Living and
Learning Inc.), a program which provides training arid job placement
opportunities for severely handicapped persons. Mrs. Weber also serves on
the Jackson County Board of Services which supervises the spending of mill
levy monies for group housing for the handicapped and supplementary monies
for sheltered workshops. Mrs. Weber plays an active role as a member of
the Board of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services for the
Developmentally Disabled as well as serving as corporate Secretary of the
Metropolitan Council for the Developmentally Disabled. Finally, Mrs. Weber
serves on the Parents Advisory Board of the Kansas City Public Schools and
thus is instrumental in giving directions to the implementation of 94-142
within her own community.
P.L. 94-142, `Education for All Handicapped Children Act" has and will
continue to have a very dramatic effect on the lives of our nation's
handicapped children. Until the enactment of this legislation, the education
of handicapped children was, at best, a fragmented and discouraging process..
We at UCPA believe that we are in a unique position to comment on the
implementation of P.L. 94-142 for two reasons. First, children with
cerebral palsy vary in the degree of involvement from those children who
are mildly handicapped and may need little special educational assistance,
to those children who are severely and multiply handicapped with cerebral
palsy and will need a variety of intensive special education and related
services in order to reach their full potential. Second, prior to the
enactment of P.L. 94-142, most UCPA affiliates were in the business of
providing special education to children with cerebral palsy. While many of
our affiliates continue to provide special education services to varying
degrees (as will be discussed later in our testimony), many other affiliates
are moving out of the business of education and into other services, such
as adult programming and infant stimulation activities. We believe that this
in itself is an indication that the mandate of P.L. 94-142 is having a
positive effect on the education of handicapped children.
In June, 1978 the UCPA Governmental Activities Office issued a report
entitled "UCPA Affiliates Report Implementation Experiences With P. L. 94-142:
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act." This survey indicated
that there were three major areas of concern to UCPA affiliates: 1) the
provision of related services to children with cerebral palsy, 2) the concept
of least restrictive environment and its relationship to private schools,
and 3) the I.E.P. (individual education plan) and due process procedures and
their effect upon handicapped children and their families.
Further on April 16, 1980, thirteen advocacy organizations led by the
Children's Defense Fund and Mental Health Law project issued a devastating
attack on the nation's failure to implement adequately P.L. 94-142, the
"Education for All Handicapped Children Act."
68-332 0 - 81 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
44
4
The report concludes that hundreds of thousands of handicapped children
nationwide have been denied essential services because of state and local
education agencies' noncompliance... .and the concomitant failure of the
federal Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEN) to enforce the Act.
Ten states - CA, CD, FL, IL, MI, NY, PA, TN, TX, and VT and the District of
Columbia were exairtined in this study.
The report identifies nine areas of noncompliance: (1) unserved
children; (2) inappropriately served children; (3) denial of related services;
(4) unnecessarily segregated classes; (5) misclassification and inappropriate
placement of black children in classes for the educably mentally retarded;
(6) illegal suspensions or expulsions from school; (7) no individual education
plans; (8) no system for identifying children in need of surrogate parents;
and (9) inadequate notion of rights to parents.
The advocates concluded that BEN has "failed to remedy this situation
because of inadequate staff, policy-making, monitoring and enforcement,
with only 20 relatively untrained staff. ..."
Our statement will thus attempt to address some of these issues and
offer the subcommittee some possible solutions to these problems.
PAGENO="0051"
45
RELATED SERVICES
Children with cerebral palsy Vary in both the degree and type of their
neurological involvement. For this reason the provision of related services
to children with cerebral palsy is critical. Some children may need a combina-
tion of related services such as physical, speech, and occupational therapy and
the provision of these services as early as possible in the life of the child
with cerebral palsy can often reduce, and in some cases substantially eliminate,
the handicapping condition. Prior to the enactment of P.L. 94-142, UCPA pro-
vided children with cerebral palsy with such related services. Now the question
is raised, to what degree are school systems beginning to take on their respon-
sibilities as far as providing these related services, and what is the role of
agencies like UCPA in assisting school systems to meet their responsibilities
in this area?
P.L. 94-142 clearly states that our nation's handicapped children are en-
titled to special education and related services which meet their individual needs.
"The Act describes related services as developmental, corrective, and other suppor-
tive services including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services,
physical and occupational therapy, recreation, medical and counselling services."
The term "related services" includes "transportation" as well as those listed in
the Act. It also includes school health services, social work services in
schools, and parent counselling and training. Thus, there are a broad range of
services which are to be provided to handicapped children under the auspices
related services. However, the survey of our affiliates found the provision of
related services generally inadequate or unavailable.
P.L. 94-142 is still in its infancy stages of implementation, and as both
State and local education agencies begin to take on their responsibilities in
educating our nation's handicapped children, the provision of such related ser-
vices will continue to improve. However, during the critical period of implemen-
tation, we believe that agencies such as UcPA affiliates can enter into
a partnership with both the SEAs and LEA5 in providing some of these related
services. A brief look at what several of our affiliates are already doing
to provide such services may assist the Subcommittee on the Handicapped to
better envision how our affiliates can be of assistance.
UCPA of Northeast Maine in Bangor received last year $54,566 in federal funds,
a combination of local education monies as well as ESEA Title I monies. Through
these funds our affiliate in Bangor was able to provide school age children with
education and related services. Our affiliate provided and continues to provide
infant and preschool programs for young handicapped children. These programs
and funds are complemented by $20,000 in Title XX Social Services funds to operate
a borne based developmental therapy program for children ages 0-5 and $3,000 for a
summer camp program. The State Mental Health Department grants UCPA $2,000 and
the State Developmental Disabilities Agency grants $13,330 for its infant develop-
ment program. The Title XVI of the Social Security Act (Mikva Amendment), admin-
istered by the State Crippled Childrens' Agency, grants UCPA $1,000 for, services
to preschool children receiving Supplemental Security Income. Thus, educational
funds are combined with five other agency funds to provide the continuum of re-
lated services required by children with developmental disabilities in Northeast
Maine.
PAGENO="0052"
46
6
UCPA of chicago receives approximately $400,000 in both ESEA Title I and
P.L. 94-142 funds. This affiliate also receives approximately $395,000 through
the Department of Illinois Mental Health Division of Developmental Disabilities.
With these funds UCPA of chicago is able to provide special education and re-
lated services to approximately 150 severely handicapped children in the Chicago
area.
UCPA of Hawaii receives $35,000 from the Department of Education to provide
a special education class which focuses on physical, speech, and occupational
therapy and sensory stimulation.
Thus, UCPA affiliates have expertise in providing related services to
handicapped children. We would encourage the Congress to continue to foster
such cooperative agreements whereby State and local educational agencies work
with private agencies to provide the related services previously described.
Such a sharing of responsibility will surely enhance the quality of education and
related services which are given to handicapped children and may also serve to
help education agencies feel less overwhelmed with their mandated responsibilities.
UCPA can also assist the SEAs and LEAs in helping the regular classroom teacher
with the responsibilities of educating severely handicapped children on a day-to-
day basis. UCPA has had experience in providing workshops and conferences to help
educators and families understand principals of normal growth and development and
to assist the child who is severely physically involved to participate in more nor-
malized activities and settings. The following example illustrates how one such
conference helped a severely involved child participate more successfully in a
regular classroom setting:
A teacher with a regular classroom who had an eight
year old child with cerebral palsy in her classroom
learned that the recommendation of the occupational
therapy consultant that included a great deal of
complicated bracing was not really needed for this
particular child during the course of this conference.
Thus, she was able to discuss the child's therapy recom-
mendations with more intelligence and expertise.
While we realize that this type of assistance will be required largely on an
individual basis, we would encourage SEAS and LEAs to utilize this type of exper-
tise. Such consultative assistance will enhance the quality of education for
severely handicapped children and may enable more children with cerebral palsy to
participate in regular classroom settings.
Finally the provision of transportation, as a related service, and its rela-
tion to the total educational experience must be discussed. Transportation, in
and of itself, may not be a key factor in education of handicapped children. How-
ever, transportation, as it affects access to all other types of related services
is critical, and results from our study indicate it is generally sadly lacking.
"Transportation is a related service which most responding states and localities
provide. However, transportation services are frequently inadequate and have
harmful effects on the child..." In Maryland, for example, there are too few
PAGENO="0053"
47
bus vehicles, necessitating multiple stops resulting in physical and emotional
strain on children, drivers, and driver assistants. UCPA of California indi-
cated that transportation to therapy for children, mainstreamed into regular
classrooms is a major concern. The report found that generally it is more
costly for the therapists to travel to individual schools than to transport
children to centralized locations for therapy. The report concluded that
unless school districts are able to provide transportation to therapy, parents
preferred special school placements. Thus, the lack of transportation undermines
placement in the least restrictive alternative - the regular classroom or school.
UCPA believes that the provision of transportation is a key factor in access-
ing all other related services to handicapped children. Because transportation is
central to all other types of related services and because it is a problem which
appears to be widely experienced the congress may wish to give this problem special
consideration. Again, we suggest that SEAs and LEAS be encouraged to contract with
agencies such as UCPA who already have smne degree of expertise in this area. Such
agreements will enable the SEAs and LEAs to effectively utilize existing expertise
and in turn, allow them to focus their efforts on other areas of special education.
* Interagency Agreements and Their Effects Upon Related Services
The provision of related services is critical to the total educational exper-
ience for handicapped children, Yet, many children are not receiving these ser-
vices. In order to address this problem, the Bureau of Education for the Handi-
capped (BEH) has entered into a number of interagency agreements which are designed
to access services to other federal pi~ograms already providing related services.
The number and extent of these interagency agreements is beyond the scope of this
testimony; however, a look at a few of these agreements may aid in our understanding
of how related services can be provided through a cooperative effort at the federal
level. Further, a look at the effect which these agreements are having on the local
level may also indicate the direction which P.L. 94-142 must go if related educa-
tional services are ever to be provided in a comprehensive manner.
BEH has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Administration on chil-
dren, Youth and Families (ACYF). The effect of this agreement will be that ACYF
and BEH will work closely to assure that children who are in Head Start Programs
receive a continuum of educational services. As stated in the memorandum of
understanding between BEH and ACYF:
In order that children participating in Head Start Programs
may fully realize their potential and benefit from a continuing
education and related service, it is imperative that Head Start
grantees and delegate agencies and State or local education
agencies work closely together... Cooperation between State and
local education agencies and Head Start is a priority effort of
both the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH) and the
Administration for children, Youth and Families (ACYF) in order
to assure handicapped individuals of full opportunities under
their respective programs."
BEH has also entered into a cooperative agreement with Bureau of Community
Health Services (BCHS) which administers the State Maternal and child Health and
~ippled childrens' programs. This particular policy statement also addresses the
PAGENO="0054"
48
cooperative delivery of "related services" provided and mandated by both agencies.
As the joint policy statement between these two aqencies indicates:
`Both constituent agencies within HEW have mandates, under
federal law, to identify, screen, and evaluate young children
for potential handicapping conditions. Both agencies may
provide similar services including counseling, referral and
case management...
The BEH and BCHS recognize that these similar mandates may, in
some cases, lead to duplication of services, or alternatively,
for a child to receive the services of one and not the other.
Both agencies recognize that early intervention of all service
deliverers is of great importance in assisting the handicapped
to success.'
These and other interagency agreements are surely intended to foster a better
understanding between BEH and other federal programs and such understanding can
only enhance the quality of implementation of P.L. 94-142, especially the provision
for related services. To this end, UCPA feels that BEH has taken a very laudable
first step in facilitating communication between a number of agencies of the federal
government.
Yet, the question must be asked, how are these interagency agreements being
translated at the local level? Are they having any impact on the provision of re-
lated services to handicapped children? While it may be somewhat premature to
judge the true effects of these interagency agreements, the survey of our affiliates
indicated that in many instances, related services are sadly lacking. Some excerpts
from our survey will illustrate the problem:
"...Alabama's problems with related services are rooted in the
vagueness of P.L. 94-142. No consensus has been reached re-
garding who pays for related services that may be identified
as needed in order for a given child to benefit from special
education. Related services are generally not available in
Illinois..."
"Reasons cited by school authorities for denying children related
services include:
(1) Insufficient funds: Sonoma, San Nateo, and Santa Clara
counties, California and Arizona
(2) Services not basic to education: Seattle, Washington
(3) occupational therapy not a school responsibility: San
Nateo County, California
(4) lack of speech therapists: San Mateo County, California
(5) Therapies only available to families meeting ~ippled
Childrens' Services income eligibility tests: los Angeles,
California."
PAGENO="0055"
49
9
Perhaps equally as disturbing is the fact that other agencies and organiza-
tions concerned with accessing services to handicapped children are also finding
that the provision of related services is not being fully implemented. In a letter
to the UCPA Governmental Activities Office, Mr. Michael Reynolds, Communicator
Program Manager for Thiesensory Systems, Inc., (a company which designs a variety
of technical devices to aid the handicapped) indicates:
Although I am aware of several instances in which specific
technical communication aids have been recommended in chil-
dren's IEP5, funding for these aids has not always been
easily obtained. Thus far, for example, we have seen only
a single instance in which a Cannon Communicator has been
funded by a state Medicaid program; many more requests
have been declined as inappropriate."
The vagueness of pinpointing responsibility for related service financing
creates a "Catch 22" situation. In 1~pril, 1979, Vanessa M. Sheehan of the law firm
of Pelletreau and Pelletreau, Patchogue, New York wrote BEN stating that some pri-
vate health insurance companies have refused to pay claims for related services,
such as physical and occupational therapy. In his May 21, 1979 reply, Thomas Irvin,
Chief, State Policy and Acministrative Review Branch, BEN, demonstrates the vague-
ness of responsibility:
BEN regulations "provide that insurers are not relieved by
Part B from otherwise valid obligations to pay for services
to handicapped children... Further, there is nothing in the
regulations which require that parents of handicapped children
use their insurance benefits for related services such as phy-
sical or occupational therapy..."
If a SEA or LEA, knowing a parent has private insurance coverage, refuses to
finance related services, the parent has no choice but to use it. They have thus
used up benefits which other family members may need. They have stimulated the need
for higher premiums. Acd the situation promotes negotiation while children are not
served.
We are not citing these examples to be overly critical of any one federal agency
or to infer that BEN has done less than an adequate job. Rather, we feel that the
provision of related services will take a great deal of interagency cooperation over
time in order to achieve the type and quality of related services which is envis-
ioned in P.L. 94-142.
* Recommendations Regarding Related Services
Because the provision of related services is so critical and because it appears
that this is an area of P.L. 94-142 which has not yet been fully realized, we would
like to offer the following suggestions:
* We firmly believe that full implementation of the above-
mentioned interagency agreements will help assure that
the range of related services are provided to handicapped
children.
* While such interagency agreements will increase the likeli-
hood that these services will be provided, more funds will
PAGENO="0056"
50
10
be necessary to meet this objective. Thus we recommend
that the Congress consider providing more monies to meet
the mandates of 94-142.
* We feel that the provision of related services is so im-
portant to the overall objective of providing handicapped
children with a free appropriate public education that
Congress may wish the target funds specifically for this
purpose.
* Either Congress or BEH must specify who has "first dollar"
responsibility and who has "last dollar" responsibility
for the provision of related services. This responsibility
was clearly stated in the November 29, 1978 BEN-Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) joint program interpretation
regarding the provision of educational services to residents
of Medicaid Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally
Retarded and Developmentally Disabled. Other interagency
agreements must be this specific regarding exact financial
responsibility.
* No amount of funds nor interagency agreements can replace
the importance of strong and consistent Congressional over-
sight. Such oversight is essential if the mandate of P.L. 94-
142 is to ever beccxne a reality.
THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
P.L. 94-142, through its mandates of least restrictive environment and the
provisions for a free appropriate education clearly encourage the placement of
handicapped children in public schools. As the Executive Director of UCPA of
Wisconsin, Mrs. Sue }Zendrick, testified before the Subcommittee last year:
"I feel that the majority of children could be mainstreamed
if schools are given the flexibility to be creative in seeking
solutions and if adequate funding is available. If we are ever
to overcome the attitudes and other barriers that prevent full
participation of people with disabilities in our society it is
essential that people with and without disabilities have oppor-
tunities to know, understand, and appreciate each other."
Certainly UCPA applauds regular classroom placement of handicapped children
whenever it is appropriate. However, we also recognize that there are times when
private special education in a support environment is most appropriate to meet the
child's needs. Because children with cerebral palsy vary in degree of neurological
involvement, some of these children in fact may need such private education settings.
PAGENO="0057"
51
11
Recently UCP of New York City successfully completed litigation against
the New York City Board of Education related to the fact that 14,000 handicapped
children were found to be in need of special education yet were still not
receiving such an education through the public school system. Some of the
major issues in the case were: 1) long waiting lists of handicapped children
unserved by the school system, 2) the lack of accessible public school buildings,
and 3) the appropriateness of the school placement for many handicapped
children. As a result of this litigation, UCP of New York City is working with
a Special Master which was appointed by the Court to bring about chanqes
which are needed in the Board of Education procedures for serving handicapped
children. In conjunction with this, UCP of New York City is also meeting every
two weeks with the Board of Education in order to assure that handicapped
children in New York City receive the services mandated by P.L. 94-142. We
feel that this is an excellent example of how UCP affiliates who have worked
with handicapped children for several years can become a catalyst for.
changing our nation's public school systems.
In our survey, some parents indicated anxiety about the quality of education
which their children were receiving in public schools. As the survey
indicates, `In New York the public sector has generally ignored the role of
private education providers and has failed to coordinate and utilize private
education resources. . . The concern of private agencies in these states, as well
as in Ohio, is with the quality of service - a fear that in attempting to
serve large numbers of previously unserved children, public schools are
sacrificing quality of service..."
It is important to realize that what is considered the least restrictive en-
vironment may change as the individual child's needs change. For children with
cerebral palsy this may mean that a child is in a regular classroom for awhile, but
is allowed to return to the private school if that child's developmental needs
warrant such a placement.
UCPA realizes that the decision of a child's placement must be made on an in-
dividual basis. Further, we fully expect both SEAS and LEAS to take on their respon-
sibilities in meeting the educational needs of handicapped children. (such a pro-
cess will clearly be enhanced through improving related services as discussed pre-
viously.) However, we also believe that even when related services are fully pro-
vided, and education agencies are in total compliance with 94-142, there will still
be a place for the private school in meeting the unique needs of some handicapped
children. We point this out only because we feel it would be a grave error for the
Congress not to continue to fund private schools as the least restrictive environ-
ment for some children.
From informal contacts with our affiliates, most LEAS (other than those pre-
viously cited) have consulted with private school officials before submitting their
applications for P.L. 94-142 funds. This has been helpful in determining the nature
and extent of services to private school handicapped children.
Despite this consultation financial reimbursement has been a serious problem,
such as in San Francisco, Los 1~ngeles, and Illinois.
Provisions for serving private school handicapped children may not include the
financing of the existing level of instruction in the private school. Since parents
are not expected to pay part of the education costs, the quality and scope of educa-
tional services may diminish for sowe children. BEN has carefully avoided becoming
involved in this area, In a May 9, 1979 letter to Frank Guthridge, Executive Directoi
Child Development Chnter, Morristown, Pennsylvania, William D. Tyrrell, chief, Policy
Section, BEN, stated:
PAGENO="0058"
52
12
The specific nature of contractual arrangements between public
and non-pub).ic education agencies serving the handicapped remains
a State matter subject to all applicable program standards."
UCPA recommends that either the Congress or BEH require public reimbursement of
the existing level of education and related services in private schools. P.L. 94-142
should not be an excuse to diminish the quality of education.
THE IEP AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES
The IEP and the Due Process Procedures are truly the key to the mandates of
P.L. 94-142. Without these provisions, parents, advocates, and the Congress, would
have no assurance that children were in fact receiving an education which fully meets
their needs. It is therefore a bit ironic that these two provisions appear to have
the most problems in implementation at the State and local level. We would like to
briefly discuss these provisions and make some recommendations to how the law might
be strengthened so that these two aspects of the law could be better utilized.
¶I\~o parents, Mrs. Sue Kendrick (refer to earlier citation) and Mrs. Lee Viets,
(Executive Director, UCPA of Vermont) have testified before the Senate
Subcommittee on the Handicapped last year that they have had substantial difficulty
with their child's IEP. As Mrs. Kendrick stated,
Although I have yet to participate in the development of
my own child's IEP, I feel participation is essential to insure
that the recommendations of the M-Team will be carried out and
exactly how they will be done so. It is also vital that parents
have a copy of the IEP in order to know from progress reports
(report cards) and parent-teacher conferences whether the goals
and objectives for their child are being accomplished."
Further, as Mrs. Viets said,
.And so, a year ago, prepared, I thought, by my experience as
an advocate for others, I called the school to request an evalua-
tion and the development of an IEP for my daughter. I found the
reality of local implementation to be seriously flawed... This
supposed IEP consisted entirely of suggestions concerning adapta-
tions to the physical environment which has been made by me to
the school guidance counselor following a conference with the
Child Development clinic. The identified problem was listed as
"physical handicaps caused by cerebral palsy" with an annual goal
"to eliminate as many harriers as possible for Diana---to encourage
her to be independent and successful." This document did not meet
any of the criteria for the content of the IEP as stated in the
regulations (l2la346). When I called to inform the school that
this was not an acceptable IEP I was told only that no services
would be provided without my signature..."
PAGENO="0059"
53
13
Thus it is apparent that the provisions of the IEP--which are to assure that
a child's individual education needs are met--is still having difficulty being
translated at the local level. Mrs. Kendrick is an occupational therapist and
Mrs. Viets is a teacher by professional training. Both are involved with their
SEAs in developing state-level P.L. 94-142 policy and yet each has experienced
difficulties in developing IEP5 for their handicapped children. If these profession-
als are having problems, one wonders about other parents.
Equally disturbing is the way in which due process procedures are being carried
out. Ideally, this should be a process which parents can turn to when they feel
that their child's needs are not being met. On a realistic level however, this is
often far from the case. As our survey indicates,
"Ohio requires an administrative review process prior to the
due process hearing. While hundreds of parents have partici-
pated in the administrative review process, relatively few have
been involved in due process hearings. Either parents are not
adequately informed or they are intimidated at the administra-
tive level for complaints persist."
In Alabama due process hearings are frequently too complex, cumbersome, and
\potentially tine-consuming and expensive. The adversarial nature of the hearing in-
hibits the parent. `lany parents fear "retribution" by sc:~ool officials.
In their report to the Congress entitled "Towards A Free Appropriate Public
Education" (issued in January, 1979) the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped
acknowledged that, while mechanisms for duo process were in place in some states,
other states would need more time in order to fully develop this provision of
P.L. 94-142. As their report explains,
Members of the Bureau's site-visit teams report that most
of the State due process procedures are still in the early
stages of development. However, from observation of pro-
visions already in existence and of scattered due process
actions, it is possible to speculate about some of the
issues that seem likely to emerge. Most of the available
systems stress formal due process hearings and place less
emphasis on parent or child involvement ~ to the school's
decision for an educational placement. Yet, active parent
involvement in developing the initial special education pro-
gram could deter possible conflicts later on, by encouraging
parents and schools to work as partners rather than as ad-
versaries. Those due process procedures that do not provide
an opportunity for informal resolution of differences of
opinion between the home and school may not be well adapted
to the field of education, which relies on the school, the
parents, and the child to develop sound programming decisions.
Ideally, due process systems should also provide equal bargain-
ing power between the school and the parents. As many observers
have pointed out, when a parent at a due process hearing is not
represented by counsel but the school system is, the hearing
is hardly a contest between equals. Mere notice to the parent
of the "right" to be represented may not be sufficient. Many
parents, particularly those from disadvantaged or minority back-
grounds, may not be able to obtain legal counsel, and many of
the current State due process systems do not take such factors
into account.
PAGENO="0060"
~54
14
Regarding the IEP and Due Process Procedures
Solutions to the problems which are present in both the IEP and the Due Process
procedures are not easy. However, we would like to emphasize that these two pro-
visions are absolutely critical to the complete realization of the goals of P.L. 94-
142. It would be a terrible mistake to weaken either the IEP or due process proced-
ures for, as we pointed out earlier, these are the only means of reconciliation
which parents of handicapped children have if they feel that their child is not re-
ceiving an education which fully meets his needs. However, UCPA feels strongly that
there are clear ways to strengthen these provisions so that they are more workable
for parents and school personnel alike. Mrs. Lee Viets made the following sugges-
tions:
* Additional financial resources and administrative support
for parent training must be available. School systems
should be responsible for some portion of these training
activities, but independent parent training centers, advo-
cacy organizations and state P&A systems must also be assisted
to provide additional parent training.
* Technical assistance and in-service training for all teachers
and administrators must be more widely available.
* School systems must provide positive support (in-service
days, recertification credit, release time) for teachers
who participate in training activities.
* Training must include information
* about the unique needs of children with various
disabilities, and
* the possible effects on educational performance
of those disabilities as well as
* skills to work effectively with children with a
variety of needs, and
* adequate information about the contents of P.L. 94-
142 especially the IEP process which is the heart
of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
* The same information, about disabilities, methodology and
the law must be included in all degree-granting programs
responsible for the preparation of future teachers.
Te add to Mrs. Viets' comments, we feel that the Congress must continue to
give BEH both the support and laditude which it needs in order to work some of these
more difficult problems out. With respect to the due process procedures, it is
virtually impossible for the Congress to legislate sensitive communication between
parents and the school system. However, as we have already pointed out, BEH can
offer both technical assistance and direction to states which will assure that the
due process mechanism which is in place assures that the ~ggp~ which parents will
follow is as objective as possible.
PAGENO="0061"
55
15
Office Of Special Education Staffing Problems
As mentioned earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations published a
report which stated that the Office of Special Education (formerly BEM) has
been lacking in their compliance efforts. Indeed some of the issues which
were raised in that report indicate' some valid concerns regarding the amount
of compliance efforts which the Office of Special Education is making.
In researching this problem we have found that staff of the Office of
Special Education are also concerned about these problems and cite two
reasons: 1) need for additional compliance personnel and 2) need for
additional monies ~o carry out compliance review activities. In discussing
the staffing for compliance review with the Office of Special Education,
it appears that an additional 20 positions are needed in order to effectively
monitor compliance practices within the States, In add~.tion, it appears
that an additional $100,000 is needed to carry out compliance reviews and on-site
visits. The Office of Special Education has explained that while there
is currently $150,000 set aside for this purpose, this has not been enough
to adequately monitor states efforts to comply with the law.
It is also our understanding that the Office of the Secretary within
the Department of Education will soon release a study which will reach
many of the same conclusions articulated by the advocates report. Additionally,
this study will recommend additional compliance personnel and monies for
this purpose. If in fact the study done by the Office of the Secretary
substantiate the finding of the Advocates report, the Subcommittee should
give serious consideration to increasing both personnel and funding for compliance
review.
Doris Weber's Personal Experiences
The opportunity to testify regarding P.L. 94-142 is a challenge I
appreciate because it allows me to hopefully say it's great that this piece
of legislation has enhanced the lives of many individuals with disabilities
and that with increased appropriations its impact can be the most distinct
reason for children with disabilities becoming independent, tax paying
adults.
I am the mother of 8 children, 3 of whom are classified as handicapped.
They are Phillip 17, Bernadette 15 and Thomas 12. They received pre-school
training through a United Cerebral Palsy Day Care Center and with persistence
on my part and involved related agencies, have attended public schools since
they were 7. In light of my high expectations, particularly since the
passage of 94-142, the process has been disappointing and frustrating, but
the results are very satisfactory. Much of the success has been due to
beautiful teachers, not the system.
PAGENO="0062"
56
16
As I relate to you why I make the above statements, I am consolidating
not just what occurred with my three children, but the awareness I have
gained as a member of United Cerebral Palsy National and local conunittees
and Boards and as a member of other DD advisory groups, particularly the
Missouri Protection and Advocacy System.
Our school systems are definitely challenged by this legislation, but
systems are people not things, which means they are flexible. However,
to accept a challenge well, all of the individuals concerned need more
assistance in understanding what we are all about. Their education is
incomplete.
Bernie, Phil and Tom delight in going to school. They should have
as many diverse opportunities open to them in their teen and early adult
years as my five other children did but irrespective of the law, they are
not and have not been allowed the same experiences. They were not able to
attend the same private schools, so we emphasized the joys of attending
public schools. They learned that some school personnel did not open
their arms to them, that they often had to take separate busses and that
other students were often cruel. My daughter's hair was set on fire by
her normal peers last year and because of psychological problems that
ensued, she was out of school for two months. As Phillip has matured he
has wanted to participate in sports, take art and be prepared for employment
before he is 18. Tom just wants to go to classes like his "normal" friend
Kevin. That type of normalization has not occurred, but we are working
toward it. The people who make the system and the students who participate
in it need sensitivity training, education as to what the individual
disabilities are and on-going support. Then my children and all others
with disabilities can be normalized to their capability level.
Everyone talks mainstreaming and it has many faces as I'm sure you are
aware. Mainstreaming to me is just having the chance to be integrated
into everyday patterns of life and being educated in such a manner that an
individual feels like a "whole person" I really do not feel this is an
impossible feat and many school districts are implementing such a process.
The problem is, not all school districts are synchronized to this thought
process.
The opportunity to obtain an education - a priceless commodity in
bargaining for a normalized future in today's society - is now available
under the auspices of a law. My observations are that: the extent to
which an individual child can access this commodity is determined by (1)
the parent's advocate's or guardian's, awareness of the law and the impli-
cations of such; (2) the local school district's funds and implementation
package or plan; (3) the enforcement or monitoring of the local educational
system by the State and Federal regulatory agencies; (4) the involvement
of all concerned related agencies and (5) whether ongoing awareness training
and/or education of professionals (teachers, psychologists, nurses and
physcians, therapists, etc.) has been established.
We know that all children are not receiving an adequate or appropriate
education, thus, all of the above are not in place.
PAGENO="0063"
57
17
A marvelous tool called an I.E.P. is provided for in 94-142, but
the beauty of its use is often lost in the fear of school administrators
regarding the legal implications; the insecurity of teachers who have not
received adequate training in its development and use; and the parent~s
lack of awareness regarding its existence and importance. The degree
of development of the I.E.P. is often dependent upon either the School
Administrator or the parent's assertiveness. Because my children
have attended many schools within the same district and state, their
IEP's have ranged from being very inclusive to very brief. For
example: It was time for an IEP for Bernadette and via many communications
with the Principal, I had requested the involvement of all of her teachers.
On IEP day I walked into the classroom with the Principal to be met by
five (5) standing teachers. I felt like a general inspecting the troops.
He introduced me and said "As you know this meeting is to develop an IEP
for Bernadette Weber. Mrs. Weber will tell you what is expected of everyone."
This was totally unfair to all concerned, but never to be daunted, I
proceeded to inform and an adequate tool emerged. I'm sure that not one
other handicapped child in that school had such an inclusive IEP or
possibly even an adequate one basically because of the reasons listed before.
A discrepancy that occurs is that if a service is not available in the
overall system that specific service (cx. OT or vocational education) is
not written into the IEP, yet if it is being written for the same child for
a purchase of service agreement in a private school the need is very
definitive. I question the need for the expenditure of so much purchase of
service money when the total system should be absorbing these services
into their schools thus providing a more thorough, all around educational
system for all handicapped children.
One of the above mentioned services is pre-vocational and vocational
education. It should be an integrated part of the total academic picture
for our children but it is still a premium. Phillip and Bernadette have
their sights set on realistic types of employment, but even with my constant
input, the need has not always been addressed. I found professionals very
willing to admit the need but reluctant to include it to the degree to which
I felt it was necessary "because we really do not have the capability to
provide it at this time." I believe this occurs because they are not
equipped to ascertain what the true capabilities of our children are in
regard to future employment and lack of funds, but I am not prepared to
accept this an an excuse.
An increase of in-service training for school professionals is
occurring but it needs to be expanded. Just recently I read that Universities
are recognizing the value of expanded curriculum for their educational
departments regarding handicapped children because of 94-142. ~y
utilizing this resource we can minimize the fear of "the law" and accentuate
the capabilities of the student who has a disability. Perhaps then the
caseload for P&A;s could begin to be shifted from educational priorities
to investigating the development of resources to expand the individual
with a disability's life-style.
You must emphasize that 94-142 funding also be used by school districts
to instruct and train parents. As a participant in a Patent Advisory Group
for the local system, I can tell you that most parents do not yet know enough
about the law, their children's rights or how to implement it and it concerns
PAGENO="0064"
58
18
me greatly. I realize that school administrators might visualize that
this would result in troops of Moms and Dads descending upon them, but
in those cities wher this type of training has been implemented, it
has been a resource to the school, not a hindrance.
I do not see the Courts as being the sole way to bring school
districts "around" but the monitoring and/or enforcement must be iirporved.
The major handicapped programs would then feel that they were not at
times spinning their wheels. The absence of particular services
necessary to the full development of a child should not be tolerated,
especially when the lack of it is obvious upon the submission of the
yearly plan, nor should the existence of completely separate schools
for children with disabilities. It is the prevalence of inequities that
is promoting lawsuits by parents and P&A's. If the mandated agencies
do not fulfill their obligations to enforce the law, then it will
continue to be necessary to enter the courtroom and waste time money
and energy.
My children's future is much brighter because of the existence
of 94-142 for the following reasons. The proper development of an IEP
has been responsible for obtaining psychological help~ for my daughter
and set in motion on a first time look at pre-vocational awareness and
basic training in an area Bernie is interested in. This is what motivated
her to return to school and stay there. It is now an integral part of
her I.E.P. She is anxious to get on with her life.
Thomas is going to have the opportunity to return to school this
year in a regular classroom 85% of his school day. His IEP's have been
criticized at times but the teachers have been specific in following
each objective and timeline with Tom and me and attempted to interlock
all of the pieces of a puzzle known as Tom. Tom is a bit apprehensive,
but hopefully the majority of his peers will accept him.
Phillip seems to have been denied access to more normalized conditions
than the others. His IEP's were sometimes adequately developed, but
inferiorly implemented. While in a foster home quite a distance from his
borne city, he and others were the objects of school isolation and the class
that was vocationally oriented was withdrawn. After 4 years he is now
with his family and the IEP that will control his school year is oriented
toward the whole Phillip, academically and vocationally. He is looking
forward to September.
Each year my expectations for all handicapped children increase as
schools use the resourcefulness that are known for to upgrade their
programming. My children have been fortunate in many instances to have
encountered marvelous teachers who have given them the desire to exceed
their success of the day before. My hopes are that everyone within a
school will one day enjoy the progress of those who were considered "not
to have it" and appreciate the fact that they - be it teacher, principal,
aide, student - had exercised a particiaptiOn in that challenge and success.
94-142 will ultimately be responsible for those successes.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0065"
59
1~1~ AIJS 28
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATIONS, INC. * 66 EAST 34th STREET * NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016
(212) 481.6300
REPLY TO:
UCPA Governmental Activities Office
Chester Arthur Building
Suite 141
425 I Street NW. August 26, 1980
Washington, D. C. 20001
(202) 638.6169
Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman "
Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped [1))t8
Room 4230 ~ hr'rfl~t~ Ofl
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 1~
Dear Senator Randolph:
Enclosed please find the responses to the questions which you muhnitted
to me regarding the implementation of PL 94-142, the "Education for All
Handicapped Children Act." Allow me to take this opportunity to thank you
for the experience of testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on the
Handicapped on July 29, 1980. Clearly, the work which the Subcommittee is
doing on behalf of handicapped children is extremely important.
Should you have any further questions regarding the testimony which I
gave on behalf of UCPA, please feel free to contact our Governmental Activities
Office here in Washington.
Sincerely,
Doris Weber
Southwest District Representative
TJCPA Governmental Activities Committee
Enclosure:
68-332 0 - 81 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
60
1. You stated that "if a service is not available in the overall system that
specific service is not written into the ISP, yet if it is being written
for the same child for purchase of service agreement in a private school
the need is very definitive." Could you explain this situation further?
When I sought vocational education for my daughter, Bernadette, the public
school system put in a purchase of service agreement for vocational education
services to be provided by a private school. However, the same vocational
education services were not in her public school I.E.P. Further, in my efforts
with the Missouri Protection and Advocacy System, I have found that occupational
and physical therapy are often not stipulated in children's r.E.P.s. Even when
these services are required, they can only be obtained through a purchase of
service agreement. The school system argues that they have insufficient funds to
provide such services. However, I believe that the school systems could provide
these services and most likely provide them at a much lower cost. (It should
be noted that a purchase of services agreement sometimes can only be obtained
through a grievance procedure which is similar to the due process procedure.) I
would also call your attention to the portion of our testimony which discusses
interagency agreements. It appears that if school systems were to begin to work
with other agencies which provide similar services, the cost to the school
systeirCwould be greatly reduced.
2. Based on your experiences with your children and your experiences with TiC?
and the Missouri protection and Advocacy system, how do you feel that
special education programs for high school aged children compare with special
education programs for elementary school children?
There remains a great discrepancy between the quality of education provided
by the elementary and secondary school system. This is exemplified by the in-
creasing number of disabled youngsters who are dropping out of junior high and
high school. Often disabled youngsters who are not academically inclined find
it difficult or impossible to receive vocational education. While vocational
education is important for all youth, it is critical for handicapped youngsters
who need these skills to function in the adult world. I strongly urge the sub-
committee to investigate how the 10% set aside earmarked for the handicapped in
the Vocational Education Act is being utilized. I am deeply concerned about
this provision of the Vocational Act and its effect upon handicapped children,
Even when vocational education is provided to handicapped youth, it may be
inappropriate, such as the placement of a handicapped youth in a sheltered work-
shop when that person could function in a competitive environment. As you
know, states are obligated to spend 10% of their vocational education monies
toward meeting the needs of handicapped students. I am especially concerned
that states may not be meeting their obligations under this mandate.
3. You indicated in your testimony that some TJCPA affiliates receive funds
under interagency agreements for the provision of education and related
services. Your testimony appears to indicate that these services are
provided within TIC? centers rather than public school facilities. Does
UC?A encourage its affiliates to provide services within public school
facilities rather than UCPA centers?
U.C.P.A. Governmental Activities Office Washington, D.G.
PAGENO="0067"
61
Prior to the enactment of PL 94-142, the "Education for All Handicapped
children Act," approximately half of UCPA's affiliates provided special education
and related services to children with cerebral palsy. In recent years there
has been a drastic decline in the number of children receiving such services
from our affiliates and we believe that this indicates that these children are
receiving such services through the public school system. However, many of our
affiliates continue to provide related services, such as speech and physical
therapy. while each area of the country is different, the National Office of
U~PA encourages affiliates to work with their local education agencies whenever
possible when providing these services.
In many instances both physical and occupational therapists are provided by
the affiliate to the school system in order to access and plan programs for
children with cerebral palsy. Some of our affiliates continue to provide services
to children whom the school system is not yet ready to serve. Further, there
appears to be a lack of trained personnel who are qualified to render these ser-
vices and this necessitates UCPA involvement. It is important to emphasize
that many of our affiliates have a close working relationship with their school
systems and view their provision of related services at the affiliate not as an
alternative to mainstreaming these children but as a partnership whereby the school
system and the affiliates can work together to assure a free appropriate public
education.
4. Private school placement may be required to meet the unique needs of some
children but certainly not all children. Since private school enrollment is
often seen as more desirable by some parents, regardless of needs, how would
you suggest that a differentiation be made between those who require private
school programs and those who simple desire it?
If the public school system can provide the handicapped child with an ap-
propriate public education, then parents of these children should not request
private school placements. However, I em quite concerned about the number of
parents who must seek private placement for their children. The fact that many
families do not feel that the public school systems can meet the needs of their
handicapped children leads me to believe that the school system is not meeting
their needs. Perhaps, as we have already suggested, the Office of Special
Education should increase their monitoring capabilities, and thus increase the
likelihood that more children could be appropriately served by the public school
system.
Doris Weber
Southwest District Representative
UCPA Governmental Activities Committee
U.C.P.A. Governmental Activities Office Washingtonb~.
PAGENO="0068"
62
Senator RANDOLPH. Bob, if you would take over now, as we go
into this second half of the hearing.
I believe Mrs. Crawford will be the next witness. I just wish I
could remain, as I know you would have liked to have been here
earlier, and as other members of our subcommittee would have
wanted to be present.
[Whereupon, Senator Stafford assumed the Chair.]
Senator STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to preside over
the second part of the hearing. The problem for us, as the chair-
man probably has said, is that we are both involved in a bill
involving the disposition of nuclear waste, on the floor of the
Senate, as well as the necessity of presiding over the meetings of
this subcommittee this morning.
I would like, as a matter of personal privilege, before we go to
the next witness, to extend my welcome also to the Canadian
Members of Parliament who are here. During the period 1960 to
1970, I had the privilege of serving on the Interparliamentary
Group between the United States and Canada. I remember the
awesome hospitality that you extended to us in Ottawa every other
year when we came up there, and we were always very happy to
see Canadians come dOwn to Washington in the other years.
But over the last 10 years, I have been a member of our Delega-
tion to International Parliamentary Union Meetings-I do not
know whether any of the members present here have served as a
delegate from your country or not. But I will say that in our
various struggles which have often involved confrontations with
the Soviet Union and her bloc allies that the Canadians have
certainly been some of our best friends and have done things for us
we could not do for ourselves. And I have been very grateful for
that, and I have appreciated the chance to tell you so here, in a
public meeting in the United States.
Finally, I have watched your "Morning Hours" in Ottawa, or
question hour, or whatever you call it, and it is unique and enlight-
ening and entertaining. I am very glad you are here.
And now, let us turn to the next witness, Dorothy Crawford, of
Scottsdale, Ariz., representing the Association for Children with
Learning Disabilities.
We have your full statement, Mrs. Crawford. We will make it a
part of the record in full and invite you to summarize it in what-
ever way you wish.
Mrs. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my intent to
highlight the written testimony today.
I am representing the Association for Children with Learning
Disabilities, a nonprofit, parent-oriented, volunteer organization,
which has State affiliates in every State in the United States, with
some 800 chapters.
I am on the national organization's Board of Directors which is
the governing body, and I serve on it because I am a parent of two
children with learning disabilities.
My major activity at the national level is chairing the Advocacy
Committee.
I would just like to make brief mention of how much our associ-
ation truly appreciates the efforts of this committee on behalf of all
handicapped children, particularly in spite of the fact some very
PAGENO="0069"
63
important activities are going on before the full Senate, you are
taking time to hear us speak.
I want to highlight certain parts of the written testimony the
association presented. The highlights will be in respect to concerns,
comments, and recommendations from ACLD.
First of all, we have one recommendation that we would like to
make for a change in the statute. Since so many of the children
that have learning disabilities are mainstreamed, probably more
than other handicapped children, we feel this is a very important
recommendation. Rather than for in-service training to be only
available for general education and people in that area, we would
like to recommend the following statute change. In order for a
State to qualify for monetary assistance, the State shall demon-
strate to the Commissioner that appropriate in-service training is
required, rather than just available, for all administrators, teach-
ers, related service personnel who are involved with the education
of handicapped children.
In other areas of implementation of Public Law 94-142, we have
recognized and defined a number of areas of concern for the educa-
tion of children with learning disabilities. First of all, under multi-
categorical placement-this is one of our very important con-
cerns-since children with learning disabilities require very special
kind of services with highly trained personnel to remediate their
learning disabilities, we are, in the majority of instances, opposed
to multicategorical placement, be it in resource rooms or self-
contained classrooms. We are convinced that every child with a
learning disability should be taught by teachers trained and certi-
fled to teach children with learning disabilities; for programs for
children with learning disabilities to include the full range of
services specified in Public Law 94-142; and that the content of
instruction should approximate that for all children with the meth-
ods of instruction matched to each learning disabled child's unique
learning needs.
Therefore, we are opposed to the use of multicategorical rooms in
the remediation of the child with learning disabilities except in
cases of certain, carefully justified programmatic circumstances.
On evaluation, we have two concerns, or two parts. The first is
relating to referrals of children for evaluation, and the second is
with the evaluation process. We see reluctance on the part of some
teachers and administrators to refer for evaluation children who
might have learning disabilities. We also hear of many States who
are now applying a formula method for determining eligibility for
placement in learning disability programs.
The Office of Special Education has sent out a number of DAS
information bulletins to the State directors of special education and
State coordinators. In these bulletins, the Office of Special Educa-
tion has attempted to clarify the application of a formula. Howev-
er, we have found that bulletins clarifying regulations do not have
the same impact as the regulations, and despite the clarifications,
practices are still being applied which run counter to the bulletins.
We have also found that when making placement decisions,
there is little in the evaluation process which would assist in or
suggest making a placement recommendation into a vocational
education program.
PAGENO="0070"
64
Therefore, we recommend there be an amendment so that all
DAS bulletins and policy clarification papers are entered into the
rules. We also further recommend that vocational aptitude or other
appropriate vocational assessment be included in the evaluation
procedures of adolescent and young adults who are suspected of
having learning disabilities.
We further recommend another change in the rules for evalua-
tion procedures, and that is to revise the statement where the
words are, "impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills", to read,
"handicapping condition or conditions", since in the present form,
the statement does not properly operationalize all of the possible
handicapping conditions of persons with specific learning disabil-
ities.
Under procedural safeguards, the role of the Office of Civil
Rights relating to implementation of Public Law 94-142 is confus-
ing to many parents. ACLD recommends inclusion of a section in
the rules of Public Law 94-142 which explains under what circum-
stances an appeal to the Office of Civil Rights is appropriate.
Regarding due process, we recommend that public funds be made
available for legal fees to parents of the handicapped in the same
manner that these funds are available to local education agencies.
We feel in the present form where local education agencies have
public funds available for attorney fees, that this is a highly dis-
criminatory situation to parents and the handicapped.
Regarding monitoring, we believe the regulations should include
a plan for monitoring compliance between the periods of local
education agencies, State educational agencies, and the Office of
Special Education's formal monitoring activities. Such a plan
should call for the establishment of Special Education advisory
councils within the local areas, one responsibility of which would
be to generally assess compliance. A local advisory council must
include parent participation, a component now missing in present
monitoring requirements.
We recommend a change in the rules to provide for the establish-
ment of loôal Special Education Advisory Councils with parent
representation, whose responsibilities would be to: one, assess and
monitor compliance of applicable State and Federal laws; two, to
assist in the development of the local annual plan, and three, to
provide advice to the local education agencies on unmet needs.
On the IEP and Surrogate Parents, we are still concerned about
the role of the parents at the IEP meetings. All too often, the
parent does not know how to participate, and it may be helpful to
have a parent handbook developed which should be given to the
parent at the time of evaluation so that the parent can be more
adequately prepared for the IEP meeting.
In conclusion, the statement as written and as I have highlighted
today reflects to ACLD the most critical issues relating to Public
Law 94-142.
Again, the association would like to express our appreciation to
this subcommittee for the opportunity of being here today, but
most of all, for your compassion, concern and dedication for the
welfare of all handicapped children.
Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Crawford and the questions and
responses referred to follow:]
PAGENO="0071"
65
AGLD
An Association For Children and Adults With Learning Disabilities
4l56LibraryRoad * Pittsburgh,PA 15234 * 412/341-1515 * 412/341-8077
National Officers
SECRETARY
SHARI SOWAROS TO: SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
BOARDAPPOINTMENT JENNINGS RANDOLPH, CHAIRMAN
IMMEDIATE PASTPRESJDENT
FROM: DOROTHY CRAWFORD
National Directors ACLD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SARR~RACIIESLEH WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON P. L. 94-142
TNVNL~KETT July 29, 1980
Professional Advisory
Committee
Youth and Adults
Section
National Executive
Director
A National Non-Profit Organization
PAGENO="0072"
66
I am Dorothy Crawford representing ACLD, an association for children and
adults with Learning Disabilities. ACLD is a non-profit organization with
some 800 chapters in all 50 states. We are a parent oriented volunteer
association, dedicated to helping the child and adult with specific learn-
ing disabilities. Our membership consists of parents, individuals with
learning disabilities, professionals and interested persons. I serve on
the ACLD Board of Directors; the major national committee I chair is the
ACLD Advocacy Committee. Also, I am a parent of two children with learn-
ing disabilities.
ACLD is deeply indebted to the Chairman and members of this Senate Subcommittee
for your continuing efforts on behalf of handicapped persons, including
children and adults with learning disabilities. ACLD has been before this
committee on many occasions. We have always gone away reassured by the
sincere concern and dedication shown for our children.
ACLD is especially grateful for the opportunity to participate in these
hearings on PL 94-142 and our input, though brief, hopefully will be
particularly significant. As parents, we represent the largest group
of handicapped served by PL 94-142. Learning Disabilities has the unique
position of special attention in the law and in the regulations. And as
parents, we not only have observed but have been part of the inipleinenta
tion of PL 94-142.
PAGENO="0073"
67
-2-
ACLD has one important recommendation to make concerning the phrasing of
the law. With this one exception, we believe the law is an excellent one,
and one in which this subcommittee should be exceedingly proud. Our
recommendation is made in response to the many parent members of ACLD
who have stated that often programs commensurate with their children's
needs are not being provided (in part, at least) due to poor attitudes,
misunderstanding, and lack of ability demonstrated by school adminis-
trators. This is especially true for principals and the regular class-
room teachers, since children with learning disabilities are more fre-
quently mainstreamed than other handicapped children. ACLD, therefore,
respectfully requests the following statute change:
In order for a state to qualify for monetary
assistance the state shall demonstrate to the
Commissioner that appropriate in-service train-
ing be required (rather than just available) for
all administrators, teachers, related service
personnel who are involved with the education
of handicapped children.
In other issues of implementation, ACLD has recognized and defined a number
of areas of concerns for the education of children with learning disabilities.
We have participated in the BEH national and regional meetings on PL 94-142
and at other meetings with the BEH officials to point out our concerns. We
have generally been pleased with the response BEH has made to us. BEH
clarification bulletins have addressed some of the concerns we have expressed.
PAGENO="0074"
68
-3-
But some problems still persist. While we recognize the complexity of
the issues faced by the local and state education agencies in trying to
implement PL 94-142, we are expressing priority concerns here in the hope
you will use your skills to alleviate some of the major problems our
children are facing.
Multicategorical Placement
One of the most important concerns to us is in regard to the placement
of students with learning disabilities into multicategorical resource rooms
or self-contained classrooms. A survey of our 60,000 plus membership
indicates much dissatisfaction over this widespread practice. All too
often, students with learning disabilities are given teachers who are not
trained or certified to teach students with learning disabilities and despite
an IEP, the education program in these multicategorical classrooms are not
matched to the unique learning needs of each child in the room.
ACLD is convinced that (1) every child with a learning disability should
be taught by teachers trained and certified to teach children with learning
disabilities; (2) programs for children with learning disabilities should
include the full range of services specified in PL 94-142, matching the
intensity of the services to the severity of the child's disability;
(3) the content of instruction (curriculum) should approximate that for
all children with the methods of instruction matched to each learning
disabled child's unique learning needs.
PAGENO="0075"
69
-4-
These conditions are not generally met in the classroom where students with
learning disabilities are grouped together with children who have other
types of handicaps and whose educational needs and modes of remediation
are necessarily different in kind, emphasis, *and content. ACLD is opposed
to the use of multicategorical rooms in the remediation of the child with
learning disabilities, except in cases of certain carefully justified
programmatic circumstances.
Evaluation
A second important concern is in respect to the evaluation of children
suspected to have learning disabilities. Our concern is divided into two
parts, the first relating to referrals of children for evaluation and the
second is with the evaluation process. -
We see a reluctance on the part of some teachers and administrators to
refer for evaluation children who might have learning disabilities. The
problem is noticeably greater on the secondary level. One reason for these
fewer referrals may be related to a reluctance to face the greater responsi-
bility and details placed upon the regular teacher and principals when more
learning disabled students are identified.
Regarding the evaluation process, we hear of many states which are applying
a formula method for determining eligibility for placement in learning dis-
abilities programs. On January 29, 1980, BEH sent a DAS Information Bulletin
#54 to State Directors of Special Education, State Part B Coordinators
PAGENO="0076"
70
-5-
and State PL 89-313 Coordinators. In the bulletin, BEN attempted to clarify
the application of a formula.
Also, in BEN bulletin, DA.S Bulletin #9 of April 19, 1978, clarified the use
of a specialist on the evaluation team knowledgeable in the area of learning
disabilities when learning disabilities ar~ suspected.
It has been our experience that the BEN clarification bulletins do not have
the seine impact as the regulations. Despite the clarifications, practices
are still being applied which run counter to the bulletins.
We have also found that when making placement decisions, there is little in
the evaluation process which would assist in or suggest making a placement
recommendation into a vocational education program.
ACLD, therefore, recommends an amendment so that all DAS Bulletins and
policy clarification papers are entered into the rules. We also recommend
that vocational aptitude or other appropriate vocational assessment be in-
cluded in the evaluation procedures of adolescent and young adults who are
suspected of having learning disabilities.
We further recommend another change in the rules for Evaluation Procedures.
The words, "impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills" do not properly
operationalize all of the possible handicapping conditions of a person with
PAGENO="0077"
71
-6-
specific learning disabilities. Therefore, this statement should be
changed to read, "handicapping condition or conditions."
Procedural Safeguards
The role of the Office of Civil Rights relating to implementation of.
PL 94-142 is confusing to many parents. Parents do not know when, how
or under what circumstances they should appeal to the OCR. For example,
situations have been reported to ACLD where the LEA has refused to grant
an impartial hearing; where tests have been used which reflect handicapping
conditions; where the LEA has refused to evaluate a child suspected by the
parents of having a disability; where parent's and children's rights have
not been explained, etc.
ACLD recommends the inclusion of a section in the rules of PL 94-142 which
explains under what circumstances an appeal to OCR is appropriate.
Due Process
In the case where parents elect to utilize the Due Process procedure, it
is usually necessary to engage an attorney .to represent the child and
present the case. For many parents legal fees are beyond their financial
capacities. On the other hand, LEA's have attorneys whose fees are paid
through public funds. This creates a situation which is highly discriminatory
to parents and the handicapped.
ACLD recommends that public funds be made available for legal fees to parents
of the handicapped in the same manner that these funds are available to LEA.
PAGENO="0078"
72
-7-
Monitoring
ACID believes the regulations should include a plan for* monitoring c~ipliance
between the periods of LEA, SEA, and BEH formal monitoring activities. Such
a plan could call for the establishment of LEA Special Education Advisory
Councils, one responsibility of which would be to generally assess ccaipliance.
A local advisory council must include parent participation, a component now
missing in present monitoring requirements.
ACLD recommends a change in the rules to provide for the establishment of
local Special Education Advisory Council, with parent representation, whose
responsibilities would be to: (1) assess and monitor compliance of appli-
cable state and federal laws; (2) assist in the development of the local
annual plan; and (3) provide advice to the LEA on unmet needs.
IEP and Surrogate Parents
ACLD has reviewed the BEM policy papers on the IEP and Surrogate Parents.
These policies adequately respond to some of the concerns ACLD has previously
expressed to the BEH. As an example, one of ACLD's concerns related to the
inclusion of related services such as adaptive physical education and voca-
tional education in the IEP. These are clearly and adequately addressed
in the IEP policy paper. However, we are still concerned about the role
of the parent at the IEP meetings. All too often the parent does not know
how to participate and it may be helpful to have a parent handbook developed
which should be given to the parent at the time of the evaluation, so that
the parent can be more adequately prepared for the IEP meeting. Perhaps
PAGENO="0079"
73
-8-
with this method, more appropriate services can be provided for certain
handicapped. Many persons need vocational educational training to ensure
productive adulthood, indeed, to ensure survival in some cases.
In conclusion, the above statements reflect the most critical issues re-
lating directly to PL 94-142 seen by ACLD at this time. ACLD again ex-
presses its appreciation to this Subcommittee for the opportunity to be
here today; but most of all, for your compassion, concern, and dedication
for the welfare of all handicapped children.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0080"
74
SUMMARY
ACLD recoomends the following revisions or modifications to the Act and/or
the Rules and Regulations in order to effectively implement the law:
PL 94-142
In order for a state to qualify for monetary assistance, the state shall demon-
strate to the Cosmissioner that appropriate in-service training be required (rather
than just available) for all administrators, teachers, related service personnel who
are involved with the education of handicapped children.
Rules and Regulations
A. Multicategorical Placement:
ACLD is convinced that (1) every child with a learning disability should be
taught by teachers trained and certified to teach children with learning disabilities;
(2) programs for children with learning disabilities should include the full range of
services specified in PL 94-142, matching the intensity of the services to the severity
of the child's disability; (3) the content of instruction (curriculum) should approxi-
mate that for all children with the methods of instruction matched to each learning
disabled child's unique learning needs. ACLD is opposed to the use of multicate-
gorical rooms in the remediation of the child with learning disabilities, except in
cases of certain carefully justified progranmatic circumstances.
B. Evaluation:
(1) That vocational aptitude or other appropriate vocational assessment be
included in the evaluation procedures of adolescents and young adults who are suspected
of having learning disabilities; and (2) change the phrase, "impaired sensory, manual
or speaking skills" to read, "handicapping condition or conditions.'
C. Procedural Safeguards:
A section be included in the rules to explain when an appeal to OCR is
appropriate.
D. Due Process:
Public funds be made available for legal fees to parents of the handicapped
in the same manner that these funds are available to LEA's.
E. Monitori~~g~:
Local Special Education Advisory Councils, with parent representation, be
established to (1) assess and monitor compliance of applicable state and federal
laws; (2) assist in the development of the local annual plan; and (3) provide advice
to the LEA on unmet needs.
F. IEP and Surrogate Parents:
Clarify the parents' role, responsibilities and rights in a handbook to enable
more effective, productive and meaningful IEP's.
PAGENO="0081"
75
éI!~LD AGLD
An Association For Children and Adults With Learning i/iflbz/jf~5s
4l56LibraryRoad * Pittsburgh,PA15234 * 412/341-1515 * 412/341-8077
August 13, 1980
National Officers
PRESIDENT ~C8IVed
IVICEPRESIDENT Date ~ -- / ~` ;~
~ri°t-sr p
(U SCEPRESSENT Senator Jennings Randolph
Cha rman Sub onus tt e on the H nd capped
4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
TREASURER Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
This letter is in response to the questions you posed
resulting from the testimony I presented on behalf of
National Directors ACLO at the oversight hearing on Public Law 94-142.
Question #1. You note that appropriate programs are not being
provided to handicapped children and that this is in part due
to poor attitudes, misunderstanding and lack of ability demon-
strated by school administrators and you recommend that in-
service training be required for all administrators, teachers
and related services personnel. Could you describe what you
would view as a good inservice training program?
Professional Advisory Response: At the present time, SEA'S have good inservice
Committee training programs. The point is, however, the programs are
CHMRMAN ~ only available to General Education staff rather than required.
HOAEI~N Requiring school administrators, teachers and related school
personnel to attend and receive the inservice training (for
educating the handicapped) provided by the SEA would be most
cost effective. More importantly, this requirement would
~S~~E~EPS.E be instrumental in providing appropriate services to the
handicapped in the regular classroom (mainstream).
~R*EARPSS,PC.E. Question #2. You also state that every child with a learning
disability should be taught by teachers trained and certified
to teach children with learning disabilities. How do you feel
PEE, this goal would be implemented at the secondary school level?
Youth and Adults
Section
National Executive
Director
A National Non-Profit Organization
68-332 0 - 81 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
76
Senator Jennings Randolph
Page 2
August 13, 1980
Response: It is essential for all elementary or secondary level LID
students to have a teacher trained and certified in the field of LID.
This LID Specialist would be the primary person to design the LID
student's total program and coordinate the program with other school
personnel involved in the child/adolescent's academic mainstream arena.
Further, it is a waste of money, human resources, and detrimental to
the well-being of LID individuals in self-contained classrooms or
resource rooms to receive services from teachers who do not have the
expertise and skills in LID.
To implement the goal referred to in the question, teachers in self-
contained or resource rooms would be required to train in the field
of the handicapping area of their choice, have certification in the
same area and provide services to the children who have that particular
handicap. It should be noted that LID children do not learn in the so-
called normal prescribed manner; nor do they process information in the
normal manner. Because of this particular kind of handicapping con-
dition, it takes one with the knowledge and expertise to provide
appropriate services.
Question #3. Most of the recommendations given in your testimony appear
valid but costly. Other witnesses have identified the high cost of
programs for handicapped children as a major problem. If additional
funds were to become available, what would be your 1st, 2nd and 3rd
priorities for the use of these funds?
Response: It is unfortunate that educating the handicapped is so costly
initiafly. It is good to keep in mind that appropriate education for
the handicapped pays priceless future dividends.
Recommendations given in my testimony by and large would create only
minimal increases in costs. For example, the inservice training recom-
mendation would not create additional costs as the inservice training
is now available but not required. Certainly it seems prudent to make
use of the time, effort and energy expended on inservice by including
regular classroom teachers and school administrators on a mandatory
basis.
Priorities for the use of additional funds or even present funds are:
1. Abolish multicategorical placement in resource rooms and/or self-
contained classrooms.
PAGENO="0083"
77
Senator Jennings Randolph
Page 3
August 13, 1980
2. Include vocational aptitude and other appropriate vocational
assessments. in the evaluation of adolescents and young adults
who are suspected of having learning disabilities.
3. Establish LEA Special Education Advisory Councils to generally
assess and monitor compliance. The local councils must include
parent participation, a component now missing in present monitoring
requirements.
Once again, Senator Randolph, thank you for inviting and permitting ACLD
to present our concerns and comments to your committee regarding LD
persons. We are grateful and most appreciative.
Warm regards,
Dorothy ~ra~d ~
DC: rg
cc: ACLD Governmental Affairs Committee
Jean Petersen
Robert Reed
PAGENO="0084"
78
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mrs. Crawford. We
appreciate your appearance here. There may be some questions for
you which Senator Randolph and I well may join in submitting to
you in writing for responses, if that is agreeable.
We wish the Canadian delegates well in the rest of their stay
here.
The next witness will be Mrs. Jacqueline Mendelsohn, of Silver
Spring, Md., who represents the International Association of Par-
ents of the Deaf.
Mrs. MENDELSOHN. Thank you.
My name is Jacqueline Z. Mendelsohn. I am the executive direc-
tor of the International Association of Parents of the Deaf and the
parent of a profoundly deaf 11-year-old boy.
My testimony is based on countless conversations with other
parents of hearing impaired children.
The significance of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, cannot be questioned. A law which
provides free, appropriate education for all handicapped children
has enormous impact, both on handicapped children and their
families.
Public Law 94-142 tells parents, "You have the right to partici-
pate, to be involved, to have an opinion, to be informed." Because
of this law, the handicapped child is no longer a second priority in
public education. Parents, for the first time, are given the right to
participate in the decisionmaking process regarding their child's
education. Section 121a of Public Law 94-142 clearly states the
level of involvement for parents in determining their child's educa-
tional placement and plan.
I am here to ask you to resolve the problems parents of hearing
impaired children face in relation to the law.
I can state categorically that parents remain uninformed about
their rights and their child's rights accorded by the law. The vast
amount of materials relating to Public Law 94-142 disseminated to
State educational agencies and local educational agencies does not
filter down to parents. Inadequate information leads to inadequate
decisions relating to the education of a hearing impaired child and
his or her unique needs.
Because of inadequate information, parents are not equals on the
educational decisionmaking team. Information and education are
necessary for parents to understand their rights as stated in the
law. The law requires a comprehensive system of personnel devel-
opment for support personnel. There is no question that parents
are key support personnel. State and local educational agencies
have not adequately trained parents to fulfill their responsibilities
required by the law.
The term, "most appropriate education," as it applies to the
education of hearing impaired children is highly controversial. This
poorly explained and frequently misinterpreted area of the law
causes grave concern for parents who are inadequately informed.
Parents are rarely aware of the continuum of alternate education
plans available for the hearing impaired child. Too often, they are
presented with a hierarchy of choices, ranging from "best"-public
school and mainstreaming-to "worst"-special school, segregated
classroom.
PAGENO="0085"
79
It is vital for parents and schools to make placement decisions
based on the specific needs of each individual child. Consideration
must be given to the isolation which hearing impaired children
may experience in a mainstreamed environment because of the
communication barrier. The least restrictive environment for a
hearing impaired child is that environment which is most appropri-
ate, most enriching, and most conducive for overall growth.
Inadequate notification of meetings for the individual education
plan for their child is another stumbling block for parents. Because
the law does not specify "adequate" notice, parents frequently
must cope with little time to prepare themselves for the IEP meet-
ing. Often, the IEP is complete when the parents arrive at the
meeting, and they are simply asked to sign it. This is clearly
against the law which mandates that parents participate in the
development of the individual education plan of their child.
The right for parents to challenge inappropriate educational de-
cisions through due process is stated in the law. Many parents
have no knowledge of that right because the SEA's and LEA's are
not informing them. Due process has proved to be costly, time-
consuming, and at times an unnecessary action initiated because of
inadequate information.
Unclear definition of "most appropriate education;" inadequate
notification of IEP meetings; preprepared IEP's; and most impor-
tantly, lack of recognition of parents' role, are all areas in which
parents have been denied their rights. This has led to the isolation
of parents, preventing them from being participants on the deci-
sionmaking team mandated by Public Law 94-142.
Therefore, the International Association of Parents of the Deaf
recommends: (1) a parent education program explaining parent
rights and responsibilities under Public Law 94-142 must be pro-
vided to parents once a year by the local education agency; (2)
notification of an IEP meeting must be given to parents 30 days in
advance; and (3) most appropriate education must be defined as a
continuum, rather than a hierarchy of educational alternatives.
The family is a vital link in the education of the whole child.
Parents of hearing impaired children across the United States are
anxious to share their expertise as equal members of the IEP team.
To do so, they must be fully informed about their rights and
responsibilities. The International Association of Parents of the
Deaf stands ready to help in any way possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Mendelsohn and the questions
and responses referred to follow:]
PAGENO="0086"
80
Summary
Testimony on Public Law 94-142
International Association of Parents of the Deaf
July 29, 1980
Unclear definition of "Most Appropriate Education"; inadequate notification
of IEP meetings; pre-prepared IEPs; and most importantly, lack of recognition
of parents' role are all areas in which parents have been denied their rights.
This has led to the isolation of parents, preventing them from being participants
on the decision-making team mandated by Public Law 94-142.
Therefore, the International Association of Parents of the Deaf re-
commends:
a. A Parent Education Program explaining parent rights and responsibilities
under P.L. 94-142 must be provided to parents once a year by the Local
Education Agency.
b. Notification of an IEP meeting must be given to parents 30 days in
advance.
c. Most appropriate education must be defined as a continuum rather
than a hierarchy of educational alternatives.
The family is a vital link in the education of the whole child. Parents
of hearing impaired children across the United States are anxious to share
their expertise as equal members of the IEP team. To do so they must be fully
informed about their rights and responsibilities. The International Association
of Parents of the Deaf stands ready to help in any way possible.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Z. Nendelsohn
Executive Director
International Association of
Parents of the Deaf
814 mayer Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-585-5400
PAGENO="0087"
81
Testimony on Public Law 94-142
International Association of Parents of the Deaf
July 29, 1980
My name is Jacqueline Z. Mendelsohn. I am the Executive Director of
the International Association of Parents of the Deaf, and the parent of a
profoundly deaf eleven year old boy. My testimony is based on countless
conversations with other parents of hearing impaired children.
The significance of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, cannot be questioned. A law which provides free appropriate
education for all handicapped children has enormous impact -- both on
handicapped children and their families.
Public Law 94-142 tells parents "you have the right to participate, to
be involved, to have an opinion, to be informed." Because of this Law,
the handicapped child is no longer a second priority in public education.
Parents, for the first time, are given the right to participate in the decision
making process regarding their child's education. Section l2la (224, 121a
414) of P.L. 94-142 clearly states the level of involvement for parents in
determining their child's educational placement and plan.
I am here to ask you to resplve the problems parents of hearing impaired
children face in relation to the Law.
I can state categorically that parents remain uninformed about their
rights and their child's rights accorded by the Law. The vast amount of
materials relating to P.L. 94-142 disseminated to State Educational Agencies,
and Local Educational Agencies does not filter down to parents. Inadequate
information leads to inadequate decisions relating to the education of a
hearing impaired child and his/her unique needs. Because of inadequate
PAGENO="0088"
82
Testimony - I~PD - 2
information, parents are not equals on the educational decision making team.
Information and education are necessary for parents to understand their
rights as stated in the Law. The Law requires a comprehensive system of
personnel development for support personnel (241) Cc) (3). There is no question
that parents are key, support personnel. State and Local Educational Agencies
have not adequately trained parents to fulfill their responsibilities required
by the Law.
The term "Most Appropriate Education" as it applies to the education of
hearing impaired children is highly controversial. This poorly explained
and frequently misinterpreted area of the Law causes grave concern for
parents who are inadequately informed. Parents are rarely aware of the
CONTIN~ of alternative education plans available for their hearing impaired
child. Too often they are presented with a hierarchy of choices, ranging from
"best" (public school, mainstreaming) to "worst" (special school, segregated
classrooms). It is vital for parents and schools to make placement decisions
based on the specific needs of each individual child. Consideration must be
given to the isolation which hearing impaired children may experience in a
mainstreamed environment because of the communication barrier. The least
restrictive environment for a heAring impaired child is that environment which
is most appropriate, most enriching, and most conducive for overall growth.
Inadequate notification of meetings for the Individual Educational Plan
for their child is another stumbling block for parents. Because the Law does
not specify "adequate" notice, parents frequently must cope with little time
to prepare themselves for the lEE' meeting. Often the lEE' is complete when the
parent arrives at the meeting and they are simply asked to sign it. This is
clearly against the Law which mandates that parents participate in the
PAGENO="0089"
83
Testimony - LAPD - 3
DEVELOPMENT of the Individual Educational Plan of their child.
Th.e right for parents to challenge inappropriate educational decisions
through Due Process is stated in the Law (613) (a) (13) (A). Many parents
have no knowledge of that right because the SEAs and LEAs are not informing
them. Due Process has proved to be costly, time consuming, and at times an
unnecessary action initiated because of inadequate information.
Unclear definition of "Most Appropriate Education"; inadequate notification
of IEP meetings; pre-prepared IEPs; and most importantly, lack of recognition
of parents' role are all areas in which parents have been denied their rights.
This has led to the isolation of parents, preventing them from being participants
on the decision-making team mandated by Public Law 94-142.
Therefore, the International Association of Parents of the Deaf re-
commends:
a. A Parent Education Program explaining parent rights and responsibilities
under P.L. 94-142 must be provided to parents once a year by the Local
Education Agency.
b. Notification of an IEP meeting must be given to parents 30 days in
advance.
c. Most appropriate education must be defined as a continuum rather
than a hierarchy of educational alternatives.
The family is a vital link in the education of the whole child. Parents
of hearing impaired children across the United States are anxious to share
their expertise as equal members of the ISP team. To do so they must be fully
PAGENO="0090"
84
Testimony - IAPD - 4
informed about their rights and responsibilities. The International
Association of Parents of the Deaf stands ready to help in any way possible.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Z. Mendelsohn
Executive Director
International Association of
Parents of the Deaf
814 mayer Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-585-5400
(~JESTIO~ FOR JAC(~JELINB MENDELSCIIN
1. You said that souetimes the IEP is couplete when parents arrive at
the meeting and they are simply asked to ~ign it. Did this situation
occur with reference to your child' s IEP?
2. You suggested that local and State educational agencies have not been
adequately informing parents about their rights and their child's rights
under Public Law 94-142. Has your organization been involved in trying
to create greater parent awareness?
3. Parent education relating to rights and responsibilities under P.L. 94-142
would also appear to be a proper responsibility for parent associations.
Would you please address this issue and discuss the relative roles of
public agencies and parent associations in this regard.
4. If the regulations required 30 days notice for an IEP meeting, would this
requirement also introduce serious delays in providing services to chil-
dren?
PAGENO="0091"
85
IA
P D International Association of Parents of the Deaf, Inc.
* ..
August 5, 1980
Senator Jennings Randolph
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
Room 4230 Dirkeen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
Here are the responses to your questions from the testimony presented at
oversight hearing on Public Law 94-142 on July 29, 1980
Thank you for your time and attention to the needs of the handicapped.
1. In the case of my child's IEP, the Plan was always developed with myself and
my husband present. However, I have spoken to parents, who upon arriving at
a Residential school on Parent's day found long tables, with IEP's on them,
alphabetically arranged. Each parent `as they went through the line to register
their child, signed their IEP. Other parents have talked of a 15 minute
IEP meeting composed of the school staff reading the completed IEP and the
parents signing the Plan.
2. The International Association of Parents of the Deaf is working very
hard to inform parents of their rights and their child's rights. Through
IAPD Position Papers, coordination with Gallaudet College's Task Force on
P.L. 94-142, articles in our newsletter, The ENDEAVOR, and parent workshops,
provided locally and Nationally. Our last convention focused on P.L. 94-142.
We are trying to reach as many parents of hearing impaired children as possible.
However, our numbers are small, and we do not have ability to reach as many
parents as have public agencies, particularly schools.
3. Parent Education is an appropriate responsibility for parent associations.
However, as a parent association, we do not have knowledge of every parent who
has a hearing impaired child.
Cooperation between State and Local Education Agencies and parent associations
iLDV~
8I4THAYER AVE.. SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20910. PHONE 301-5R5-5405 YOU ~
PAGENO="0092"
86
Senator Randolph
Page 2
would greatly increase the impact and accessibility of parent education.
Local Parent Groupa, under the guidance of National Parent Asaociationa
could provide Parent Education in regards to P.L. 94-142. SEA and LEA would
locate the parents and the services needed, a wide population will be reached.
This cooperation can be established by:
1. Hiring a parent coordinator
2. By having an advisory committee composed of a Representative
of the State Educational Agencies, Local Educational Agency, and
parents.
3. By providing funding specifically for annual Parent Education
Programs.
4. Clarifying the needs of Parents and schools.
4. Schools schedule IEP meetings well in advance of the date in order to
plan for substitutes, teacher planning time and pre-IEP meetings. Parents
have the sane right as school personnel to plan in advance for the IEP meeting.
30 days notice would not cause delays in providing services to children.
Services for handicapped children cannot be provided until the IEP has been
signed and the IEP cannot be signed unless parents are notified of a time and
and date of a meeting. Thirty days notice would not delay the IEP, merely
give adequate notice to parents.
Sincerely,
\\~ ~
J~ç~zeline Z. Hendelsohh~)
Exèc~tive Director
JZM:mmh
PAGENO="0093"
87
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mrs. Mendelsohn.
Your remarks about the failure of information to get to parents
of deaf children-do you have any specific suggestions beyond the
paper as to how that information might reach you?
Mrs. MENDELSOHN. I would suggest that the State educational
agencies and the local educational agencies have parents partici-
pate on advisory committees composed of representatives of the
school on the State, local, and district levels, and that parents and
schools take the responsibility at PTA meetings, and at registration
on first day of school that all parents are supplied with the ade-
quate information.
Senator STAFFORD. That seems to be a very vital failure in the
chain.
Mrs. MENDELSOHN. Information is available in libraries and in
principals' offices. It does not seem to get directly into the hands of
parents.
Senator STAFFORD. All right, thank you.
That concludes the panel. I want to express the appreciation of
the subcommittee to all of the members who have participated in
it, and to once again point out that unfortunately, Senator Ran-
dolph and I are simultaneously involved not only here, but in a
rather important bill on the disposition of nuclear waste, pending
in the Senate itself.
Thank you very much.
The next witness is from my own State of Vermont. I am more
than happy to welcome Fran Rice, advocate and legislative chair-
man of the Vermont Association of Learning Disabilities as a wit-
ness before this committee.
We will put your entire statement in the committee record and
invite you to summarize it, if you would, please.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS R. RICE, ADVOCATE AND LEGISLA-
TIVE CHAIRMAN, VERMONT ASSOCIATION OF LEARNING DIS-
ABILITIES, MONTPELIER, VT.
Ms. RIcE. Very good, thank you, Senator Stafford and members
of the committee.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come before the commit-
tee to share with you my observations and concerns regarding the
implementation of Public Law 94-142, the Education of the Handi-
capped Act. I shall excerpt from my prepared statement.
My name is Frances Rice, and I am from Montpelier, Vt. I am a
product of a public school experience that at best can be described
as miserable, because I was an unrecognized dyslexic. It was only
through the intervention of some knowledgeable professors and my
own determination that I became a graduate of Tufts University.
I am also a parent of six children, three of whom are moderately
affected by specific learning disabilities, sufficient to have made
their school years often difficult and frequently frustrating not
only for them but for us as their parents. Neither they nor I
benefited from the Federal legislation I champion as an advocate
for the specific learning disabled population in Vermont.
By way of introduction, I am a past president of the Vermont
Association for Learning Disabilities, am currently a member of
the specific learning disability task force for the State of Vermont,
PAGENO="0094"
88
and I serve on the national board of directors for the Association
for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities.
Being a dyslexic, a parent of SLD children and an advocate has
given me a perspective many educators have not experienced and
provides me with an intimate look at the implementation of Public
Law 94-142, as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
I support the traditional classification system as detailed in
Public Law 94-142, and I hope that my testimony will illustrate
the severe problems generated when classification regulations are
allowed to be circumvented.
First of all, classification is the law. Public Law 94-142 mandates
that full procedural safeguards be established and maintained in
order to protect a child and his parents in the identification, evalu-
ation, and educational placement process.
Unfortunately, some States such as Vermont have been allowed
to take a noncategorical approach to Public Law 94-142. This has
caused inaccurate diagnosis of the handicapping condition, entry
into special education of children who do not meet the Federal
definition criteria resulting in an inflated special education budget,
and inappropriate and inadequate educational programs.
The classification of handicapping conditions in Public Law 94-
142 eliminates the confusion between children poorly served and
the handicapped child. Classification allows us to know individual
needs and to design programs that fit the child, rather than fitting
the child into an existing program. The noncategorical approach
sets the stage for budgetary escalation and the growth of a bur-
geoning parallel educational system that competes with regular
education for the same moneys.
When we permit poorly served children to be eligible for the
expensive services of special education then we now see that we
are spending special education moneys to do the job we thought
regular education was to accomplish, while draining the resources
for those truly handicapped.
Public Law 94-142 was not designed to shore up sagging educa-
tional failures. We urge a return to~ the intent of Public Law 94-
142, and that it be accomplished through strict adherence to the
Federal eligibility requirements.
Vermont's children have been almost exclusively served through
the Vermont Consulting Teacher Model at the University of Ver-
mont. This delivery model has been heavily supported by HEW.
The key elements of the model, which is a noncategorical model,
are behavior modification and task analysis. The philosophy oper-
ates on the belief that it is not necessary to understand the cause
of a handicapping condition and that learning and performance are
the same and do not need different strategies.
We are informed that this undimensional approach can be useful
for the mentally retarded and the seriously emotionally disturbed
for whom it was originally developed, but this across-the-board
approach has been a disaster for the average to bright SLD, now
acknowledged to represent our State's largest handicapping condi-
tion.
The behavior modification aspect alarms many parents. We do
not support the purchasing of our children through the reward
PAGENO="0095"
89
system via money, gifts, or the earning of tokens which are re-
deemable at a store for material items. This manipulation is abhor-
rent to us, for when a teacher encourages students to learn for a
price, she is teaching them that having a price is quite acceptable.
This is an abuse of power and insidious in implication. It is to be
remembered that the whole business of behavior control is basical-
ly a question of power, of conditioning young minds to accept a
power authority. Parents thought that it was the responsibility of
education to teach children to think independently and wisely for
themselves, still a birthright in this country.
I bring the Vermont model to your attention as an illustration
that monitoring of federally funded programs is sorely needed. We
must open up the existing program to incorporate the many disci-
plines that contribute to the understanding of children's needs and
we must provide our teachers with access to indepth training at
both the undergraduate and graduate levels. We need programs
that acknowledge that the central nervous system is indeed in-
volved in the acquisition and use of language.
To obtain relief from this problem, knowledgeable SLD parents
with the assistance of the Office of Civil Rights and the Vermont
Legislature, recently achieved a first step toward rescuing the SLD
population in our State. Attached is a memorandum from the
director of special education, State of Vermont, issued June 26,
1980, requiring the identification of the SLD through procedures
guaranteed in Public Law 94-142.
Monitoring in Vermont has been limited to one of paper monitor-
ing, not program monitoring, and we need both. Monitoring should
include a funded training program for parents to assist school
districts in monitoring themselves as well as training for parents to
monitor their own child's progress. Parents need training to sup-
port themselves in disagreements with schools so that costly attor-
ney fees are not necessary at the fair hearing level. Parent groups
need readily accessible information and assistance competing for
grants through BEH for parent training.
We urge that national policies be developed that will guide the
Office of Civil Rights and the Bureau of the Education of the
Handicapped when they are jointly involved in overlapping respon-
sibilities under both section 504 and Public Law 94-142. Such poli-
cies should hopefully accelerate the response from the agencies to
those who wait for their findings long past published time frames.
In our work with the Office for Civil Rights, we have found them
responsive and helpful, but they report to us that they are receiv-
ing ever-increasing complaints to process with too little staff. Some-
thing needs to be done to insure concrete solutions. The framework
of the Federal regulations is basically adequate. The problems are
stemming from inadequate enforcement at all levels.
It is my firm conviction that Public Law 94-142 has become a
catalytic force in causing the public schools to take a good, hard
look at themselves and the regular education practices. As Dr.
Lieberman has said, "The back to basics movement is not an acci-
dent and no bandwagon, but a well-documented need. Special edu-
cation has become confused with being an answer to the problems
of regular education."
PAGENO="0096"
90
Presently, a stumbling block to equal access to education is the
adequacy of educational personnel. Section 504 requires that
"teachers must be trained in the instruction of persons with the
handicap in question. . . ." When classroom teachers do not have
access to knowledgeable preservice or inservice or are allowed by
choice to ignore the responsibility to participate in any inservice
workshops, then the concept of mainstreaming collapses, and we
come to acknowledge that mainstreaming is really more a political
and social term than an educational reality.
Dr. Richardson succinctly sums it up this way:
We need to extend the capacity of regular educational personnel so that they can
accommodate a broader range of individual differences to prevent learning failures,
thereby reducing the need for extensive and expensive special education support.
Few teachers have been exposed, much less trained, within the multidisciplinary
framework.
In conclusion, and in behalf of the Vermont Association for
Learning Disabilities, I again extend our appreciation for the op-
portunity to come before this committee. We are grateful for the
legislation. Do not weaken the regulations or consumer participa-
tion. Parents have had to come to the Federal Government for
responsiveness.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rice along with questions and
responses and additional material supplied follow:J
PAGENO="0097"
91
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
FRANCES R~ RICE
ADVOCATE
VERMONT ASSOCIATION FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES
JULY 29; 1980
IMPLEMENTATION OF PL 9k-142
BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
CHAIRMAN: JENNINGS RANDOLPH
68-332 0 - 81 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
92
It is the intent of my testimony to address problems that are
surfacting in Vermont in the implementation of PL 9l~-l~+2 and
Section 50L1. of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
I wish to provide the Committee and others who may be interested
with an overview of the non-catagorical approach to serving chil-
dren under these -mandates.
We are concerned, as is the Committee, that a public backlash
focused upon the mandated regulations is building. We realize
that funding for these laws must compete with other equally de-
serving needs from dwindling tax revenues.
Therefore, in order to helppreserve the intent and spirit of
the legislation and ensure better fiscal and program account-
ability, we provide Vermont's experience from the consumers
point of view. We urge that Congress tighten up the eligibil-
ity standards to conform with those defined in PL 91~-l~2 and call
for closer monitoring on the effectiveness of funded programs,
from consumers as well as from the educational profession.
The non-catagorical approach stands on shaky grounds and I en-
close a statement from the respected Dr. Nicholas Hobbs,~ 1975..
"Classification of.exceptiohal children is essential to get
services to them, to plan and organize programs and to de-
termine the outcomes of the intervention efforts. We do not
concur with. the sentiments widely expressed that classifi-
cation of exceptional:childrefl should be done away with.
Although we understand that some people advocate the elimin-
ationof classification lfl order to get rid of its harmful
effects, their proposed solution oversimplifies the problem.
Classification and labeling are necessary to human communi-
cation and problem solving; without catagories and concept.
designators, all complex communicating, and thinking stops.
Classification ~S necessary to open doors of opportunity,
to get help for a child, to write legislation, to appropri-
ate funds, to design service programs, to evaluate outcomes,
(emphasis mine) to. conduct research and to communicate about
the problem of an exceptional child."
I also enclose copies of Dr. Li~berman~s full article from which
I quote in my testimony, as published in the February issue of
the "Journal of Learning Disabilities".
I shall excerpt:r~r testimony to confine my delivery to the time
period allowed. -
Sincerely,
Advocate
July 21, 1980
PAGENO="0099"
93
:~~J :~ J~. l:,~.. ~
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to come before this committee to share with you
my observations and concerns regarding the implementation of PL
9k-l~2, the Education of the Handicapped Act.
My name is Fran Rice and I am from Montpelier, Vermont. I am
a product of a public school experience that at best can be de-
scribed as miserable because I was an unrecognized dyslexic. It
was only through the intervention of some knowledgable professoxs
and my own determinations that I became a graduate of Tufts Uni-
versity. I am also a parent of si~ children, three of whom are
moderately affected by specific learning disabilities sufficient
to have made their school years often difficult and frequently
frustrating, not only for them but for us as their parents.
Neither they nor I benefited from the federal legislation I cham-
pion as an advocate for the Specific Learning Disabled (SLD) pop-
ulation in Vermont.
By way of introduction, I am a pa~t president of the Vermont
Association For Learning Disabilities (VALD), am currently a mem-
ber of the Specific Learning Disability Task Force for the State
of Vermont and I serve on the National Board of Directors of the
Association For Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities.
In Vermont I am best known as a member of the VALD Advocacy Team.
Being a dyslexic, a parent of SLD children and an advocate has
given me a perspective many educators have not experienced and
provides me with an intimate look at the implementation of FL 9k-
lk2 and Section 504 of~the Rehabilitation Act of l973~ I support
* the traditional classification system as detailed in PL 94-lk2
and I hope that my testimony will illustrate the severe problems
generated when classification regulations are allowed to be
circumvented. There are many aspects of the implementations that
I would like to address but I shall restrict my testimony to issues
of classification, related budget concerns, monitoring and training.
PAGENO="0100"
94
* ~.,;.
Classification is thej~g~. PL 9L~_l~2 mandates that full pro-
cedural safeguards be established and maintained in order to
protect a child and his parents in the identification, evalu-
ation and educational placement process. Unfortunately, some
states such as Vermont, have been allowed to take a non-cata-
gorical approach to PL 9~-lk2. This has causedinaccu.rate
diagnosis of the handicapping condition, entry into special
education of children who do not meet the federal definition
criteria resulting in an inflated special education budget and
inappropriate and `inadequate educational programs. It should
follow that the lack of accurate reporting information from
states such as Vermont must then distort the accuracy of infor-
mation provided by the Commissioner of Education in his annual
report to Congress, required under PL 9I~-l42. The rippling
effects have far reaching impact upon such area as research,
training programs, fiscal and program monitoring.
The classification of handicapping conditions in PL 9L~_l42
eliminate the c~onfusion between children poorly served and the
~ Cla~sif±catiOn allows us to~ know individ-~
ual needs and to design programs that fit the child rather than
fitting the child into an existing program. The non-catagorical
approach sets the stage for budgetary escalation and the growth
~ ~ll~I-OdU~atiOflal system that c~mpetes~with
regular education for the sane monies. When we permit "poorly
served" children to be eligible for the expensive services of
special education than we now see that we are spending special
to~do'thW' ~Obwe~thought~ regular education was
to accomplish, while draining the resources for those truly han-
dicapped. FL 9Lf_l1~2 was not designed to shore up sagging edu-
cational failures. We urge a return to the intent of FL 94~l1~2
~~iàt- 3S~b~ ~ through stric-t adherence to the.
federal ~l.igibility standards.
PAGENO="0101"
95
Vermont's children have been almost exclusively served through
the Vermont Consulting Teacher Model at the University of Ver-
mont. This delivery model has been heavily supported by HEW.
Graduates are employed in lOcal school districts with 75% of
their salaries funded by the State of Vermont. Until recently,
at legislative recommendation, only Vermont trained Consulting
Teachers have been able to meet. the certification standards .Zor~,
employment jointly designed by the Division of Special Educa-
tion and the University of Vermont. Special educators trained
out of the state have turned away or have had to agree to take
ehav~or~Modificatien---ceursea leading :t~ certificati~n.a~ .a~Con-.
sulting Teacher while employed on a conditional basis.
The key elements of the non-catagorical model are Behavior Mod-
ification and Task Analysis. The philosophy operates on the be-
lief that it is not necessary or important to understand the
cause of a handicapping condition and that learning and perform-
ance are all the same and do not need different strategies. A
child merely become eiig~ble for special education when heis at
a 50% deficit of performance. This clearly is notthe intent
of PL 94-]M-2. We are informed that -this unidimensional approach
can be useful for the mentally retarded and the seriously emo-
tionally disturbed for whom it was orginally developed, but this
across the board approach has been a disaster for the average to
bright SLD, now acknowledged to represent the largest handi-
capping condition in the state.
The Behavior Modification a~peót alarms many parents. We do
not support the purchasing of our children through the Reward
System via money, gifts or the earning of tokens which are re-
deemable at a store for material items. This manipulation is
abhorant to us, for when a teaàher encourages students to learn
for a price she is teaching them that having a price, is quite
acceptable. This is an abuse of power and insidious in impli-
cation. It is to be remembered that the whole business of be-
havior control is basi~ally `a question of power, of conditioning
PAGENO="0102"
96
young minds to accept a power authority. Parents thought that
it is the responsibility of' education to teach children to think
independently and wisely for themselves, still a birth right in~
this country. .
I bring the Vermont Model to your attention as an illustration.
that monitoring of federally funded programs is sorely needed.
If a program is rejected by the consumer in the marketplace, why.
are we continuing to fund it? We must' open up the existing pro-
gram to incorporate the many disciplines that contribute to the
understanding of childr~ri's needs and give our teachers access to
in-depth training at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Especially~ we must have training programs that acknowledge that
the central nervous system is involved in the ~cquisition and
use of language.
To obtain relief from this problem knowledgable SLD parents with
the assistance of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Ver-
mont Legislature. recently achieved a first step towards rescuing
~ a~memorandum -prom- the- Director-fl-
of Special Education, State of Vermont, issued 6/26/80 requiring
the identification of the SLD through procedures guaranteed in
PL 9L~-l42. I would be very remiss if I were not to add that this
~ of -efforts on the -part of -`
many persons from allied professions who have encouraged and
assisted our efforts over a period of years, and to whom we remain
indebted.
Monitoring in Vermont has been limited to one of paper monitoring,
not program monitoring. We need both. Monitoring should include
a funded training program for parents to assist school districts
...jn~onitor~ng~-themselVeS :a~ W~1l; a t~~i~ng fo~, parç~~O~~.
itor their own child's progress. Parents need training to support
themselves in disagreements with schools so that costly attorney
fees are not necessary at the Fair Hearing level. `Parent groujs
.:~need-,rea4i1y_aBsesSible informa~iqfl anLaaaistaflQ~ ~
- grants through BEH for parent training. -
PAGENO="0103"
97
In Vermont public confidence w~ eroded, when the state monitoring
team members were allowed to monitor the school districts they
were ~isi edtosèr'/~The federal monitoring teamwas led by -
a former Vermont Division of Special Education employee. Our
VALID parent concerns, shared with the team during its on-site
visit in January 1979, remain unanswered.
We urge that national policies be developed that will guide the
Office of Civil Rights and the Bureau of the Education of the
Handicapped when they are jointly involved in overlapping respon-
~ anclPL ~
should hopefully accelerate the response from the agencies to
those who wait for their findings long past published time frames.
In our work with OCR we have found them responsive and helpful,
`~but they~report~43ous that they are receiving ev~r inqr~si~l,99I~
plaints to process with too little staff. Perhaps BEH would re-
spond similarly. We hear that other advocacy groups and parents
across the country feel that BEH ignores their complaints. Some-
~ ensure eon~re1e so1utions~~ The frarnewcr
of the federal regulations are basically adequate. The problems
are stemming from inadequate enforcement at all levels.
Training It is my firm conviction that PL 9L~_l~2 has become ~a
catalytic force in causing the public schools to takealo k at
themselves and the regular education practices. Dr. Lawrence
L~erman Ed.D, former HEW Director in charge of Title VI G (SLID
area) has said: "The crisis in the schools belongs to regular ed-
ucation. The fact that 37 states hav~ passed some form'ofininimum
competency testing for students in the last five years testifies
to this. The back to the~basics movement is not an accident and
no bandwagon but a well documented need. Special education has
become confused with being an answer to the problems ofreguar
education."
PAGENO="0104"
98
6
Presently, a major stumbling block to equal access to education
is the ad~quacy of educational personnel. Section 5014. requires
that "teachers must be trained in the instruction of persons
with the handicap in question. "Whèh states provide only generic
special education training and classroom teachers do not have
access to knowledgable pre-service or in-service or are allowed
by choice to ignore the responsibility to participate in any in-
service workshops, than the concept.of "mainstreaming" collapses~
and we come to acknowledge that mainstreaming is really more a
political and socFal term than an educational reality. This is
difficult for parents to resolve when they realize that schools
were charged with the responsibility to prepare teachers long
before PL 94-l~4.2 was fully effective.
Dr. Sylvia O.Richardson succ~Ctly sums it up this way. "We
~ ~~t~ñd he ~at~1ty'2~re~ular-educatioYIal .personnel~-.
so that they can accommodate a troader range of individual diff-
erences to prevent learning failures. . thereby reducing the need
for extensive and expensive special education support. (emphasis
~Th~* aahe~ma~ ~n~po5~ed, much - less .-trained~,.~with~n S
a multi-disciplinary framework."
In conclusion, and in behalf of the Vermont Association For
-~LearningDisabiUties, ~ apprçci~t~n for the
opportunity to come before this committee. We are grateful for
* the legislation. Do not weaken the regulations or consumer par-
ticipation. Parents have had to come to the federal government
for-responsiveness.
Thank You.
PAGENO="0105"
99.
~JESTIONS FOR FRAN RICE
1. You comment on the fact that a public backlash to P.L. 94-142 may be
building. Could you explain this statement?
Reply to question from Senate Sub-~Committee on the Handicapped:
Public backlash to PL 94-142 is not a reaction to anticipate.
It is here. It is visible at fiscal levels, primarily the re-
suit of a severe misperception or ignorance on the part of state
and iocai agencies to understand their responsibilit;ies to ed-
ucate all chiidren equally, including the handicapped. P1 94-
142 reflects criticism of what our pubiic schools have been and
still remain.
As an advocate I meet school personnel, including those at admin-
istrative levels, who remain comfortably uninformed or misinformed.
PL~94-l42 is incorrectly viewed as a new concept and responsi-
bility, mandated without warning by the federal government. And
so it is repeated, "If the Fed's mandate it, let the Fed's pay
for it." Few acknowledge or understand that PL 94-142 was enact-
ed because states were ignoring their own state statutes. The
federal government, in its role of respon°~ibility to legislate
in behalf of the general welfare of all citizens, enacted PL 94-
142 to force change on an unresponsive educational system.
Lack of enforcement of PL 94-142 has produced anger and dis-
illusionment among parents and supportive educational personnel.
We see that BEH has been allowed to merely go through the motions
of paper monitoring and the resulting message is clear. PL 94-
142 is a paper tiger.. .The law, supposedly enacted to protect
handicapped children and their parents is now seen as having
been permitted to protect the very conditions and systems it was
designed to correct. The "Report By The Education Advocates
Coalition On Federal Complicance Activities To Implement The -
Education For All Handicapped Childrjf~'s Act", issued April 16,
1980, presents a scathing indictment of BEE in its monitoring
and enforcement activities.
Public school education is in serious trouble even without con-
sidering the need to appropriately serve handicapped children.
The commonness of this perception is seen in one example, by the
frequency with which even the most prestigeous of professional
journals and magazines tackle the subject in articles that warn
PAGENO="0106"
100
of "The Collapse of Public School Education" or of "Teachers
Who Can't Teach". Lack of enforcement of PL 94-l'~2 accelerates
this perception, because the public is not sure if children are
handicapped or the educational system is handicapped! All the
while special education builds a parallel educational system
which actively competes with regular education for the same
monies, services and jobs. The squeeze is on. .Lack of enforce-
ment of PL 9L~_l42 is actively contributing to the accelerating
erosion of public confidence in public school education and its
government. It is a sad comentary, for PL 9L~_lL~2 had the prom-
ise and has the potential of becoming the catalytic force in
reversing this pervasive trend.
/
The educational system is not allowing parents to be partners
with their schools in the education of their children. But,
parents and taxpayers are held responsible for childrei!i who fail,
Parents are overwhelmed with hopelessness. Children sit in mis-
ery, frequently traumatized by poorly trained educators and re-
main permanently scarred by a system whose priority is the pro-
tection of the existing establishment..
I would dearly hope that my thoughts shared so openly will
not just become another piece in the "paper trail".
Frances Rice
PAGENO="0107"
101
` ~ 1 ~
- - STATE OF VERMONT -
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
* :. * MONTPELIER *
05602 -..
10: Superintendents of Schools -.
* Special Education Coordinators *-
Other Interested Persons
FI~M: - JeanS. Garvin, Director *
Division of Special Educatio ~
* * Pupil Personnel Services.
Vermont Department of,,~ducation
State Office Bui)thng -
* Nontpelier, Vermont 05602
Telephone: (802) 828-3141 _.. ..-
StalED': Determination of Eligibility for Special Education
DATE: Jun' 26, 1980
As tins goes on, we see more clearly where adjustments must be made in our approach
to fulfilling the requirements of P.L. 94-142 and Section 504 of P.L. 93-112. -The
identification of specific learning `disabilities and serious emotional disturbance
youths is one .of these areas where adjustments are going to be necessary.
* Bac1~ground
.g~fice for Civj Rjg~1l,8.has conducted a number of investigations of alleged
fai1ur&tóbe~ithe requirements of P.L. 94-142 and Section 504 of P.L. 93-112
with respect to the identification and eva]uation of SLD children. After comparing
the Vermont Eligibility Standards for Special Education with the regu1at~9ns for
P.L. 94-142, OCR concluded: "that the State's policy-of avoiding labels and cate-
gories i~hen describing the handicapping condition~ d6fuscates the various disabilities
leading to the misidentification of children, particularly children who are specific
learning disabled" (p. 10). OCR has also cited a ntnrther of districts for failure
to measure intellectual ability: "Since the May 25, 1979 Basic Staffing Team never
dealt with the specific diagnosis of (the child's) intellectual ability ... but
simply identified him as handicapped and eligible for special education services,
* we find the Basic Staffing Team meeting's conclusions and recommendations to be
deficient" (p. 20). .
Qa.I~rus.~,3.*~],~O, the Division received a request ~rom the Legislative Cotrtnittee on
Administrative Rules (V~rnr~rtt çcpicral Assgmblyj to amend its policy concerning the
identification of children with specific learning disabilities. The Committee Con-
cluded that under Vermont's nonlabeling approach to identifying handicapped child-
ren: "l'bny. learning disabled children will never receive the opportunity to be
diagnosed. By contrast, the federal rule on the subject requires a range of pro-
cedural protections for children who have `suspected' specific learning disahi lilies.
(uver)
PAGENO="0108"
102
f~. of Schools
June 26, l980 ~.
i~]so, Vermont's statutes clearly contemplate that children of adequate mental ability
with learning d~sabilitiesp~g~ to receive diagnosis by specially trained teams,
possibly including psydiologists. In th~corrmittee'a view, your rule requiring
~`nonlabeling' type special-education to undiagnosed, but suspected, learning
disabled students violates both the federal regulation and Veritont statute" (p. 2).
On June 19, 1980 a meeting was held between representatives of the Department of Edu-
cation, and the Region I Office for Civil Rights (Itaria~ibnta1vo, Chief of Elementary
and Secondary Education Programs and Legal Counsel for OCR). The meeting was the
first in a series of meetings aimed at amending Vermont's eligibility standards so
that they comply with OCR interpretations of various federal requ~rcmcnts. In the.
afternoon of the sane day, a special SLD Task Force was convened for a second time
to discuss the development of guidelines for identifying and serving Slit children.
The Task Force anticipateshaving guidelines for the State Board of Education to
con ader by Noveirher of 1980 OCR rta~'require changes an our procedures fo ad nUfvint,
SLP children prior to \o ember
Current Practice
Jlithough 1 ma not in a position at this time to issue new guidelines for SLI) identi-
fication, I urge you from thib point on to ensure that all handicapped children sac-
pected of having a specific learning disability be identified according to nil of
the criteria outlined in the Nay 23 and Dlcether 29, 1977, Federal Register.
in monitoring, we h3ve found very few children whose records acknowledged a finding
of specific learning disabilities. Bgçause of this, we ascertain that seat ti~o
or I houaand~chuld~cp may ~ amendedto show~i~~Eci tic
earnin~di sabilitv aud to
~ TIi rd~Thi~is that we are fast approaching a time when school
* districts must be able to document that every handicapped child can, if ncce~;s!~',
be categorized in one of the eleven handicapping conditions defined in P.L. 94-142.
When pushed to the extreme, if a district cannot substantiate that a child is men-
* tali~ retarded, seriously emotionally disturbed, speech impaired, deaf, hard of
hearing, visually impaired, multi-handicapped, deaf-blind, other health impaired or
orthopedically impaired, then they must either classify the child as SLD or as not
cl~g~i~ for special education.
Fortunately, as of this time, we have yet to be pushed to the extreme in labeling
-children. We clearly are, however, being forced to.desi~iate all SLD children.
Ibreover, we must be able to substantiate that all served children coul,~, if necessary,
he categorized in one of the eleven P.L. 94-142 definitions.
For monitoring purposes, the Division will expect to find that between 205 an,l 40'o
of a district's enrollment in Special Educa,tion are identified acSLD. In the
* ])ecember, 197f1 Child Count, the national incidence of SLD Cas 31.75 of the total
enrollment in Special Education. A deviation of 151 plus'or minus will alert the
Division to the need for a review of procedures for identifying SLD students.
PAGENO="0109"
103
Page 3
Supt. of Schools
JimeI9,1980 ~
-` As I said béfore, more explicit guidelines for identifying SLD youths will he
forthcoming after a series of meetings with our SLD Task Force and personae]
in the Office for Civil Rights. -.
Guide) ines for SeriouF Emotional~ Disturbance
In the months~ that lie ahead, a set of guidelines will be issued for identifying
children with serious emotional disturbance. This category, like SLD, could
become a major point of contention unless we have rather explicit defining criteria.
]t is important that this categoxy:be limited to children with an unquestionable
need for special educ~ation becau~se.of severe disturbance.. We cannot become a
vehicle forsérving iociafl)' malad~ust~rE1~Tldren, except those who qualify for
special education under one of the elev~h handicapping conditions
We will make every effortto consider your input in these matters and to keep you
well informed as new guidelines are developed..*
PAGENO="0110"
Few states have legislation requiring the abolition of
traditional classifications of the handicapped.
However~ many state and local education agencies have
established guidelines tantamount to providing noncate-
gorical services. The obvious intent of a general
approach to the handicapped is to describe rather than
label, to accept rather than stigmatize.
LABELING VS. CLASSIFICATION
Classification of children for various purposes has been
the historical norm. The early 1970s brought a rebellion
against such practices. There is a wealth of research and
discussion on the evils of labeling, and well there should
be; however, it has become more and more evident that
labeling is not inherently evil. What is questioned is the
purpose of the labels and how stereotyped thoughts and
attitudes evolve from them.
In the spring 1979 Dfreczive Teacher Journal, Nicholas
Hobbs, chairman of the Project on Classification of
Exceptional Children and principal author of The
Futures of Children stated, `People are saying that we
should not classify.. .these good people are wrong."
(pp. 1, 8-9).Yet much of the noncategorical movement
seems to have emanated from Hobbs' work and is
attributed to him. In another interview in Exceptional
Children, April 1978, Dr. Hobbs expressed the
following: "The existing classification systems serve
important functions in schools. It is hard to abandon
what we have until there is something to take its place."
(pp. 494-497).
There is no doubt that the use of labels in the public
schools has been reduced. However, to say that labels
are no longer in use would overstate the case. There are,
of course, aberrations. Some refer to mental retardation
as a general learning disability or to emotional distur-
bance as an adjustment reaction. "Underachiever" is
probably preferable to "slow learner." New labels are
constantly being invented, such as "substantially inde-
pendent" rather than "educable mentally retarded."
104
65 Viewpoint
* The Implications of Noncàtégórical
Special.Education
With the special permission of The Professional Press,
Inc., 101 E. Ontario Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60521"
- I
9 ~Ef~i~II STt~EET
MO~T~aIER, VERMONT:05602
* * Laurence M. Lieberman, EdD
14
Journal of Learning Disabilities
PAGENO="0111"
There is no beginning and no end-only more confu-
sion. Some argue for more benign labels; others say the
problem is inherent in any label; and still others prefer
behavioral descriptors. Whatever the approach, we end
up with words that convey ideas and ultimately general
notions about groups of children.
For 15 years the Bureau of Education for the Handi-
capped (BEH) in the U.S. Office of Education has been
a major funding source for university-based teacher
training. In 1972 BEH changed its policy from funding
specific areas such as mental retardation, emotional
disturbance, etc., to noncategorical grants to university
training programs. The universities were pressured to
decompartmentalize programs for specific handicapping
conditions within their special education departments.
Course titles such as "Methods and Materials, for the
Learning Disabled" became "Remedial Strategies,"
with the assumption that the latter would be applicable
for all children with inadequate skills.
Children were looked upon as individuals, while
curricula and learning theory were generalized. How-
ever, indepth study of particular handicapping condi-
lions tended to be minimized. Blindness and deafness
split from the main line as being just too different. Mild
mental retardation, learning disabilities, and emotional
disturbance short of autism were lumped together for
teacher training purposes. Professionals titled "learning
disabilities specialists" were replaced by "resource room
teachers." Instead of providing an addition to the
specialist, the generalist replaced the specialist. The
children, although never considered similar, were
thought to be teachable in a similar fashion.
Special education teachers soon began to realize that
their knowledge of the handicapped was cursory and
that they were ill equipped to deal with the medical,
social, parental, and psychological aspects of specific
handicaps. Perhaps this entire situation is cyclical
and learning disabilities specialists will someday
make a triumphant return only to be banished at some
future time.
There are important practices in effect that are highly
significant for those who would choose noncategorical
special education. Program decisions are still made
by classification.
Assessment procedures are organized to develop a
diagnosis and to respond with a program for similarly
labeled children. Programs do not exist by behavioral
66
descriptor, such as a class for acting out, a class for
aggressive children, or a resource room for children
exhibiting written reversals. Programs are designated for
learning disabled students, emotionally disturbed
students, or retarded students. . Within . the same
grouping of learning disabled children one might find a
hyperactive child whose primary problem is visual
information processing, a child with a verbal fluency
deficiency, or a child holding his pencil in his fist
because of fine motor coordination problems. The
possible combinations are infinite, especially if one
considers the so-called usual spectrum of behaviors
associated with mental retardation and emotional
disturbance. While lip service is being given to individ-
ualized programming and evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of each child, that child may in fact be
grouped in such a way as to negate teaching to his
known attributes. ~,
The conceptual alternative for thosetaking issue with
this is to work with each child individually. However,
then the teacher becbmes a tutor and loses the group as a
worthwhile educational process. There is no clear-cut
answer. The point is that children find their way into
groupings called programs because of classifications.
Classifications may be the result of behavioral
descriptions, but they take an obvious back seat when
it is time for important decisions to be made. The label
is primary.
The counter argument is dropping all labels in favor
of "children who need special education." This grand
experiment is doomed to failure. The heterogeneity of
traditional groupings of behavior and learning is wide
and difficult enough to deal with, without compounding
the situalion by cross-categorical grouping.
CONSEQUENCES OF
NONCATECORIZATION
Sanctioning noncategorization can result in a terrible
mess. One of the more significant problems is that
educators do not know who is handicapped anymore.
The BEH was originated with a very clear mandate for.
the handicapped. When this mandate was given, a
handicapped child was not handicapped because he was
failing in school; he was failing in school because he was
handicapped. We evaluated children because physicians,.
parents, teachers, psychologists, social workers, school
105
Volume 13, Number 2, February 1980
15
PAGENO="0112"
67
106
nurses, etc., were astute enough to suspect that
something was developmentally wrong with a child.
A child did not have to fail in school for two years
before being rated academically deficient enough to
warrant special education programming. Not every child
failing in school is handicapped, but in many places
every child failing in school becomes a candidate
for special education services and consequently is
considered handicapped.
This is not terribly wrong in and of itself. Chronic
school failure may result in genuine emotional distur.
bance. The problem is confusing children who fall in
school with handicapped children. Conceptually, focus
on the handicapped is primary both in terms of the fed-
eral government and in the minds of those associated
with the inception of special education. Lumping
together children who fail in school with truly handi-
capped children does an obvious disservice to both. This
is most evident in learning disabilities, which is opera-
tionaily defined by many as a discrepancy between
ability and academic success, usually represented as low
basic skill achievement. Many special education admin.
istrators are familiar with having to provide educational
plans for children who score six months below grade
level in reading on a standardized achievement test.
These same administrators are fully aware that the cate-
gorically handicapped child may be shortchanged as the
result of the glut of failing students. Many parents want
extra help for their children and rightfully so. This is a
commentary on regular education practices, not an
admission of having given birth to a handicapped child.
In some school systems 30% to 40% of the children are
functioning below grade level. This is not an epidemio-
logical survey of handicapping conditions but an indict-
ment of educational practices in some school systems.
TRADITIONAL CATEGORIES
AND CLASSIFICATIONS
An obvious way to short-circuit a possible large-scale
abuse is to officially utilize traditional categories and
classifications. If learning disabilities were really
thought of as being a central nervous system disorder, a
euphemism for brain damage or brain dysfunction,
would parents and school personnel be so eager to tap
special education services? Many parents want their
children to be designated as special education students
to be eligible for support services, which is usually aid in
the resource room. Would these parents want their
children labeled "handicapped" in order to receive
those same services?
The confusion between school failure as evidenced by
underachievement or inadequate acquisition of basic
skills and having a genuine handicap is particularly
- potent in the realm of reading. Poor readers usually
have even more difficulty with written expression and
spelling. These deficits result in failure of a vast number
of school tasks unless teachers are willing to task analyze
and utilize the child's strengths in formulating teaching
strategies. Unfortunately, many professionals use dis-
crepancies inreading achievement as the sole indicator
of a learning disability. This has contributed to the wide.
spread and often erroneous use of the terns dyslexia.
This is the classic case of school failure being trans-
lated into a disorder of the central nervous system.
Literature abounds on the myriad, diagnosable, neuro-
logical concomitants of dyslexia, suggesting that its cor-
relates are detectable prior toThe introduction of written
material so the child. We know she futility of after-the-
fact assessment of reading disability. Children unable to
read are referred for an evaluation; the evaluation is
geared to finding children unable to read; the evaluator
corroborates the referral agent's contention that the
child is unable to read. In Reading, Writing, and Speech
Problems in Children (W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.,
New York, 1937) Samuel Orton wrote:
There are multiple causes for a delay in learning to read.
Marked defects in vision may underlie such a difficulty. -
Defects of hearing have also been encountered which
have led to poor auditory discrimination of words.
General intellectual deficit is also a frequent cause of
failure in reading. Emotional disturbances, such as
antagonisms toward a particular teacher or general
apathytoward all schoolwork, orlack ofadequasedisci-
plinary training as home, may all play their pars in
giving rise to a slow stars in this academic need.
Another major area of concern is the confusion of
disciplirse with emotional problems and the consequent
overloading of special education responsibilities. School
rule breaking, lack of willingness to perform school
tasks, lack of homework production, and general atti-
tudes of apathy and malaise are pervasive. isis apparent
that many of these problems are being foisted on special
educators under the guise of emotional problems. Disci-
pline has never been the province of special education,
but is has always been the province of regular education
16
Jountdof learning Di.wibilitlrs
PAGENO="0113"
to ensure appropriate student participation in the school
program. Furthermore, just as neurologically based
dyslesia is not always an explanation for poor reading
achievement, emotional disorder or disturbance is not
always an explanation for lack of assigned homework or
refusal to go to detention. Too often educators are
trapped into instituting special education programming
for discipline problems. Perhaps professionals would be
more realistic in their assessments of these problems if
special education programming was contingent on a
traditional label such as "emotional disturbance."
Some parents demand special education services
because their adolescents get Cs in trigonometry when
the students may have received As in mathematics all
through school. The suggestion here is not that they
shouldn't receive help. AU students should be helped in
every way possible to ensure the highest possible
achievement. However, special education should not be
the programmatic mechanism for this help. Using it as
such represents another defeat for the handicapped, for
whom these services are a primary consideration.
Special education must be reserved for the handicapped.
This will not be the caseS as long as noncategorical
approaches and general school fallures result in having
to deliver special education services. Special education is
warranted for the mentally retarded, emotionally
disturbed, truly learning disabled, blind, deaf, and
physically impaired. It is not warranted for under-
achievement, discipline problems, and bad grades.
CONCLUSION
The crisis in the schools belongs to regular education.
The fact that 37 states have passed some form of mini-
68
mum competency testing for students in the last five
years testifies to this. The back to the basics movement
is no accident and no bandwagon but a well-docu-
mented need. Special education has been confused with
being an answer to the problems of regular education.
Special education, with its traditional classification
system, would not be confused in this manner. In fact,
the intent of PL 94-142 is such that special education will
only be as good as regular education allows it to be. If
educational practices for norms! children are question-
able, how can anyone expect educational practices for
this abnormal to be better?
It is noteworthy that PL 94-142 maintains a tradi-
tional categorical approach in designating those eligible
for benefits under the law. Classifications as presented
in PL 94-142 will eliminate confusion between school
failure and handicaps and will preserve the primary
rights of the handicapped to special education services.
This will also force regular education to solve its own
problems, without looking outside itself for answers
only to be found internally.
Volume 13, Numher2, Fchniary 1980
17
107
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
L~mns,ve M. Lkbn recriued his doctorate in special education for
the neurologicolly impaired from Teachers College. Columbia Univer-
sity. From 1970 to 1973 he was the learning disabilities coordinator in the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. U.S. Office of Education.
Washington. D.C. He was the chairman of the Special Education Doc-
toral Program at Boston College from 1974 to 1978. Currently Dr.
Lieberman in a consultant to numerous school systems in Massachusetts
and throughout the United States. Requests for reprints should be
addressed to him at 28 Sheffield Rd.. Newtonullle, Mass. 02160.
68-332 0 - 81 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
108
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Ms. Rice. We appreci-
ate your coming down here and assisting the subcommittee. I can
assure you that the other members of the committee will also read
the testimony, since they were not able to hear you deliver it to us,
because of the multitudinous assignments that all of us in the
Senate seem to inflict upon ourselves.
Ms. RIcE. We understand that. Thank you very much.
Senator STAFFORD. I hope I will see you soon in Vermont, where
I trust also it will be somewhat cooler than it is down here.
The next witness this morning will be Ms. Ruthann Saxman, of
Alexandria, Va.
Welcome to the committee hearings. We will be glad to hear
your testimony, which may either appear in full as we have before
us and summarized by you, or you may read it into the record,
whichever you prefer.
STATEMENT OF RUTHANN SAXMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE
ON THE HANDICAPPED, BLESSED SACRAMENT CHURCH, AL-
EXANDRIA, VA.
Ms. SAx~&A1~. Mr. Chairman and thstinguished Senators of this
subcommittee, my name is Ruthann Saxman, and I am appearing
here today as chairman of the committee on the handicapped at
Blessed Sacrament Church in Alexandria, Va.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to give my
insights and comments on Public Law 94-142, for it is one of the
most important laws to ever be passed for handicapped people,
because it deals with the rights of a handicapped child to have a
free and appropriate education.
One of the problems in the implementation of this act seems to
be the position of educators that all handicapped children should
be educated in public schools and the argument by parents that
their children should, if already enrolled, continue to receive their
education in private schools and have their education paid for.
Section 121a.550(b)(i) of the least restrictive environment clause
clearly states:
Each public agency shall insure to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped
children, including children in public or private institution or other care facilities,
are educated with children who are not handicapped, and that special classes,
separate schooling or other removal of handicapped children from the regular
educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
I also take from that statement that handicapped children are to
be educated for the most part in public schools. I have talked with
many people in my work, and there came about a lot of discussion
about how do you educate a blind child in a public school or how do
you educate a deaf child in a public school. And our resolutions
were that a blind child could be taught by means of running a tape
of the entire class in the classroom, then giving the tape to that
child to take home and study in the evening, just as you or I would
study a book. For the deaf child whose problem is hearing, if the
teacher would merely highlight the important points of her class
on the blackboard, and the deaf child took notes, he too could go
home that evening and study his notes.
PAGENO="0115"
109
So that where it says that education in regular classes with the
use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfac-
torily, it is not that these methods cannot be achieved satisfactori-
ly; it is merely that the educators in our country have not taken
the time to think up these ideas. And I cannot blame the educators
for their position, because they have to be concerned about budgets
and remaining eligible with the programs they have developed to
get their Federal funding.
On the other hand, parents also have fears which need to be
overcome, for they want the best for their child. For these very
reasons, Public Law 94-142 is a law which must be implemented
very carefully. For instance, people training to go into the field of
teaching and education are not required to take any courses con-
cerning the education of handicapped children. Anyone going into
this field should, before they were able to be certified, have train-
ing in this area. The general public as a whole has no knowledge of
what the needs of the handicapped person are and the needs of
each handicapped student differ. And I also feel that the related
services clause in the act should define more clearly, not the serv-
ices involved, but who is responsible for each service; the parent or
the child. This is something that at the present time is not defined
clearly in the act.
I believe that for this act to be successful, individuals involved in
the educational placement of these children should be required to
have in-house training in the awareness of handicapping conditions
so that these children will be appropriately placed and there
should be the same in-house training for teachers in regular
schools, transitional programs to prepare both handicapped and
nonhandicapped students in relating to each other should be estab-
lished, and conferences for joint planning between resource staff
and regular and special education teachers should be started.
The other problem area-at least, so it seems to be in my home
State of Pennsylvania-seems to be in the area of development of
the IEP for each child. The law clearly states that this program is
to be developed with a representative of the public agency, the
child's teacher, one or both of the child's parents, and other indi-
viduals at the discretion of the parents or agency. At the present
time in the State of Pennsylvania, the IEP's are sent home already
developed for the parent, and all they request of the parent is that
the parent sign them. We must not lose sight of the fact that these
are decisions to be made jointly between parent and teacher. This
joint effort is the only way that fears for both sides will be over-
come.
The group that I chair is very involved in educating people about
the handicapped world, its problems, its laws and its needs. On my
committee serve an attorney, a social worker, a legislative aide,
and a young woman with background in special education. I myself
have 2 years toward my bachelor's degree in the education of
socially disadvantaged and handicapped children. I put together
the educational programs, my attorney handles the legal problems,
my social worker helps fill out difficult forms, and the young
woman and I are presently involved in developing a way to train
our religious education teachers on how to deal with the handi-
capped child in the classroom.
PAGENO="0116"
110
But it is of the utmost importance that everyone get involved in
this effort, including PTA's, church committees such as mine, and
parent groups, so that we may all work together to achieve one
common goal: A better understanding of each handicapped child's
needs so that we can help them integrate themselves into our
society and the education of educators in this area so that they can
make sound, reasonable judgments concerning these children.
The handicapped do not choose to be pitied or treated special,
but for some more than others, their road to independence takes
longer. Only through both sides being aware and coming to an
understanding of each other can this goal ever be achieved.
However, this goal will take time to achieve, and both sides must
learn to be patient with each other to achieve this goal. It is not
the law that needs changed but rather the attitudes of the people
toward the handicapped. You as Senators can play a very impor-
tant part in this area by setting examples and by recognizing
handicapped people in your home States who are worthy of recog-
nition.
That concludes my statement, and, once again, I would like to
thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saxman follows:]
PAGENO="0117"
111
TESTIMONY ON P.L. 94-142
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Senators of this
Committee, my name is Ruthann Saxman and I am appear-
ing here today as Chairman of the Committee on the
Handicapped at Blessed Sacrament Church in Alexandria,
Virginia.
I would like to thank the Committee for inviting
me to give my insights and comments on P.L. 94-142.
This law is one of the most important laws to ever be
passed for handicapped people. It is so important
because it deals with the rights of a handicapped
child to have a free and ~ppropriate education.
Unfortunately, one of the problems in the implemen-
tation of this Act has been the position of edu-
cators that all handicapped children should be
educated in public schools and the argument by
parents that their children should, if already
enrolled, continue to receive their education
in private schools and have their education
paid for. Section l2la.550(b)(i) of the least
restrictive environment clause clearly states:
"Each public agency shall insure to the
maximum extent appropriate, handicapped
children, including children in public
or private institution or other care
facilities, are educated with children
who are not handicapped, and that
special classes, separate schooling or
other removal of handicapped children
from the regular educational environ-
ment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the handicap is such that
education in regular classes with the
use of supplementary aids and services
cannot be achieved satisfactorily.."
PAGENO="0118"
112
In a sense one cannot blame the educators for
their position. After all they have to be con-
cerned about budgets, remaining eligible with the
programs they have developed to get Federal
funding. On the other hand, parents have fears
which need to be overcome for they want the
best for their child. For these very reasons,
94-142 is a law which must be implemented very
carefully. For instance, (1) people training
to go into the field of teaching and education
are not required to take any courses concerning
the education of handicapped children. With
the implementation of this Act, anyone going
into this field, should, before they are able
to be certified, have training in this area;
(2) The general public, as a whole, has no
knowledge of what the needs of the handi-
capped are; (3) The needs of each handi-
capped student differ; and (4) The related
services clause should define more clearly,
not the services involved, but who is responsi-
ble for each service.
For this Act to be successful individuals
involved in the educational placement of these
children should be required to have in-house
training in the awareness of handicapping
conditions so that these children will be
appropriately placed and there should be the
same in-house training for teachers in regular
schools, transitional programs to prepare both
handicapped and non-handicapped students in
relating to each other should be established,
and conferences for joint planning between
resource staff and regular and special education
teachers should be started.
PAGENO="0119"
113
The other problem area seems to be in the area of
development of the IEP for each child. The law
clearly states that this program is to be developed
with a representative of the public agency, the child~
teacher, one or both of the child's parents and other
individuals at the discretion of the parent or agency.
At the present time these programs are merely being
sent home already developed for the parents to sign.
We must not loose sight of the fact that these are
decisions to be made jointly between parent and
teacher. This joint eflort is the only way that
fears will be overcome.
The group that I chair is very involved in
educating the people about the handicapped world,
its problems, its laws and its needs. On this
Committee serve an attorney, a social worker,
a legislative aide and a young woman with back-
ground in special education. I myself have two
years toward's my Bachelor's degree in the Edu-
cation of Socially Disadvantaged and Handicapped
Children. I put together the educational pro-
grams, my attorney handles the legal problems,
my social worker helps fill out difficult forms
and the young woman with the background in
special education advises me in that area. She
and I are beginning to work on various projects
together to aid our teachers in religious
education on how to deal with a handicapped
child or children in the classroom.
It is of the utmost importance that
everyone get involved in this effort including
PTA's, church committees such as mine and
parent groups so that we may all work together
to achieve one common goal: A better under-
standing of each handicapped child's needs so
that we can help them integrate themselves
into our society and the education of educators
in this area so that they can make sound,
reasonable judgments concerning these children.
PAGENO="0120"
114
The handicapped do not choose to be pitied or
treated special but, for some more than others, the
road to independence takes longer. Only through
both sides being aware and coming to an under-S
standing of each other can this goal ever be
achieved. However, this goal will take time to
achieve and both sides must learn to be patient
with each other to achieve this goal. It is
not the law that needs changed but rather the
attitudes of the people towards the handicapped.
You, as senators, can be instrumental in this
area by setting examples and seeing to it that
handicapped people in your State worthy of
recognition are recognized.
Thank you for this opportunity. That concludes
my statement. Should you have any questions I shall
be happy to remain to answer them.
NoTE-Response to the written question subsequently submitted to Ms. Saxman
appears at the conclusion of the printed word on p. 616.
Senator STAFFORD. Well, the subcommittee certainly thanks you,
Ms. Saxman, for helping us today. As I have told the others, your
testimony will be read by those who were not able to be here
personally, and out of all of these hearings that we have held in
this Congress, I am sure we are going to make some corrections as
we see them in the various laws that we think help the handi-
capped in the next Congress, which I am sure Senator Randolph
and I will both be a part of, since neither of us faces election this
year.
We thank you all, and the Chair will announce, in terminating
this meeting that we are going to meet next on Thursday, July 31,
for those of you who care to come-we hope you will. We will start
the meeting promptly at 9:30, and it will be in room 5110 of this
building, which is up on the fifth floor. And, reversing the order of
precedence of today, Senator Stafford will be presiding during the
first half and Senator Randolph during the second part of that
meeting.
So the subcommittee stands in adjournment until 9:30 on Thurs-
day at room 5110.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene Thursday, July 31, 1980, at 9:30 a.m.]
PAGENO="0121"
OVERSIGHT ON EDUCATION FOR ALL
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT, 1980
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room
5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert T. Stafford
presiding pro tempore.
Present: Senator Stafford.
Staff present: Patricia Forsythe, staff director.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STAFFORD
Senator STAFFORD. The Subcommittee on the Handicapped will
come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to the 14th oversight hearing by the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped during the 96th Congress. As
you know, 11 of these hearings have dealt specifically with imple-
mentation of Public Law 94-142, the education for all handicapped
children, as does this hearing today.
When we started these oversight hearings in 1979, we announced
what might be called a reversal of the usual order of witnesses
before congressional committees. That is, instead of hearing admin-.
istration witnesses first and then hearing other witnesses present
their comments on recommendations by the administration, we
thought a more productive first step would be to hear first from
those individuals-parents, teachers, local and State administra-
tors, and representatives of national organizations serving the
handicapped-who, through their personal experiences in working
with the law, could give us valuable insight into how the law is
actually working and into those areas where their first hand expe-
riences indicated it might be improved.
The second step would then be to hear from administration
witnesses and learn of their thinking on the earlier testimony as
well as on how necessary improvements in the law could best be
effected. By combining the experiences of the administration and
the experiences of those individuals who are most intimately in-
volved with the implementation of the law and with those persons
the law is designed to benefit, it is our hope that we will be able to
move much closer to our national commitment to provide a free
and appropriate public education to our Nation's handicapped
children.
Today's hearing will complete the important first step of the
subcommittee's oversight hearings. With the addition of the testi-
(115)
PAGENO="0122"
116
mony we are to hear this morning and the testimony presented to
the subcommittee in our previous hearings in this Congress, we
will have amassed an impressive body of information concerning
the implementation of Public Law 94-142-on the benefits it has
already provided to thousands of our handicapped children; on the
areas in which improvement is needed; suggestions as to how these
improvements can be made. At our next hearing we expect to hear
testimony from administration witnesses; we will hear the views of
the people charged with administering the law at the national
level. It is our hope that those departmental witnesses who appear
before us will have had an opportunity to read the testimony
presented in previous hearings and let us have the benefit of their
comments on the concerns and suggestions voiced by previous wit-
nesses, as well as providing us with their own views on how Public
Law 94-142 is working and what, in their opinion, can and should
be done to improve the law.
The Chair will note in starting that we will be interrupted at 10
o'clock by a roilcall or more roilcalls back to back in the Senate.
But we will go as far as we can up to that time and we will resume
again as soon as the roilcalls are over.
The Chair would also ask that witnesses, as far as possible,
summarize their testimony in 5 minutes, understanding that, with-
out objection, the Chair will place full statements that have been
provided to us in the record as if delivered.
With no further ado, the Chair will invite Mr. Albert Shanker,
president of the American Federation of Teachers, to take the
witness stand. And having come in early this morning in heavy
traffic, I failed to recognize you, Mr. Shanker, in the elevator
because I was still cursing the traffic that I was in for the last
hour.
We are very glad to have you and appreciate your coming down.
STATEMENT OF ALBERT SHANKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY
GREG HUMPHREY AND MARILYN RAUTH
Mr. SHANKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me two of my assistants, Greg Humphrey, who works
with the legislation generally, and Marilyn Rauth, who is especial-
ly qualified in this area of education of the handicapped.
I have submitted written testimony, and I am just going to
rather quickly underline a number of the points made in that
testimony.
I am Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of
Teachers, AFL-CIO, and we represent more than 568,000 teachers,
paraprofessionals, members in higher education, health care profes-
sions, and civil servants.
I can say that this topic is not one of mere academic interest to
our members. At our annual convention and at State conventions
of our teachers throughout the country, there is not only a great
deal of interest but, in many cases, so much frustration in terms of
the application of this piece of legislation that on a number of
occasions our members have introduced resolutions from the floor
calling for a moratorium on the implementation of this act, or
calling for its reconsideration. It has taken considerable effort to
PAGENO="0123"
117
urge restraint on the part of our delegates and members at these
meetings because the implementation of this legislation has caused
very serious problems and difficulties within the schools.
Now, before us, and particularly before this committee, is the
question of what should' be our next step toward institutionalizing
the right of handicapped persons to a free, appropriate education.
Our members continue to question how a law, which is meant to
help assure children's rights, can result in the following:
Less instructional time for each child;
Staffs that are ill prepared to work effectively with handicapped
children;
Children being placed in settings with no resources or materials
adapted to their special needs;
An inability to remove handicapped students from the premises
as rapidly as any other child in an emergency; and
An apparent dismantling of special education, promulgated not
in the interest of individual children, but rather in the interest of
stretching ever-shrinking dollars.
The only way we believe that Public Law 94-142 will ever work
in its present form is with a massive infusion of additional Federal
funds totaling several billions of dollars.
We, in this testimony, point a good deal to the research that was
done by BEH. We feel that quite a bit of it is inadequate; that, in a
sense, the research was kind of self-evaluation of the agency. We
point to some studies that have not seen the light of day or been
given adequate publicity that indicate some of the problems, and
we urge you to take a close look at those studies that seem to have
been set aside.
We believe that empirical studies that are critical of the effects
of Public Law 94-142 or its implementation were suppressed by
BER and that studies that have the potential to produce such
results are being assiduously avoided. We hope that this committee
will look into this matter and insist that the research orientation
of the new Office of Special Education be different. We are willing
to put our reports of serious problems growing out of this legisla-
tion in the schools to the test of empirical research and feel that
the Office of Special Education must do the same.
It is time that we discuss our problems and our options. At the
root of all these problems is money. With the infusion of several
billions more Federal dollars, Public Law 94-142 could be made to
work.
The AFT would make this option its first choice because it could
not help but foster the goal of an appropriate education for all
handicapped children. If, on the other hand, Congress feels an
increased appropriation of this amount of several billion dollars for
Public Law 94-142 would not suit the mood of the country, it
cannot turn its back on State and local governments who face this
same public sentiment.
I come from New York State and that State alone, the education
department really, recently estimated that the cost of educating
children with handicapping conditions for the 1980-81 school year
at close to $1 billion, with the State contributing $415 million, local
districts contributing $472 million and the Federal Government
contributing $60 million. Again, we offer the reminder that if the
PAGENO="0124"
118
mandate were fully met, those costs would have to be much higher.
I am very much involved with the problems of New York City. I
have been since the great crisis of 1975 when we helped to provide
some bailout money to the tune of $1.3 billion in teacher pension
funds. We had hoped that school costs could be reduced as enroll-
ments declined. However, we have managed so far to find over
70,000 handicapped youngsters as a result of a court decision, and
the education of these youngsters will cost approximately four
times the amount of the education of regular youngsters within the
school.
The effect of that is that we have really located 280,000 addition-
al youngsters in terms of costs. Just think of that in terms of the
problems of a city like New York. We are a national organization.
We represent cities like Detroit, San Francisco, Cleveland, Chicago
and Washington, D.C. I do not have to say that all of these cities
are on the brink of bankruptcy and their school systems are faced
with massive layoffs. At the same time, .to be f~aced with the obliga-
tion of providing all these additional costs is disastrous in terms of
education and your urban policy within this country.
Now, if the Federal Government is not prepared to provide life-
giving dollars for this mandate, several serious consequences are
possible. First, we fear that the number of disabled children-
whose education is actually being diminished as a result of some
Public Law 94-142 provisions-will continue to grow to alarming
proportions. They will lose many benefits won within special educa-
tion over the last three-quarters of the century, ironically in the
name of their own civil rights.
As courts expand their interpretations of an already broad legis-
lative mandate, schools will either be unable to meet the costs or
will be forced to draw from regular operating budgets. Arguments
will be made that services to handicapped children need only
match those offered to nonhandicapped students.
Within the current financial trend, both regular and special
education could sink to such levels that public education itself
could be undermined.
I should say that the more we take away from one group of
students and give to another group and create the kind of commu-
nity conflict and deterioration of education, the more we foster
support for all types of schemes to provide support for nonpublic
education providing for further erosion.
If Congress cannot back up this mandate with adequate re-
sources, it should be exploring ways of preserving its intent and
perhaps cutting back on unnecessary bureaucratic processes.
To begin this, we believe that the IEP requirement should be
eliminated, as it has resulted primarily in a reduction of child-
teacher contact time. The cost of this process in terms of education
dollars and staff and parental time is in no way justified by the
research reports showing it surrounded by confusion and resent-
ment. It is surrounded by a good deal of confusion and resentment.
More importantly, it has been shown not only to be basically
unproductive but even detrimental in a number of ways.
We would hope that this requirement would be suspended and
that studies would be undertaken to explore reasonable means of
assuring individualized education programs.
PAGENO="0125"
119
At the same time, some steps must be taken to prevent least-
restrictive environment placements from being used as a cost-
saving device without insuring that the placement is truly in the
best interest of the child; that the receiving teacher is adequately
trained to work effectively with the child; and that the receiving
classroom is adequately prepared and equipped. Inservice training
should be required by law for teachers and other school personnel
assuming new roles and responsibilities as a result of least-restric-
tive environment placements. This training must be completed
prior to placement.
Finally, we call your attention to a glaring loophole in Public
Law 94-142. Although deadlines are affixed to most of its provi-
sions, no mention is made of a time limit that cannot be exceeded
between the time a child is referred for evaluation and the time
that evaluation actually takes place. Not all States have such time
restrictions and, in those that do, they are rarely enforced. As a
result, large numbers of children are lost in the limbo of referral
waiting lists.
In conclusion, we urge Congress to support the rights of handi-
capped persons espoused in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 by increasing appropriations under Public Law 94-142 to sev-
eral billion dollars. We recommend close examination of all provi-
sions of Public Law 94-142 and their effects on handicapped stu-
dents, nonhandicapped students, school and local and State fi-
nances, and public education itself.
We reject the idea that we should continue to live with the
shortcomings of this legislation and that somehow it is sacrosanct
and that we need another 2½ or 5 or 10 or 25 years of experience
before changes are made. Major changes should be made. That
handicapped persons are entitled to a free, appropriate public edu-
cation need not be utopian or theoretical. It should be fact. The
theoretical premises that must be scrutinized and experimented
with are the avenues by which we can best accomplish this goal.
Responsible action will resolve emerging problems; neglect could
make our present problems seem trivial.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shanker and additional informa-
tion supplied follow:]
PAGENO="0126"
120
TESTIMONY OF
ALBERT SHANKER, PRESIDENT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO
TO SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
ON P.L. 94-142
July 31, 1980
I am Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO. On behalf of the 550,000 teachers, paraprofessionals and other
members of the AFT, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to offer
our views before this Committee on P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act.
Since its original support of passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975, the AFt has
often reaffirmed its belief in the goals of this legislation, namely the equal
right of all handicapped persons to a free appropriate public education. On
the other hand, we have continuously expressed reservations about certain aspects
of this law and its regulations where we felt their effect on children to be
negative. It is probable that in the course of these hearings, you will hear
ccnflicting stories -- one side extolling the virtues of P.L. 94-142, the other
its vices. Such a debate is healthy unless, of course, one of these groups is
ultimately judged exclusively right or wrong. Either judgment, in our opinion,
is irresponsible. Yet, failure to hold P.L. 94-142 up to careful scrutiny could
result in exactly this, an assessment that the law is all good or all bad.
Inaction on the part of Congress in resolving the problems of P.L. 94-142 would
be as grave a mistake as any efforts undertaken to negate its intent.
You no doubt are aware of the position espoused by some representatives of
the former Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, as well as others, that
despite its faults, P.L. 94-142 must not be opened to change for fear that this
might occasion the loss of all its key provisions. Incumbent in this philosophy,
whether it is conscious or not, is a belief that the law itself -- and not its
goal -- is sacrosanct. It allows the well-being of any number of children to
be sacrificed to what is supposed by this group of theorists, to be the future
"common good." Our members work in day-to-day classroom contact with the
individual children upon whom the law impacts injuriously. They have
PAGENO="0127"
121
little understanding of proponents of the above philosophy who counsel that
there inevitably are bugs in any new system which time should be allowed the
chance to work out. Originally it was argued that two to three years should
be allowed to elapse before further government intervention. Now that we are
two and a half years into P.L. 94-142's implementation, a further extension
of time needed for the law to begin to work to significantly benefit children
and education is requested of us. How long are we to wait before considering
how we might better adapt P.L. 94-142 to accomplish its stated gosls -- five,
ten, twenty years or more? We will shortly review why neither our members,
nor hopefully this Committee, can afford or indeed condone the disinterested
and dispassionate viewpoint outlined above.
Before doing so, we would like to mention a second stance on P.L. 94-142,
which would be equally nonsensical. This amounts to abolishing the protections
provided by P.L. 94-142 altogether and returning to the status quo prior to
its implementation. While we believe that the state of the art and conditions
of special education prior to 1975 were evolving impressively, we cannot ignore
the abuses that still existed. These included placement in special education
for the purpose of segregation, inappropriate evaluation methods, dead-end
tracking and misdirection of funds. Additionally, we might mention the large
numbers of handicapped children who were either turned away from the schools
entirely or placed in classrooms only to be ignored. It seems clear that, if
nothing else, P.L. 94-142 has exposed the seamier side of special education
to public scrutiny. For this reason, we feel a positive purpose has been
served. We make this judgment on the basis that only if problems are allowed
to surface can they be dealt with forthrightly and solutions found.
Looming before us, and particularly before this Committee, is the question
of what should be our next step toward institutionalizing the right of handicapped
persons to a free appropriate public education.
PAGENO="0128"
122
-3-
There are some who would have you believe that this indeed is what is happening
in the schools as a result of P.L. 94-142, with only minor difficulties. Yet,
reports from the field and conferences we have held with teachers, pars-
professionals and other school employees in urban, suburban and rural school
systems throughout the country tell another story: it is one of confusion,
abuse and massive non-compliance with law in relation to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and P.L. 94-142. To an even greater extent than teacher rights
issues, although these are just as important, our members question how a law
which is meant to help assure children's rights can result in the following:
o less instructional time for each child;
o placement of children in new settings before staff has been trained
to work effectively with them;
o children being in settings with no resources or materials adapted
to their needs;
o inability to remove handicapped students from the premises as rapidly
as any other child in an emergency.
o parental loss of confidence in the schools, in some instances, as a
result of educators asking them for their opinions on their child's
placement and program;
o an apparent dismantling of special education promulgated not in the
interest of individual children but rather in the interest of
stretching ever-shrinking dollars.
These are just a few of AFT members' concerns which are catalogued in more
detail in our testimony on P.L. 94-142 given before the House Subcommittee
on Select Education on October 9 of last year. As nothing has changed in the
situation in the schools depicted in that testimony, we hope you will consider
it as an addendum to these remarks. A copy is attached.
Although P.L. 94-142 has had some positive effects, several of its provisions
have done great harm and must be revised or eliminated immediately. We maintain,
moreover, that the only way P.L. 94-142 will ever work in its present form is
with a massive infusion of additional federal funds totaling several billions
of dollars.
PAGENO="0129"
123
-4-
Evidence of this can and will be pieced together from various sources.
But first let us raise a concern about research on P.L. 94-142 conducted
by BEH which you may want to take steps to correct in the new Office of Special
Education. From our perspective, it appears that BEH was increasingly
restrictive not only in the type of research it allowed on implementation of
P.L. 94-142 but even more so in the use and exposure of any data which did
not support its basic premise that with minor exceptions, implementation of
P.L. 94-142 is progressing smoothly with great benefits accruing to all
concerned. The hard dats, we believe, which would support or negate our reports
were not sought by BEH which, to the best of our knowledge, has consistently
avoided research on school, classroom and student outcomes as affected by aspects
of the P.L. 94-142 mandate. Even its data collection from the states on monitoring
efforts, enforcement and compliance is less than adequate as recently reported
by the Education Advocates Coalition made up of 13 advocacy organizations. To
date, for example, we have not been able to get data on the number of teachers
and other staff who have received inservice education related to their
responsibilities under this legislation and their knowledge of special education.
Such data, we believe, would prove that inservice training is so minimal as to
have the law potentially result in a dismantling of special education because
educators have not been trained adequately, or in most instances, at all, to
assume new roles required of them as a consequence of P.L. 94-142. Instead,
BEH offered us figures only on numbers of persons "projected" by states to be
targeted for training and dissemination activities. Most SEAs will tell you
that they were ill-equipped to assume their 94-142 monitoring and enforcement
function and consequently have been forced to give inservice training a low
priority. Misgivings about the lack of inservice education, as well as other
problems associated with P.L. 94-142, are expressed in a report entitled,
68-3320-81-9
PAGENO="0130"
124
-5-.
"A Study of Teacher Concerns with P.L. 94-142," completed under the auspices
of BEH in 1978. Again, to the best of our knowledge, the findings of this
report and its five major recommendations of steps BEH could take (see Appendix 1)
to alleviate teacher concerns were buried and ignored. Another report, "Case
Study of the Implementation of P.L. 94-142," done by Education Turnkey Systems
for BEE and dated May 31, 1979 was mysteriously reported in the press (e.g., Education
Daily) as finding that P.L. 94-142's Implementation is progressing nicely. Yet,
a close reading reveals the following facts:
o "In all sites, moderate to large numbers of students had to wait
for assessment and placement because of the large amount of staff
time needed for `processing' students."
o "In most sites, particularly during the school year 1978-79,
regular education teachers became more hesitant to refer
students with suspected learning problems, because of the
`processing' burden or because of their perception that such
children would not be placed before the end of the school year."
o "During the 1978-79 school year.. .virtually all IEPs written
for transition students (e.g., those transferring from middle
schools to high schools) had to be revised when the students
moved; these revisions involved large numbers of teachers and
other staff."
o "In most instances, parental involvement in IEP meetings is
limited to attendance and approval, with limited interaction
concerning the development of specific instructional programs."
o "Many parents who attend central office or building meetings
feel intimidated by the presence of large numbers of LEA staff
or feel the process is too complex."
o "The IEP meeting has become essentially a formal mechanism for
complying with the law rather than for involving and informing
parents."
o "In sites where formal due process hearings were conducted, the
impact of the hearings upon the LEA staff involved and, to a
lesser extent, upon the parents was traumatic, regardless of
the outcome. The threat of hearings generated an enormous amount
of paperwork and documentation of the special education process,
as staff developed coping strategies to protect themselves from
legsl reprisals."
Implicit in the tone of these findings is an indication that although a bureaucratic
process is clumsily being put in place, proof of its positive effects on education
is less than obvious.
PAGENO="0131"
125
-6-
Finally, let us mention a third BEH study which we feel it most important
that this Committee have the opportunity to examine carefully. Its original
title was "Local Implementation of P.L. 94-142." This was a four-year study
designed as an in-depth examination of local school systems and incidentally is,
we believe, the only longitudinal study of the law's implementation in public
schools. In April of this year the first report of findings was submitted
to BEH describing the status of implementation in 22 LEAs in nine states during
the 1978-79 school year. In the draft report which we were asked to review
last winter, we saw that the situation we have reported in the schools was
confirmed. Yet here again the data has not been released by BED or OSE. We
hope that it will be cited extensively and copies provided this Committee
during these hearings. If not, serious questions should be raised as to why
this evidence has not been reported. Our suspicions concerning the fate of this
study's findings were raised as a result of several factors. It was said that
submission of the draft report in December, 1979 raised a flurry of concern in
some quarters at BED because it exposed the weaker side of the law and that
one remedy suggested for diluting its effect would be to rename it, "Case
Studies of Implementation of P.L. 94-142 in Selected Sites." The difference
between this and what was intended to be a fairly generalizable study of
"Local Implementation of P.L. 94-142" is not difficult to see. In addition,
anyone who reads the body of the report carefully will see that the summaries
and conclusions have been muted somewhat, although they too reveal problems.
The study was carried out with great integrity but it would seem that these
researchers were aware that the "kid glove approach" would be required to keep
their findings from being totally buried at BEH.
Consequently, it sppears that serious problems have arisen from the fact
that BEH has been responsible for both implementation and evaluation of P.L. 94-142,
given that the agency has persistently clung to the position that the law in
PAGENO="0132"
126
its present form must be made to work at all costs and that any evidence to the
contrary endangers the rights of handicapped persons. It is our understanding,
by the way, that the focus of the longitudinal study mentioned above has now
been changed. Future studies are to be descriptive rather than analytical or
interpretive. Instead of a continuation of in-depth studies of LEA implementation
of P.L. 94-142, we will get technical assistance documents on "boundary crossers,"
which is a fine ides few schools will be able to afford, and service delivery
related to medical/educational needs. For the most part, BEH sought descriptive
data which it evaluated for itself. The evaluator, we suggest, has been much
less than objective.
We believe that empirical studies critical of the effects of P.L. 94-142
or its implementation were suppressed by BEH and that studies which have the
potential to produce such results are being assiduously avoided. We hope that
this Committee will look into this matter and insist that the research orienta-
tion of the new Office of Special Education be different. We are willing to
put our reports of serious problems growing out of 94-142 in the schools to the
test of empirical research and feel OSE must do the same.
Finally, we must discuss our problems and our options. At the root of all
these problems is money. With the infusion of several billions more federal
dollars to support continuous inservice training; appropriate support personnel
and services; adequate equipment, resources and materials, with adaptations
when necessary; additional record-keeping, planning and reporting time;
additional staff to handle the administration of the law and so forth,
P.L. 94-142 could be made to work (see pp. 4-5 of attached House testimony for
details of what would be required to make P.L. 94-142 operate effectively in
the schools). The AFT would make this option its first choice because it could
not help but foster the goal of an appropriate education for all handicapped
children. If, on the other hand, Congress feels an increased appropriation
PAGENO="0133"
127
-8-
of several billion dollars for P.L. 94-142 would not suit the mood of the
country, it cannot turn its back on state and local governments who face this
same public sentiment. Let us consider the prospects of Congress ignoring the
serious financial restraints the SEAs and LEAs are already operating under.
The ge~era1 financial condition of the schools, particularly our urban
schools where the majority of handicapped students are, is well-known. Frequent
school closings, loss of tax bases, rising inflation, mismanagement of funds,
and local governments on the verge of bankruptcy all contribute to weakening
the institution of public education. As reported by the Natiosial School
Boards Association in "A Survey of Special Education Costs in Local School
Districts," released in June, 1979:
o Local school district budgets for special education are rising
at the rate of 14 percent per year, or twice as rapidly as
instructional and operating budgets (7 and 8 percent per year);
o The cost of placing a handicapped student in a non-residential
setting outside the district's facilities is four times the
average per pupil expenditure for all students and in a
residential setting is eight times the average per pupil
expenditure;
o The cost ratio between education of the handicapped and so-
called regular education is at least two to one nationwide
and this is likely to be a conservative estimate because
districts often do not calculate all costs, such as trans-
portation, related to education of the handicapped;
o Out of an average per pupil cost of $3,638 annually for
handicapped students, the federal government will be
contributing only slightly over $200 per child;
o The nationwide cost of special education for the 1978-79 school
year was projected to be $5 billion--if one adds the need for
better services to reach compliance and the costs of inflation,
you can get some idea of the financial resources which would be
required to give P.L. 94-142 a chance to work.
In New York State alone, the education department recently estimated the
cost of educating children with handicapping conditions for the 1980-81
school year at close to $1 billion, with the state contributing $415 million,
local districts $472 million and the federal government $60 million. Again,
PAGENO="0134"
128
we offer the reminder that if the mandate were fully met, these costs would
have to be much higher. In January, 1980, the Institute for Research on
Educational Finance and Governance at Stanford University published a report
on "Policy Effects of Special Education Funding Formulas" in which the major
reasons for the greater costs of educating handicapped children are outlined
as:
o Additional and related special education services--the majority
of handicapped children receive special education programs and
services in addition to being enrolled in a regular education
program. As a result, the total cost of their education includes
both the cost of the regular program and the cost of special
education programs and services.
o Special classes--with smaller student/teacher ratios, the bulk
of the classroom costs (i.e., teacher salary and benefits,
operation and maintenance expenses) do not vary with the nuaber
of students in the room, which greatly increases the cost per
student.
o Multiple special education services.
o Residential programs-not only are educational services needed,
but a complete set of housing, feeding, self-help skill training,
vocational and recreational services may also be required, and
it is not uncommon for the annual cost per student in these programs
to reach $25,000.
o Identification, assessment and educational planning--this is
often a lengthy and expensive step not required for non-
handicapped children.
o Newly mandated procedures-child-find; IEP development; due process;
local planning, record-keeping, and reporting requirements involve
additional costs not required for non-handicapped children.
o Additional staff support and training--specialized staff to
provide direct and indirect assistance to handicapped children,
then parents, teachers and other students and school personnel
and to conduct inservice training are additional cost factors.
o Greater age span-P.L. 94-142 and similar state legislation mandate
special education programs for children ages three to twenty-one,
a larger age range than regular education.
In enumerating these costs, our purpose is certainly not to begrudge these
additional responsibilities but to emphasize the significant expenditures
required in special education, over and above regular education. New York City's
PAGENO="0135"
129
- 10 -
fiscal crisis is by now legendary. A federal district court ruled in Lora vs.
Board of Education that the city's financial plight, however, provides no
excuse for violating the statutory and constitutional rights of emotionally
disturbed students. In discussing this case, a recent American School Board
Journal article reports:
"The court objected to the school system procedures for placing
such students in its `special day schools,' which are largely
segregated. Lack of money is no reason for these practices, even
though the court acknowledged `the inescapable fact that to sp~p~
substantially more on this pupil population may well necessitata
sacrifice~in servicesn~w afforded children in the rest oft~g.
svstem' /emphasis added!. The price tag that comes with the court's
decree has begun to mount, and this includes notifying the children's
parents and the New York City school system's entire professional
staff of students' rights, conducting an inservice training program
in the `bias free mainstreaming' of these children, and providing
an advocacy or ombudsman system for affected parents and children.
In addition to this type of court decree and others which, for example,
require school systems to provide year-round education for handicapped students
when needed, schools' non-compliance with P.L. 94-142 is resulting in numerous
suits being filed against them which will likely mean the loss of added billions
of dollars. One city school system in New York State is being sued for program
deficiencies on behalf of 65 trainable mentally retarded youngsters, and the
award being sought is $1 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in
punitive damages. In urban areas particularly, excessive amounts of staff
time are being spent in court-related activities. Such court cases will
continue to deplete schools' already meager resources. Compounding funding
problems is the fact that the elimination of state revenue sharing has had
the effect of reducing federal aid to education by somewhere in the neighborhood
of $750 million. In some states, auch as Pennsylvania, half of the funds
received through state revenue sharing were used for education of the handicapped.
Because of this, we now not only have no growth in the federal contribution
to special education, we actually have a reduction.
PAGENO="0136"
130
- 11 -
This Cousnittee surely knows the irrationality of expecting local and state
school systems in today's economy to come up with billions of dollars in new
monies to support widely expanded services in special education. We certainly
wish as much as anyone that it could be done. But holding out false hopes and
failing to address rights of handicapped students realistically would, we feel,
be a cruel hoax. To the chagrin of theorists and social thinkers through the
ages, life does not always coincide with reason or dreams. Nor has any institution
been changed overnight. If the federal government is not prepared to rush
substantial life-giving dollars to the P.L. 94-142 mandate, several serious
consequences are possible. First, we fear that the number of disabled children
whose education is actually being diminished as a result of some 94-142 provisions
will continue to grow to alarming proportions. They will lose many benefits won
within special education over the last three-quarters of a century, ironically
in the name of their own civil rights (see attached House testimony, October,
1979 for specific examples). As courts expand their interpretations of an already
broad legislative mandate, schools will either be unable to meet the costs or
will be forced to draw from regular operating budgets. Arguments will made made
that services to handicapped children need only match those offered non-handicapped.
Within the cuv~ent financial trend, both regular and special education could
simk to such levels that public education itself could be undermined.
To those who do not want to address problems in the context of the real
world of the schools, who prefer to let the pot simmer, we offer reminders
that a backlash could seriously damage rights of the handicapped. That the
siusnering pot could explode is evidenced by a New York Times editorial on
July 21, 1980 entitled "Going Wrong with Handicapped Rights" (see Appendix 2).
It maintains that in relation to P.L. 94-142 the federal government has promised
more than it can deliver and that since states and cities must bear the major
portion of the cost, they should be allowed to balance the needs of the
handicapped against the compelling claims of all children. It gosa on to say:
PAGENO="0137"
131
- 12 -
"It is only right to remedy a pattern of neglect. But is is
perverse for Congress and, the courts to define an `appropriate'
education only for the handicapped and to write rules that result in
the deprivation of other children. The allocation of scarce local
resources is necessarily a political matter, best left to local
government. If Washington wants to help, the right way would be
through special education grants that can be used at local discretion.
It is no favor to the handicapped to make them the beneficiaries
of unique rhetorical rights and the object of local resentment.
If the New York Times is prepared to take this stance, consider the emotions
and frustrations fermenting throughout the country. It is this situation
and its likely reaction which makes us so strongly oppose resistance to
opening P.L. 94-142 to close examination. If Congress cannot back up this
mandate with adequate resources, it should be exploring ways of preserving
its intent and perhaps cutting back on unnecessary bureaucratic processes.
Rights need guarantees but guarantees must not be allowed to masquerade for
rights. We feel it is safe to open P.L. 94-142 because of the back-up of
Section 504 and precedents set through various judicial decisions. To begin
with there should be at least a aix-month moratorium on penalties for non-
compliance with P.L. 94-142 to allow SEAs and LEAs to report the true impact
of this legislation. Documentation could be given as to exactly what the
schools had been able to accomplish with their present resources and what
requirements they had not been able to meet and why. Out of such an
examination could come a synthesis which would provide assurances of rights
for handicapped and non-handicapped as well which could be implemented in
the schools without undermining the very foundations of education. Many
forces are operating in the special education arena -- often with conflicting
purposes. Only Congress has the ability to remove emerging roadblocks to
progress and establish sensible means of achieving quality education for
handicapped and non-handicapped students alike.
To begin this process, we believe the IEP requirement should be eliminated
as it has resulted primarily in a reduction of child-teacher contact time.
The cost of this process in terms of education dollars and staff and parental
PAGENO="0138"
132
- 13 -
time is in no way justified by the research reports showing it surrounded by
confusion and resentment. More importantly, it has been shown not only to
be basically unproductive but even detrimental to children's education. In
general, the only parents who seen to benefit from involvement in the IEP
process were those who always have actively pursued their rights in the school
system. In suspending this requirement, studies might be undertaken to explore
reasonable means of assuring individualized educational programs.
At the same time, some steps must be taken to prevent least restrictive
environment placements from being used as a cost-saving device without insuring
that the placement is truly in the best interest of the child, that the receiving
teacher is adequately trained to work effectively with the child and that the
receiving classroom is adequately prepared and equippped. Inservice training
should be required by law for teachers and other school personnel assuming new
roles and responsibilities as a result of least restrictive environment (LRE)
placements. This training must be completed prior to placement. The many
abuses of LEE placements are indicative of the fact that this concept has
little chance of working unless the law is expanded to detail the circumstances
under which a less restrictive placement is appropriate. We refer you to
pp. 9-10 of the attached House testimony for suggestions on what such guidelines
might entail. Furthermore, much more research is needed on how the least
restrictive environment concePt is being implemented in schools throughout the
country and the impact this is having on both handicapped and non-handicapped
children.
We would recommend additional changes in the law including the right of
teachers to initiate the due process mechanism as a child advocate when it
is felt that neither the parents or LEA have acted in the best interest of
the child, nor can they be persuaded to do so; the right of teachers to be
accompanied by counsel who may question and cross-examine witnesses in due
PAGENO="0139"
133
14 -
process hearings (BEN has ruled against this); and a statement prohibiting any
provisions of P.L. 94-142 from violating existing collective bargaining
agreements, as long as these do not infringe on the civil rights of handicapped
persons.
Finally, we call your attention to a glaring loophole in P.L. 94-142.
Although deadlines are affixed to most of its provisions, no mention is made
of a time limit which cannot be exceeded between the time a child is referred
for evaluation and the time that evaluation actually takes place. Not all
states have such time restrictions, and in those that do, they are rarely
enforced. As a result, large numbers of children are lost in the limbo of
referral waiting lists.
In conclusion, we urge Congress to support the rights of handicapped persons
espoused in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act lf 1973 by increasing
appropriations under P.L. 94-142 to several billion dollars. We recommend close
examination of all provisions of P.L. 94-142 and their effects on handicapped
students, non-handicapped students, school and local and state finances, and
public education itself. A utopian outlook which makes no attempt to find
realistic means of plugging theory into actuality must necessarily collapse
in upon itself. That handicapped persons are entitled to a free appropriate
public education need not be utopian or theoretical. It should be fact. The
theoretical premises which must be scrutinized and experimented with are the
avenues by which we can best accomplish this goal. Responsible action will
resolve emerging problems; neglect could make our present problems seem trivial.
PAGENO="0140"
134
TESTIMONY OP
WALTER TICE, VICE PRISIDENT
AHERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO
TO HOUSE SUBCO~fITPEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
ON P.L. 94-142
1019179
PAGENO="0141"
135
1 am Walter Tice, a classroom teacher in Yonkers, New York and vice
president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CI0. On behalf of
the 520,000 teachers, paraprofessionals and other education personnel who
are members of APT, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer
our views before this ~osmittee on P.L. 94-142, The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act.
Because we believe strongly in the right of all handicapped persons to a
free appropriate public education, we supported passage of P.L. 94-162 in
1975. Yet, reservations we expressed at that time about certain aspects of
this law have proven to be well-founded. We would like to use this opportunity
to point out how several sections of the law designed to protect handicapped
student's rights in reality result in just the opposite.
The root problem imderlying the negative effects P.L. 94-142 has had is
insufficient funding. If there were billions of dollars.available to the
schools through this legislation, problems arising iron various requirements
of the law would be overcome. But obviously this is not the case. In its
"Survey of Special Education Costs in Local School Districts: An Assessment
of the Local Impact of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act," the -
National School Boards Association itt June, 1979 reported that local school
district budgets for special education are rising by 14 percent a year as
compared to only a 7 percent per year raise in the i~atructiona1 and
operating budgets. The Committee is no doubt aware that many school systems
were besieged with severe financial problems prior to implementation of
P.L. 94-162. Likewise, you know the public mood is one of maintaining or
cutting back on spending. including education dollars, at both the state
and local levels. This leaves cost school systens~vitb one choice - ne~~
conies needed for special education must come, at l~sst partially, from the
PAGENO="0142"
136
-`2-
regular instructional or operating budget. ~These budgets, especially in
urban areas where the majority of handicapped students are and where special
education Costs are the greatest, in many casas were already pared to the
bone. * . .
While the annual per pupil expenditure for regular education in W~ 1980
will average $1,819, the sane for handicapped pupils is $3,638. The excess
cost contribution to be made by the federal government in fIscal 1980 will
be $218 par child or slightly less. This leaves the L!A to find, on the
average, an extra $1600 per handicapped student. These averages don't
take into consideration the added costs of due process hearings, transportation,
and additional staff tine. .
Here we want to point out very clearly that we are not suggesting that
full educational services as mandated by P.L. 94-142 should be withdrawn frota
handicapped persozi~s. On the contrary, we want to maintain such services but
eliminate requirements which serve to diminish the quality of education
provided both handicapped and mon-handicapped students.
As you will see fran the policy resolution attached which was passed at
our 1979 convention, the 2500 delegates who attended called for modifications
in P.1.. 94-142 which would first provide adequate federal monies to meet
the new mandate; second, eliminate the TIP process which has only resulted
in further reducing child-teacher contact time; and third, ~revent least
restrictive environment placements from being used as a cost-saving device
without insuring that the receiving teacher is adequately trained or informed
or the receiving classroom adequately prepared and equipped. We would like
to expand on these last two problems.
IEP
A 1978 AFT convention resolution calls for legislation that will remove
the "onerous mandate" of individualized education prograna and "allow teachers,
PAGENO="0143"
137
-3-
as-professionals, to plan appropriate educaticr.a]. activities for the children
in their classes." Does this mean teachers do not want to teach handicapped
children or that they do not want to individualize instruction or that they do
not want parents to know whether their children are receiving appropriate
services? Of course not. The IEP is a vary fine sounding proposal which.
looks nice on paper but when actually Implemented in the schools becomes a
nightmarish disaster.
If you so desired, we could submit an extensive list of problems associated
with development of IEPs. But let us refer you to the IEP section in the
"Case Study of the Izsplenentation of P.L. 94-142" prepared for BEH by
Charles L. Blascke at Education Turnkey Systems, Inc. This study reported
that IEPs for the most part are developed around learning activities which
cam be most easily provided; the time teachers spend writing IEPs is significant,
as is the time theteacherspends in revising the TEP when, as is often the
case, the teacher who implements the lEE' is not the one who wrote it; parental
involvement in most instances is limited to attendance and approval, with little
interaction on the development of specific instructional programs; many parents
feel intimidated by LEA staff or feel the process is too complex; and the IEP
meeting has become essentially a formal macbantam for complying with the law
rather than for informing and involving parents.
If schools could hire as much personnel as needed, the IEP process might
create no problem. But it is usually 4eachers who must make the parental
contacts (this may involve numerous phone calls and even visits to their
homes), who usually must write up a tentative IEP prior to the meeting, who
often have to leave their classrooms to attend such meetings, and who then
write up the final IEP. The effect on instructional contact time with
children, teacher planning tine and teacher morale is devastating. Consider
a speech and hearing therapist. This teacher used to have an average caseload
PAGENO="0144"
138
of 60 to 80 students. With increasing numbers of handicapped children being
identified but a shortage of funds for necessary personnel, this caseload
may now go over 125. The teacher therefore is involved in developing and/or
reviewing tEPs for 125 children. It is not bard to imagine how all, of the
duties associated with getting an IEP ready for even one child involves
substantial tine but now multiply this by 12.5 or even 60. Yes, this is
certainly difficult for the teacher but imagine how much time the teacher
actually has to work with children. They receive the least and the worst
from the IEP process, no matter how ironic this nay seem.
We must therefore recoiend that the present IEP process be deleted from
P.L. 94-142 or at least suspended until Congress can conduct a thorough
investigation into the effect it is actually having on the education of
handicapped children.
There possibly is an ilternative which would allow the IEP process to work
but it would be expensive and those funds would have to be provided by the
federal government. The It? process might accomplish its goal if it were
required by law that: .
1) All parental contacts required to set up XE? meetings were to be
made by administrators and not by teachers, counselors,
psychologists or other support personnel whose time should
be devoted to working with children;
2) Special personnel be hired to attend XE? meetings and write up
the individualized programs agreed to by the participating
parties;
3) Teachers be provided with an additional preparation period during
which XE? meetings can be held so as not to have these meetings
keeping teachers out of the classroon and lessening the time they -
PAGENO="0145"
139
-5-
spend in instruction (teachers could also use this time for
consultation with support personnel a~d inservice education
which are so sorely needed);
4) Administrators may not, discourage teachers from listing on
the XE? services, resources or equiprnent neede4 by a child
simply because of their cost;
5) Teachers may challenge the effectiveness or appropriateness
of an XE? for a child through the due process mechanism;
6) Every teacher will be guaranteed inservice education by the. LEA.
on bow to write an XE?;
7) lEt's clearly do not hold teachers liable if students do not
attain the established goals;
8) The XE? is to be a brief, general statement of annual goals
for a child, outlining various developmental skills or levels
which the child will hopefully accocplish or reach. (Short-terjn
instructional objectives should be deleted from the XE? as these
must be. flexible and should not requIre reassembling the XE?
planning group each time a minor change is determined to be
needed in a child's programs).
If the above conditions were to be established by law and supplemented - -
by appropriate funding, the XE? process would be workable. Otherwise, it
will continue simply to deprive children of instructional time, and the time
they do have with the teacher will, despite the window dressing of the XE?,
be much more poorly planned. Although our list of eight conditions frequently
mentions teachers and support ,personntl, a careful reading will show each
of these affects the quality of services provIded £hildren, not the self-
interest of teachers.
68-332 0 - 81 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
140
-6--
Finally, we reiterate on this topic that we are asking for a suspension,
deletion or revision of the XE? section in P.L. 94-142 because our members,
regardless of the size of their school system, have consistently and with
great concern reported that the XE? process is simply resulting in less
education for handicapped children and increasing frustration for parents
sod school personnel.
Least Restrictive Environment Placements
Confusion over the meaning of this concept, as well as scarce dollars
in a tine of rapidly expanding special education costs, has led to abuse of
least restrictive environment placements. Hera again, A7r fully supports the
concept of the least restrictive environment placement (often referred to as
mainstreaming) for some children when done under the proper conditions.
Despite the fact that there is no research to show that such placement is
effective (see 1a~e~t comprehensive study on thls subject done for HER by
Wynne Associates in 1975), we support the idea on philosophical grounds.
It makes sense that if a child can function effectively in a less restrictive
environment, he or she should be able to go on to live a fuller, more normal
life.
Yet the desperate financial condition of the schools has made a Dr. Jekyll
and Hr. Hyde out of this requirement also. ~e have already cited in this
testimony the fact that the average cost of special education is at least twice
that of regular education. Normally, the more "restrictive" the education, the
more expensive. Couple a situation of too few dollars with.a law encouraging
placement of handicapped children in least restrictive environments which just
happen to be successively less expensive and imagine what is happening out
there in the schools.
Not only art the parties involved in the It? process usually totally
ignorant of what the It? is and how to do one, but the LRE requirement has
PAGENO="0147"
141
created many new roles for school personnel and in an overwhelming majority
of cases, no inservice education has been provided. You nay be startled to
know that in almost all workshops related to P.L. 94-142 which we do around
the country for teachers, paraprofessionals,. counselors and psychologists,
it is the first and only inservice they have received.
Can this be said to be those edwcators' self-interest also - that
they should be crying for inservice education? Here too it is children who
are suffering. The special education teacher's role has changed; they are
shifted to new responsibilities as more and more handicapped children are
identified and enrolled in the schools. That the special education teacher
can teach any handicapped child is a misconception. They specialize in
various areas and the teacher who has been working with educable mentally
retarded children may need extensive inservice training before being
competent to work with trainable mentally retarded children. There are.znany
other examples, all of which are envidenced by the growing divisions and
strictures on certification within areas of special education. Also, as
larger numbers of children are "tnainstreatned," special education teachers are
increasingly assigned to resource rooms. Two problems are comon in this
instance. Often the number of children the resource room teacher works with
has risen to the point where the teacher can hardly give the individualized
instruction intended, let alone help other teachers plan activities, lessons,
and materials to be used with .mainstreamed children. Even when there is tine
for this type of consultation, the resource room teacher who has not been
trained to work with adults and received no inservice for this new role of ten*
is therefore ineffective. Regular teachers suffer even more by the lack of
inservice training and the almost total lack of accessibility to support
personnel.
PAGENO="0148"
142
a -.
Once ~re it is children who suffer. By the mid-1970s when P.L. 94-142
was implemented, there were many flaws in spec~al education which led us all
to support this law in the hope they would be corrected. Part of this goal.
has been accomplished. Testing procedures are improving, although the schools
still do not have nearly enough testing specialists, diagnosticians,
psychologists or counselors and although there is still no law or regulation
which prevents an inordinate amount of time to go by between the time of
referral and actual testing and diagnosis. Children should now have a better
chance of "graduating" from the special educatfon program into the regular
one because of the reevaluation required at least once every three years.
Yet despite its faults, special education in the mid-70s was, a highly
developed, specialized field, and the sophistication of services to handicapped
children was growing by leaps and bounds. Nov1 after inplementation of
P.L. 94-142, you 1~ave a situation in which most teachers feel, inadequately
trained to work with children given to their care or feel that they cannot
do so effectively in the environment or settiag or with the insufficient
resources provided then. If teachers and other school personnel were an
insensitive and uncaring lot, we could ignore this situation, stick these
children in a corner somewhere and go about ou~ business. Indeed the attitude
of BEt and some advocacy groups has been that the law should not be touched
for at least three or four years in the hopes that its bugs will work themselves
out. But we who see these children's faces day in and day out, who know
their dreams, their joys, their setbacks, we can not in good conscience
sit back and see these hundreds of thousands of children used as guinea pigs.
We implore this Committee not to be drawn down this avenue.
Instead, the least restrictive environment placement provision of
P.L. 94-142 should be expanded to allow placeant of a child in a less
restrictive environment only if:
PAGENO="0149"
143
1) Receiving personnel, including teachers and paraprofessiOflals
in special or regular education, have been informed of such
placement and provided inservice training to enable them to
work effectively with the child prior to placecent;
2) The child's emotional, social and physical veil-being are.
considered in addition to cognitive benefits in determining
the placement of the child;
3) The LE~ has assured availability of adapted resources; instruction
on how to use them, if necessary; and access to support
personnel, as needed;
* 4) The child's health and safety are guaranteed in the new placement
* situation;
5) School pezsonnel ~are free of all liability which might result
from a less restrictive environment placement which requires
them to perform new or non-educational tasks;
6) Transitional programs are available to handicapped children,
non-handicapped children or school personnel whenever needed,
prior to placement;
7) Children can perform within the normally expected ranges of.
achievement within the placement setting;
8) Certified special education teachers and support personnel are
available in anple numbers to assure that "special attention"
can follow the handicapped child into the less restrictive
setting;
9) Teachers have regularly scheduled release time for consultations
* with support personnel, whenever needed;
PAGENO="0150"
144
- 10 -
* 10) Scheduling of the educational progra.~ and buses conforms
to individual needs of handicapped children and not vice-versa;
11) Assurances are given that regular class sizes will be reduced
if special education students are assigned to them, that no
more than three handicapped children `jill be placed ~n any
one regular cleasroota to prevent potential for abuse, and
that special education maximum class sizes not beexceecled;
12) It is recognized by all SEAs and T$.&S that a less restrictive
environment for many students, as opposed to a traditional
setting, would be unproductive;
13) Safeguards exist to assure that funds designated for special
education follow the child, even if in a less restrictive
environment.
If the above mandates cannot be set by la., the present practice itt
growing numbers of school systems of "wholesale nainstreaming" could
eventually progress to the~ point that we have ancomplished little more than
tearing down a system of special education it took this entire century to
build, without replacing it with anything better. Perhaps we should keep in
mind Rorace Nann' a warning that "one former is worth a thousand reformers."
We suggest that in this case also Congress would benefit from a careful
investigation of how the least restrictive environment requirement is being
implemented in schools throughout the country and, the impact this is having
on handicapped and non-handicapped children alike.
Reports to us from our membership in the s:hools indicate that the schools
have been unable to obtain the monies needed to meet P.1. 94-142's mandate,
that consequeutly there are extensive abuses of the law and a massive cover-up
PAGENO="0151"
145
- 11 -
of these abuses by school boards and administrators. It must be remembered,
however, that if they were to coma forward w1:~ the true but tragic picture
of what is going on in the schools as a result of P.L. 94-142, they would
open themselves up to innumerable law suits,.as veil as to a cut-off of
desperately needed federal funds. Perhaps a 6-month vor&toriuin on non-
compliance penalties should be called to allow SEAs and LEAs to report: to
Congress the true impact of this legislation. If the consequences of P.L. 94-142
are not seriously studied and its strengths a.d weaknesses documented, many
children -- handicapped and non-handicapped - will be denied a decent educa-
tion. In these times, this is hardly a viable option. Congress must also
reevaluate its comnitment to education of handIcapped children in terms of
the paucity of funding offered to back up this much needed commitment.
We would recommend additional changes in the law including the right of
teachers to initiate the due process mechanist as a child advocate when it is
faic the parents or LEA have not acted in the best interest of the child and
canr.ot be persuaded to do so; the right of teachers to be accompanied by*
counsel who nay question -and cross-examine witflesses in duc. process hearings
(BEll has ruled against this); and a statement prohibiting any provisions of
P.L. 94-142 from violating existing collective bargaining agreements, as long
es these do not infringe on the civil rights of handicapped persons.
We could give many more examples of problems associated with P.L. 94-142
but. this would involve submitting testimony of excessive length. For this
reason, we ask for a thorough investigation of the law's impact in the schools
and an opportunity to meet with committee staff at some future time to discuss
v.i:icus aspects of the law and how they are arrually affecting children in
the schools.
PAGENO="0152"
146
12 -.
We have discussed here the viajor weaknesses of P.L. 94-142 in the hope
that they can be overcome so that our mutual goal, the provision of a free
appropriate public education to all handicapped childre2, can become a reality
not a paper pipedream. Thank you for this opportunity to express our views.
PAGENO="0153"
147
AFT Policy Resolution
1979 Convention
1% 94.142
WHEREAS, the APr supports the cb~ective of pro-
viding effective educational ser'lces to handi-
capped children contained In PL 94-142, and
WEEREAS, PL 94-142 (The Handicapped Chfl-
d.rert's Act) and the federal reg'.~iatIons created
by H.E~W. to enlorceit have crea~d federal man-
dates on state and local school districts which
have required the expansion or expensive ser-
vices to handicapped Children without supplying
adequate funding thereby frequently
- necessitating serious cut-backs in services to
non-handicapped children, and
WHEREAS, the complicated and time-consuming.
processes required by PL 94-142 have Increased
paper-;~ork time for teachers, counselors and
parapro(esslonals and have resulted in the
reduction of child-contact time, and
WHEREAS, the. "least restrictive environment"
mandate has resulted In the wholesale
mainstreaming of handicapped children
without insuring that teachers into whose
classes the students are placed are adequately
informed regarding the placement or adequately
trained prior to the placement, and
WBER.EAS, the wholesale mainstr-earntngofhandi-
~ëapped children created by PL 94-142 has been
beneficial to some children It has been educa-
tionally and emotionally harrr!ul to other han-
dicapped and non-handicapped children, and
WHEREAS, such serious harm is being done at
this time by the Improper implementation of PL
94-142 and Its regulations;
~IESOLVED, that the APr, while continuing to sup-
port the objective of providing effective educa-
tional services to handicapped children, works
to modify the provisions of PL 94-142 and its
regulations In order to end the serious problems
stated above, and
BESOLV~D, that the APr notify the above agencies
of government that immediate investigation of
these conditions and action to correct them
* should be taken within a short period of time,
and
RESOLVED, that, in the event that corrective ac-
tion Is not taken within a short period of
timne,the American ~`ederation of Teachers shall
seek federal legislation to suspend imrnetliately
further implementation of the mandates of PL
94.142, in respect to the matters stated above,
while local school programs for handicapped
children and the federal moneys adhering to
these programs continue, until
PAGENO="0154"
148
PL 94-142 (coot.)
1. The federal government prc;!des every dollar
of new moneys needed to implanent the federal
mandates.
2. AU teachers and paraprofeaslonals who are or
will be teaching main~treamed students have the
opportunity to complete the necessary profes.
slonal Inssrvlce training.
3. A study on the full effects of ?I. 94~3.42 on
handicapped students and non~handIca;p.d
students and its Impact onthe strnctures of slate
end local school district financing be conducted
and made available to Congress before It acts to
restor, the Yl. 94.142 mandates. (1979)
PAGENO="0155"
149
APPENDIX I
PrM_tJi~LkP2ri~
For A Study of Teacher Concerns
With PL 94-142
~red For:
Bureau For Education of the Handicapped
(State Program Studies Branch)
DHEW
ft!par&d~1:
Roy Litt~ejohn Associates, Inc.
1328 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
October 6, 1978
PAGENO="0156"
150
V. lessons Learned and flecon~aendations
Before attampting to summarize some of the lessons learned by this study and
formulate recomendatlons for the future, our own role and perspective needs to
be clarified. Several points may serve to explain the role we adopted in under-
taking this study, at first pointing out the position we did not adopt and finally
stating the position we have chosen.
o We have not attempted to be the advocates
of the teachers themselves.
* Nor have we attempted to be advocates of the law and its
formulators, or of maintaining the law in any given form.
o And we have not been the agents of BEH attempting to insure
compliance with P1 94-142.
Our study was not a part of any auditing process emanating from BEH. At the
same time, we have avoided being the~advocates of teachers and their problems
with "management" at any level -- since, if for no other reason, the problems
and organized political positions of teachers are quite diverse around the country.
That, then, has been our orientation and our rola i~ this acCion-orie~i2d st~!dy?
* We have attempted to be the advocates of ~~jja teachers'
concern~y~jth P1 94-142 heard, listened to~ and th~~cJji~-
fully consi as further efforts at implementation
proceed.
Thus if It appears that our reporting is biased from th~ teachers' vicwpoint,
and often seems to come down harshly on "management' (without giving the latter
uequal time"), we admit to this fault -- because the purpose of the study was to
discover and air "teacher concerns." It should also be pointed out that what we
V-l
PAGENO="0157"
151
V-2
have reported are thej~erce2jlons of situations expressed by teachers, and no ef-
fort has been made (except almost incidentally at times) to "correct" those per-
ceptions on the basis of other information.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that we did not have to be advocates of
the new law or of mainstreaming and improved educational services for the handi-
capped. Many of the teachers contacted were strong advocates of that law, even
more were in favor of mainstreaming, and almost all favored improved education for
the handicapped (although not all put the same -- or highest -- priority on that
goal).
Finally, our own position on changes in the law is entirely neutral. PL 94-142
Is the law under which BEH now administers funds; but our function was not to de-
fend or justify the law's provisions, nor conversely to probe for problems with a
view to undermining the law.
With this position stated, it should then be noted (in anticipating the form
of our recommendations) that we are avoiding suggesting specific changes in the
law. In truth, far more important at present are clarifications and the examina-
tion of allowable variations.
We obtained many recommendations from the teachers contacted. In some instances
these were systematically spelled out -- for example, by the discussion group in
Eastern Metropolis -- and came close to representing a position on the law by poli-
tical spokespersons. In our own recommendations we have avoided, for the most part,
the type of specific suggestions proposed by such teacher groups. Instead, we have
attempted to speak to strategies and future lines of action that can begin to mx-
PAGENO="0158"
152
V-3
periment with the specific kinds of changes advocated by those groups. However,
in a few instances we have found specific recommendations of teachers to be in-
sightful enough and of such general applicability that we have incorporated them
Into our recommended strategies.
Important Lessons
None of the members of the research team has been a practicing educator in
the public schools of the United States in recent years. None is an expert in
the education of the handicapped, in mainstrearning, or in the provisions of PL 94-
142 and their rationale. Therefore, some of the lessons learned by the team may
be common knowledge among those more expert and experienced. Nevertheless we
present them as a backdrop to our recommendations.
* Priorities of teachers are heavily weighted by their sense of professional
values and knowledge of professionalpractices. Bargaining for time and assistance
to cope with new responsibilities is partly -- if not totally -- a matter of this
Identification with a value system. As in any institution and profession, of
course blinders and. recalcitrance to change are to be expected. But cooperation,
not coercion, is most frequently cited by teachers as the key to fostering man-
dated change. This approach proceeds from the assumption that professionals do
not have to be forced to change their ways if groups of people are working to-
gether to achieve professional goals.
* Information about PL 94-142 has spread with great unevenness, not only
across different States and LEAs, but within LEAs. And even where information
has been provided and assimilated, there are many unanswered questions being asked
and many requests for interpretations of the law being posed.
PAGENO="0159"
153
V-4
o LEAs vary greatly in their facilitation of communication and in their
~upport of teams of teachers working together on educational problems at the build-
ing level. And schools -- buildings -- also vary greatly in this regard.
o LEAs vary - as do schools - in the ways they facilitate working relation-
ships between regular ed and special ad teachers. Some have sub-district arrange-
ments for crucial services; some are highly centralized in coordinating specialed
personnel and servicJs; others are highly decentralized in emphasizing organization
of special ed service~ and relationships between regular and special ed at the build-
ing level.
O Priorities for, and experiences with, educating the handicapped, and
experience with mainstreaming, vary greatly across States and LEAs in the country --
and within LEAs, across schonis. Some States have laws which predate PL 94-142
and which mandate educational rights of the handicapped and efforts to provide
their education in nonsegregated sethngs. Other States are only beginning to
dra.ft such legislation, under impetus provided by PL 94-142.
o In the first year of implementation, there was tremendous variability in
the involvement by teachers -- and in the pressures they felt -- in assisting their
LEAs and their schools to achieve compliance with PL 94-142. Even more, there was
great variability in the pressures felt by special ed and regular ed personnel; and
for the most part special ed felt the greatest impact on their day-to-day function-
ing in the first year of implementation.
a An audit process, always necessary in some form where financial account-
ability is involved, can generate forces that (at least in the eyes of the teachers
feeling the greatest impact) can hinder and weaken resources for education of the
PAGENO="0160"
154
V-5
handicapped. Moreover, `audit' and `compliance' have different meanings and prior-
ities for LEA administrators (worrying about program budgets) than for teachers at-
tempting to deliver in the educational process while prompting themselves to question
old ways and try fleet ones. The impact of an audit on the service-delivery level
(i.e., "on the line") needs to be stronqiy considered as its requirements and pro-
cedures -- and time dimensions -- are defined.
o (A "lesson" based on our own judgment as professional action-researchers.)
A law which defines rights of a target group and which also cells for neu and far-
reaching responsibilities from another group, should speak to the rights of all
responsible parties. Teachers are not sure what "rights' go along with their rmo-
ponsibilities under PL 94-142. In the first year of implementation, their questions
in this regard were not being answered to their satisfaction.
Recommendations
During the course of the field work a number of interesting ideas were un-
covered on future steps for implementing PL 94-142. The recommendations on future
strategy we are presenting have in common the assumptions that:
a Beyond our present airing of `Voices from the Classroom,"
teachers should continue to be heard and called upon for
their knowledge and experierce as planning and action
proceed.
a Future steps should be conducted in the spirit of, and
with procedures that pe,-ui t, coot wed learning about
educating the hindicapped in the "least restrictive en-
vironment" and the application of this knowledge iii build-
ings and classrooms around the country.
PAGENO="0161"
155
V-6
1. CreateaForunforteildi ng Kno~ and S~ri~~periences
Teachers nanifestec! a great desire, not only to be heard, but to hear
from others like therselves -- to learn what is happening among their peers as prob-
lems of mainstreaning are addressed. They felt strongly that most orientation work-
shops on PL 94-112 had not gotten to the teacher level. But this complaint was only
the tip of the iceterg. For r'nny teachers wanted to be called upon in the future
to share more than their concerns. They wanted to share lessors they are learning
through classrooro and Liui1dir~j - level experiences with mainstreancing and with meet-
ing the requirecets of FL 94-142.
We reconheerd that a project be instituted by BEll which would: (1) identify
(one regional basis) exemplary classrucm:/building experiences with mainstreaming;
(2) invite up to 30 teachers free a region to appear and share their experiences at
a 2- or 3-day regional workshop or retreat; (3) conduct 4 such regional workshops
around the country; (4) docu;r~nt the v:orkshops and disseminate this documentation;
(5) instruct participants to follow throug!i in their LEAs by caking efforts to share
the workshop experience with their peers. In various LEAs, we heard the following
additional thoughts en this basic idea:
o Call on several people free the same building to attend --
so that exemplary total-school programs are represented.
o But he sure to i ccl ide i di vidual teachers, making cx-
employ contrihutions, cdco teach in less exemplary
schools.
* And don't overlook individual teachers in most difficult
and isolated settings who cave a strong desire to learn
hoc: to meet the requirements of PL 94-142.
68-332 0 - 81 - 11
PAGENO="0162"
156
V-7
The specific next-step project proposed would be only a first building-
block in the development of an ongoing network of forums for developing and dissemi-
nating grass~roo~s :noaledgc rec~arding maihstreawing a!1o~g teachers, schools arc: L.'~s
across the country.
2. Create a Teachers' Review Body at The LEA Level
In the implementation of the law, a condition has developed which fosters
largely ad~inistrative interpretations of compliance requirements. At the same time,
State and LEA administrators are not clear what the law implies or requires in many
areas; but as local policies are established and effected, the teachers' perspectives
are not adequately considered. We recommend that BEll sanction and support be given
to the creation of a teachers' review committee, addressing problems of implementa-
tion, in every LEA. A Teacher Review Body (committee or board) need not have dicta-
torial or policy-veto powers in order,to have a positive influence on the climate
for implementation in LEAs. It can ensure that as policies are formed on IEPs,
record-keeping, diagnosis... -- all areas of policy impacting on special and regular
ed teacher roles, and especially on existing teams jr buildings -- the teachers'
perspectives and professional values are recognized.
Even military organizations have instituted procedures for grass-roots
inputs on problems of morale etc. -- procedures which ensure that information on
perceived p~g~lcms is dcl ivered from company level to corps level (in spite of the
implied threat to coui:ianders in between).* And educational institutions should he
far less ommand-control systems than military organizations are.
* At. least this was true during Korean War clays, when one of the authors of this report
served on a "feedback" body -- providing jnfonaation which, admittedly, "blew the minds"
of battalion and regimental commanders, since, of course, there could be no problems in
their units.
PAGENO="0163"
157
v-c
We recommend that each building in an LEA have a representative to such a
body. However, an elected executive committee of the Teacher Review Body might be
the smaller group actually meeting to review pressing issues (while building reps
would be responsible for delivering information to the smaller body).
3. Create Re~yional Assistance Teanis
We recommend that a national effort be undertaken to provide substantive
assistance on a regional basis in specific problem areas identified with PL 9'~-ll2.
Because of existing, and potential future, unevenness in State efforts at dissciii-
nating information, preparing for training etc., we believe this assistance should
be organized on a regional basis. It may benefit from, and tap the resources of,
the effort proposed under Recommendation #1; hut a separate effort to provide regfonal
assistance in crucial problem areas should be instituted by DElI. Assistance sLould
be directed to both State and LEA levels but should be concentrated on the tEAs.
Problems addressed should include:
o Training regular ed teachers for new responsibilities
in mainstreami ng (developing curriculum mud/or deliver-
ing training).
* Re-training special ed teachers.... (developing curriculum
and/or delivering training).
* Assisting rith IFP procedures (and assisting LEA efforts
to develop efficient and effective IEP procedures).
4. Develop and Disseninate Guidel inos on Documentation and IEF Procedures
`While technical assistance with the codcrete problems of implementation is
provided at the regional level, we recoirinend that BEll proceed at the national level
PAGENO="0164"
158 -
V-9
to develop materials (which nay be applied and delivered by regional personnel, as
well as otherwise dissc-;ninetcd) to guide LEAs in facing the formidable problem of
the IEP and its documentation. This effort should not be dictatorial or lead to a
standard federal package. In fact, many LEAs have record-keeping systems and pro-
cedures for lEE's which they may wish to share as contributions to national guide-
lines; and any external guidelines must be compatible with State and local systems.
But many more LEAs doubtless would welcome an effort by outsiders to give structure
to IEP procedures with a view to making them efficient, effective and minimally time-
consuming.
5. Create a Review Office at the National Level
A law once on the hooks means whatever judges and courts -- right up to the
highest tribunal -- say it means. But this does not mean that the administrators of
a law should abdicate their responsibilities for continuing to interpret its nandates.
At present, many teachers feel they are being abandoned by fellow educational pro-
fessionals, at the local, State and Federal lvels, as administrative imperatives,
along with the rulings of judges, dominate the drama of implementation. In Eastern
Metropolis the feel ing was strong that the professional knowledge and experience of
teachers was given no consideration whatsoever as iivplei:entation of PL g4-142 pro-
ceeded. They felt that teachers on the 1 inc could not find a sympathetic profes-
sional ear at BEll since that agency currently was allowing the law to find its course
in legal actions.
We recommend that a National Review Office be esteblished by CEH to continue
to weigh implications of the law, consider important issues and ongoing controversius,
and publish current positions regarding interpretations. Although this office need
PAGENO="0165"
159
v-b
not be a part of BEH itself, it should be supported by that agency and sanctioned
to develop positions that will be used by BEH in monitoring compliance. This Na-
tional Review Office should be continually informed by the information and knowledge
being developedand shared through the network advocated in Recommendation #1.
Reviewing some of the specific problem areas cited by teachers, and es-
pecially by the teacher discussion group in Eastern t~etropolis~ some of the priority
problems this office should review in early implementation phases are:
o The definition of least restrictive" (developing guide-
lines for permissible variability).
* Necessary staff development and staff supplementation
(developing guidelines for this requirement).
o Optional approaches to meeting problems of increased
workl oads.
* Teacher participation in the IEP (guidelines for per-
missible variability).
o Due process for teachers: a national professional position
from BEH regerding the rights of teachers under PL 94-142.
The Review Office should not, in our view, be constituted to receive and
formulate interpretations of State and local problems of compliance on a case by
case basis. But it should prepare for wide distribution interpretive guidelines
which will be used when audits do take place; and these periodically updated guide-
lines should be inforiied constantly by what is happening in implementation (the pri-
ority problems; the varied local interpretations) in LEAs throughout the country.
PAGENO="0166"
160
v-il
Our Federal system sanctions tremendous flexibility as national laws are
enacted and then catalyze varied actions in the diverse states and localities of our
nation. . In effect, properly functioning, our system allows us to learn from one an-
other as the general mandates of laws are translated into myriad experiments in
achieving common goals. Therefore, we are not proposing future actions that will
standardize and rigidify the requirements for implementing PL 94-142. We are reco-
mending procedures that will promote a rich and open learning process with regard
to mainstreaming in education of the handicapped. And we are also recommending pro-
cedures that will promote the development and exercise of responsible leadership in
this pursuit. Finally, we wish to see teachers from the classroom drawn into that
open learning process and into that exercise of leadership.
PAGENO="0167"
ll~ YORK TD~S
July 21, 1980
It sounds humane for a Federal Appeals Court to
iiilB that the schools in PeeksP.ilI, N.Y., are legally
obliged toprovidea personal sign.ia.uguagelnterpreter
for a bright partly deaf 8-year-oLd pupil. But even the
judges who so read the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975 recoiled front the precedent; they
were not yet saying c_'L deaf children, they insisted.
Maybe not. The trend. however, Is alarmingly clear. A
humane Federal benefit is turning into a constitutional
sight and into a staee*r.d local educational obligation,
with no sign that the Federal Government means to
payforwhatit decrees.
Federal laws and court decisions have not only
endowed the bandicaped with a right to free school.
ing. They have gone a long way toward prescribing
the kind of education that this right entaiis. Under
Federal mandates, New YorkCity's outlays forspeclal
education have already doubled, to $300 million a
year; special educaton's share of Georgia's annual
budget has jumped front 7 to 12 percent. The financial
problem is contpc'.indad whenthe Federal courts, as In
New York, also bIc~ state attempts to tighten the
definitionsof handicapped.
0
The education system has long neglectedhandi.
capped children. A study by the Carnegie Council on
Children, "The Ur.axpected Minority," found young.
sters with learning disabilities to be woefully rnisclas.
rifled as igr'.orant Cr unable to learn. It found most
traditional special education courses to be unsuitable
orinadequate.
In the early 19~'0's, the Federal courts held that
handicapped children had a right to the same public
educationas the r.onhandicapped. In 1975, Congressen-
larged that sight by requiting education for the handi.
capped to be free and "appropriate." To qualify for
publiceducation aid, school districts had to devise 1r~di.
vidual programs of instruction for disabled youngsters
and to arrange, to the extent possible, for them to be
taughtalongsidetheir"normal" peers.
In reluctantly signing that bill, President Ford
warned that it "promises more than the Federal Coy.
ernment can deliver." And he was right. The legisla.
tion contemplated that by now Washington would be
paying nearly 40 percent of the added costs; actual ap.
propriations coveronly 12 percent. The fact that actual
Federal expenditures for the handicapped rose from
$100 million In 1975 to $862 million in ISSO is little conso.
lationto financiallystrappedlocai governments.
Obviously, handicapped children are entitled to the
best possible public Instruction. But the nature of that
instruction, like that of all children, ought to be deter-
mined locally. States and cities bear the major portion
of the cost and they must balance the needs of the
handicapped against the compelling claims of all chil.
dren, including medically sound youngsters who none-
theless have problems with learning, alienated young.
sterswhodrop out, hlghschool studentswho are Ill.pre.
pared for jobs. They, too, could use individual atten.
tlon, smailclasses, more guidance, bettertextbooks.
Itis only tight to remedy a pattern of neglect. But
it is perverse for Congress and the courts to define an
"appropriate" education only for the handicapped and
to write rules that result in the deprivation of other
children. The allocation of scarce local resources is
necessarily a political matter, best left to local govern.
ment. If Washington wants to help, the sight way would
be through special education grants that can be used at
local discretion. It is no favor to the handicapped to
make theta the beneficiaries of unique rhetorical rights
andtheobjectof local resentment.
161
APPENDIX II
Going Wrong With Handiôàpped Rights
PAGENO="0168"
162
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFL-CIO
1. In your testimony, you mentioned. that the only way for P.L. 94-142 to work in its
present form would be with massive infusion of additional Federal funds totalling
several billions of dollars. What amount do you consider appropriate?
As you note in your first question, AFt believes that a massive infusion of Federal
funds amounting to several billion dollars would be necessary for P.1. 94-142 to work, as
now written. Although this year's appropriation is nearly $1 billion, programmatic needs
necessary to meet this law's mandate are at least three to four times greater than what
is possible with present funds. We can make this estimate on the knowledge that the
current twelve percent funding level does not come close to:
o Making sure all personnel now working with handicapped children are adequately trained
to do so effectively;
o Allowing transitional programs and adapted materials in less restrictive environments
when needed;
o Guaranteeing staff facilities and equipment required to provide programmatic and related
services as needed for as long as needed--in some instances year-round;
o Assuring comprehensive evaluations of all children referred for special education;
o Assuring due process inquiries will not be avoided because of the cost involved.
This list could be greatly expanded. When P. L. 94-142 was originally passed, the forty
percent authorization level, which we should have reached by now, indicates that its sponsors
and supporters also recognized that its cost would be $3 to $4 billion.
2. You suggest the elimination of the IEP requirement. Since one of the major themes in
P.1. 94-142 is the individualization of instruction, what would you suggest to replace
the IEP?
In our testimony we said our first choice would be a Federal funding level of several
billion dollars for P.L. 94-142 which would allow the schools to fully implement the law's
requirement, including the IEP process. Without this funding, however, the IEP provision,
for one, will actually diminish individualization. Instructional and therapeutic time with
children is now in many instances less than before because of all the staff time spent in
creating theoretical individualization on paper. We suggest this pretense in the form of
present IEP procedures be abolished, that schools be required to individualize instruction
for disabled students just as they should. for any other child and that a committee be formed
to study the extensive literature on individualization which exists and bring recommendations
to Congress in a period of from six months to one year.
At some point it will be discovered that paper and meetings don't guarantee individuali-
zation. More important are reasonable class sizes; adequate support servi4es and access to
support personnel as needed; adapted resources; teacher planning time; and opportunities for
good inservice education, in such areas as diagnostic and prescriptive techniques. You
cannot legislate individualization; you oust create the conditions which allow it.
3. What sort of time limits would you suggest between referral for evaluation and when the
actual evaluation takes place?
The time between referral for evaluation and the time evaluation takes place should be
no longer t~han 30 days. If a child indeed needs special education services, this means 60
days could pass before a child is placed because 30 days are allowed between evaluation,
development of the IEP and placement. Even these timelines cause a child to miss two months
of appropriate educational services.
PAGENO="0169"
163
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you. We really appreciate your being
here.
This Committee does intend to make changes, as indicated in
Public Law 94-142. If that were not our intent, we would not have
bothered with this long series of hearings that we have and the
hearings that we yet propose to have for the administration.
Your comments will be helpful, even those in connection with
IEP which, frankly, was a Stafford idea to start with. If it does not
work, we will drop it, as you say, or we will modify it to try to
make it work. We want the education of handicapped children to
be as good and to be as effective as the Nation can make it.
Our Supreme Court told us we have to do that anyway. We want
to do it as well as we possibly can. This is a hard time to get more
money, but Senator Randolph and I always try to get as much
money for the handicapped programs as we can convince our col-
leagues to let us have. We will keep on doing that.
We may have some questions, almost certainly we will, but
facing our time constraints, if it is agreeable to you, we will submit
them to you in writing and ask that you submit them in writing.
Do either of your colleagues have anything that they wish to
add?
Ms. RAUTH. I do not want to take up your time.
I do want to say that, having traveled throughout the country
about the last 3 years, meetings with teachers in workshops, infor-
mal meetings and so forth, and hearing their remarks, I want to
point out that the questions they raise are not primarily the teach-
er rights issues. They are concerned with what is happening in
terms of the quality of education of the children they are working
with in their classrooms. They feel that it has been very definitely
diminished; they feel a terrible mistake has been made, and they
are waiting for some direction, for someone to find out what is
really going on in their schools. Our concern has been that it is
very difficult that the message of reality and how something that
intent is very positive, is actually having a negative effect in hun-
dreds of thousands of cases around the country. And something has
to be done, or you* have generations of children who have suffered
in the name of their own civil rights, and we are very concerned.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much. Thank you all very
much.
The next witness is Dr. Joseph Noshpitz, professor of psychiatry,
George Washington School of Medicine, and a staff psychiatrist at
Children's Hospital, Washington, who is representing the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Associ-
ation.
Doctor, welcome to the Subcommittee on the Handicapped. We
appreciate your being here.
We would ask you also, if you might, to summarize your state-
ment and we will place the entire statement in the record. I can
assure you that other members of the subcommittee will read the
record who are not able to be here at this point.
Chairman Randolph is at the White House at the moment and
that is the reason that he is unable to be here with us until later
in the morning. For some reason or another, he seems to think
PAGENO="0170"
164
that the President, when he summons him, has precedence over his
colleagues here in the Congress.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. NOSHPITZ, M.D., PROFESSOR OF
PSYCHIATRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE;
STAFF PSYCHIATRIST, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, WASHINGTON,
D.C., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD
PSYCHIATRY AND THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCI-
ATION
Dr. NOSHPITZ. Thank you very much, Senator Stafford. I would
like to speak very briefly about the--
Senator STAFFORD. Can you speak up just a little bit louder,
bring the mike closer.
Dr. NOSHPITZ. How is that?
Senator STAFFORD. That is more than adequate.
Dr. NOSHPITZ. I will speak very briefly.
Most of the comments, of course, are in the written record, but I
did want to set a bit of context to my remarks by reviewing an
aspect of our culture that involves our address to the problems of
children.
If we go back to the beginning of the century, the juvenile court
was established in the first decade with the intention of caring
totally for children in need and using all the power and the ma-
jesty of the law to pull in services and require that proper health
care be given to the children who needed it. And it has worked at
it for all these many decades without signal success. In the twen-
ties and in the thirties, the child guidance clinic appeared on the
scene and it, too, tried to take over the task of coordinating serv-
ices and bringing to each child in distress and to each family in
need everything that was essential for it. The clinic achieved a
kind of quasi-success but surely did not accomplish anything like
what it had hoped to do.
More recently, there was the Joint Commission on the Mental
Health of Children. I was a member of the Board of Directors, and
I recall how hard we worked to try to develop some principles that
the Government and the Nation could adopt that would help
handle the problems of children. We came up with a principle of
advocacy and I think there was even an Office of Advocacy within
NIMH, which is now, I believe of sainted memory. Subsequently
the community health center idea was then the repository of the
hopes of all of us working with children, and again in that context,
the work with children has been one of the classic-I would not say
it is quite a failure, but it certainly is not a success.
Now, Public Law 94-142 is entering into this territory, not with
precisely the same intention and yet not able to avoid some of the
problems implicit in it. The difficulties emerge from the fact that a
child and a family are a totality with an interwoven set of needs,
and that every attempt to address a part of it, whether from the
legal side or mental health side or the educational side or the
welfare side, inevitably comes up against all the others as well as
many that I have not mentioned. It is not unusual for a multiprob-
lem family to have 15 or 16 agencies involved. When we face that,
and we see that we are trying to now take on the matter of special
education and have it do those things that will be supportive of its
PAGENO="0171"
165
mission, we are immediately into this same universe with all its
complexities and all its difficulties. What then to do? We would
like to make a number of suggestions.
First, the matter of the interdisciplinary requirements can be
strengthened in various ways. The importance of many agencies
working together around each child or at least those agencies that
are clearly involved, can be mandated in various ways at various
levels in a way that is more specific than I believe the law now
entails. So that is one realm.
Second, definitions. For example, the definition of related serv-
ices. I am sure that the committee will hear again and again
people explaining the difficulties that they are having with that
issue, and part of it comes out of the fact that it is a complex area
and the lines are not sharply drawn, and so all sorts of hopes and
expectations and territorial safeguards and other issues creep in.
As a result, the need for clarity, for some specificity and definition
become especially important in this realm. I think the law will
function best if its perimeter is better stated, more clearly orga-
nized, and then can be more effectively defended.
Finally, of course, the last issue is the one that I am sure you
will hear about from everyone who comes and sits in these seats,
the problem of funding. Clearly the various agencies in the past
that have tried so hard to cope with this have not lacked in good
will. They have not even lacked in theory but they have often-well,
for example, the juvenile court with the youngsters that it has to
handle has no place to send them; certainly no good place. Again
and again its mission blocked. There are no good services and there
will be no good services unless there is adequate funding for the
services that are mandated.
So these are the things that we would like especially to stress.
Senator STAFFORD. We are very grateful to you, Doctor, for help-
ii~ig us with our problems in trying to make Public Law 94-142 as
good as we can to the benefit of the handicapped children of this
country. And, in your case, as in Mr. Shanker's, we do have some
questions we would like to submit to you in writing, in view of the
compressed time problem we have this morning, with the activities
in the Senate. So we will do that and we will send you a few
questions and ask that you respond to them. If that is agreeable.
Dr. NOSHPITZ. We would appreciate that and be glad to. And let
me add one word.
This is a world in which there are many good things but very
few excellent things, and in the opinion of the two organizations
that I represent with all its problems, this is an excellent law.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Noshpitz and, .questions and an-
swers follow:]
PAGENO="0172"
166
:(~~ American Psychiatric Association
1700 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 20009 . Telephone: (202) 797-4900
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL POINTS
OF
STATEMENT
BEFORE THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
July 31, 1980
by
Joseph D. Noshpitz, M.D.
1. Commendation to Subcommittee and the professional staff for continued
dedication and concern about implementation of P.L. 94-142.
2. Despite honorable intentions, problems have arisen with implementation
of the law at the state and local levels.
3. Mental and emotional needs of handicapped children identified under
the Act are not being met.
4. Confusion with respect to psychiatric treatment as "related services"
as defined under P.L. 94-142.
5. That related services by personnel specified to furnish educational and
psychological counseling to handicapped children be a required pro-
vision of P.L. 94-142.
6. Interagency agreements between state educational and mental health
agencies be reached, which shall determine and specify both adnsinis-
trative and reimbursement systems to provide continuing mental health
services outside the educatio~ial system to children who need them but
whose parents are not able to pay for them in whole or part.
7. That each State P.L. 94-142 advisory committee be required to include
a qualified child mental health professional.
8. There are serious problems about protecting the confidentiality of
sensitive, private information.
9. There is a need to train professionals in the medical and mental health
disciplines for service in cooperation with school personnel under
P.L. 94-142.
10. There is a need to train school personnel to work with physically and
emotionally handicapped children.
PAGENO="0173"
167
American Psychiatric Association
1700 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 . Telephone: (202) 797-4900
STATEMENT
of the
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
and the
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD PSYCHIATRY
on
OVERSIGHT OF P.L. 94-142
presented by
Joseph D. Noshpitz, M.D.
before the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
Committee on Labpr and Human Resources
United States Senate
July 31, 1980
PAGENO="0174"
168
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Joseph Noshpitz, M.D.
of Washington. I am a staff psychiatrist at Children's Hospital in Washington,
Psychiatric Director of the Florence Crittenton Home, Professor of Psychiatry
at George Washingtion University School of Medicine and a past President of
the American Academy of Child Psychiatry.
I am here today to present the joint testimony of the American Psychiatric
Association and the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, two national
associations which respectively represent more than 25,00D psychiatrists
the country over and the approximately 2,3D0 physicians who have received two
additional years of advanced training in child psychiatry.
At the outset I would like to commend the Chairman, the members of the
Subcormsittee and the professional staff for their continued dedication to and
concern about the implementation of P.L. 94-142, evidenced by the thoughtful,
indepth oversight hearing record. I welcome the opportunity to offer our
collective comments and reactions.
We consider P.L. 94-142 landmark legislation, of extreme importance
to the community of handicapped children and their families -- a subgroup of
our population which often has been either forgotten or discriminated against,
both officially and unofficially. In this law, we have for the first time,
a federal mandate to provide services to children, regardless of handicap
-- to establish such services as a right, to be guaranteed by the law, with
appropriate safeguards as to due procpss. This is truly a breakthrough
of far-reaching social significance.
These remarks are made from the per~pective of our active participation,
together with colleagues in many other disciplines in providing services to
handicapped children and their families. While our particular expertise lies in
PAGENO="0175"
169
treating the emotionally disturbed and the mentally retarded and learning
disabled, we are also concerned about the social and psychological ramifi-
cations of the other handicapping conditions involving speech, general health
impairment, orthopedic handicaps, multi-handicaps, and disabilities involving
the critical senses of vision and hearing. As medical clinicians working
in the community, we have contact with many such afflicted children, and provide
a variety of services to them and their families. Many general and child
psychiatrists also work directly with school staffs, especially in special
education, being involved with initial diagnostic assessment, consultation
to school personnel, in-service training, staff development, and a variety
of other functions, Consequently, we urge that this statement be viewed as
coming from a group of professional colleagues who share the commitment
to the care of handicapped children and their families with those in education
and special education, our medical colleagues (particularly those in
pediatrics; neurology, orthopedics, ophthalmology and otoiargyngology),
and the great variety of other non-medical disciplines, whether or not
specifically mentioned in 94-142;.
P.L. 94-142 is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever
enacted in the field of children's.servicea. It seeks to ensure both
forcefully and undeniably the provision of services for handicapped children.
We are particularly pleased with the importance placed on early diagnosis
and intervention, both important tenets of good physical and mental health
practice.
However, despite its honorable inteTlt, many problems have arisen with
implementation of the law at state and local levels. These problems have been
accompanied by high levels of confusion, frustration and hostility among
otherwise well-meaning and dedicated peoplq. Unintended as they may have
PAGENO="0176"
170
3
been, the conflicts and antagonisms which have been uncovered must be faced
before solutions can be found. Allow me to list a few of the most important
of these problems. Realizing that you have heard about some of these from
other groups, we will be brief and not all-inclusive.
Misinterpretations of the law by educators, special educators, school
boards, parents, and others have led to grossly exaggerated expectations from
94-142. Consequently, the law has appeared to promise a great deal more
than it can possibly deliver. Many school administrators worry about whether
the alleged "open-ended" nature of the commitment to the provision of services
to the handicapped will result in the bankruptcy of the entire educational
system at both state and local levels. It would be accurate to say that 94-142
has at least strained the financial and emotional resources of schools to new
limits. In addition, there has been much concern about the number of forms to
be filled out and the bureaucratic tangle necessitated by compliance to federal,
state and local guidelines, which often change, and sometimes contradict one
another. Teachers complain that much of the time which used to be spent with
children is now used to do paperwork. --
Implementation has varied widely among the states, and from one locality to
another. Ancedotally, one hears that affluent families and communities have
taken advantage of the law to obtain increased services, while poorer families and
communities have benefitted relatively less from 94-142. In addition, states and
localities which had a strong commitment to special education prior to 94-142
have expressed resentment about the rigidity of the federal statute and the
administrative difficulties it has presented.
It is important to note that some school districts actually have violated
the spirit of the law by purposefully under-identifying or mislabelling the child
with a handicap. This is done presumably so that they will not be forced to
provide services that they do not now have,, Often, school personnel are instructed
to make no recommendations to parents for outside professional help (even when it is
PAGENO="0177"
171
desparately needed) for fear that schools will have to pay for those services.
As a result, many handicapped children in need of mental health services,
including psychotherapy, are not presently receiving them.
Moreover, it must also be acknowledged that in many districts receiving
94-142 funds, psychiatrists who are trained in both the physical and mental
aspects of development are not being properly utilized to participate in
recommending appropriate treatments to meet the mental and emotional needs of
handicapped children. It is ironic that the law appears to pay for mental health
services delivered by every mental health professional except those most trained
to provide them. The irony continues when we realize that psychiatrists,
because of the comprehensive nature of their training, often provide the most
cost effective services available; they represent the only mental health
profession able not only to render psychiatric treatment per se but also to
perform the necessary antecedent differential diagnosis.
For reasons that are very complex, this well-meaning law has often been a
paradox in its implementation. A bill so clearly espousing the goals of child
advocacy has brought with it so much anxiety, confusion, defensiveness, and
suspicion that it virtually promotes an adversarial relationship between the very
people it wants to bring together in cooperative interaction for the ultimate
benefit of the child. We wonder if something may be lost when `voluntary" efforts
give way to mandated ones -- resulting ultimately in emphasis on quantity rather
than quality, on appearances rather than realities, on fulfilling bureaucratic
red tape rather than providing direct, service to children.
Problems of handicapped children do not lend themselves to easy solutions
or remedies. Even the simplest handicap can be of complex etiology, involving
biological, social and psychological interactions which defy easy assessment
68-332 0 - 81 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
172
5
and diagnosis, and which call for complicated programs of interventions
requiring many disparate resources. For example, some children who
demonstrate problems with academic achievement and behavior in school
do so because of chaotic family experiences and difficulties arising out of
poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, and other factors in their neighborhood
and community, which impinge upon their lives. An IEP, which focuses
exclusively on the three R's and which does not take into account complex
etiology, and difficult environmental circumstances, will frequently be too
simplistic and not relevant.
However difficult it may be, what must be accomplished is to develop
and implement an IEP for the whole child and for the environment around
him. It is ludicrous to presume that special educators can take on these
burdens alone. Input and commitment from medical and other professional and
community resources is essential.
The challenge of 94-142 is for all of the child-serving
2gqfessions to consider this an opportunity to redesign the service del~yqgg -~
gygçg~ for children with appropriate concern for the sharing of responsibility,
authority, and funding, and to make integration, collaboration, and cooperation
a governing principle.
It has been apparent to many of us that the various child-serving agencies
on the state and local level (e.g., mental health departments, departments
of education, departments of chi1dren~and family services, welfare departments,
and departments of correction, to name just a few) often are at war with
each other. Burdened with too much to do and too few resources with which to
do it, they are driven to frantic efforts to limit their own liability and
responsibility for handicapped children. In these days of high tax burdens,
intensive surveillance, and probing fiscal accountability, albeit lamentable
PAGENO="0179"
173
6
it is altogether understandable that state agencies might place higher
priority on balancing their books than on providing an integrated network
of human services for children.
Unfortunately, the intention of the law with respect to psychiatric
treatment within the context of "related services', as the term is defined
in P.L. 94-142, is unclear. When the subject of related services was
considered in the Senate Bill (5. 6), the Senate Committee Report (94-168),
the House Bill (H.R. 7217), the House Report (94-332), by the House-Senate
Conference.. and in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee,
it was--to quote one of the staff architects of the legislation, Dr. Martin
LaVor, in a recent article--not the focus of extensive discussions".
After citing every House and Senate reference to the term "related services",
which we have reviewed carefully, Dr. LaVor concluded:
When S. 6 and H.R. 7217 were considered by the full House and the
full Senate there was virtually no discussion,, reference or
explanation that would further clarify legislative intent for the term
"related services".
We concur. Thus, it is not' clear whether the law intended for
psychiatric treatment to be mandated and paid for out of school funds.
As an example, the very point of whether "psychotherapy" was a "psychological
service", a "related service" which schools must provide in connection with a
free appropriate education, has already been litigated in Montana (In the Matter
of the "A" Fami1y~, 602 P. 2d 157 Mont. Sup. Ct. 1979). The court concluded
that "psychotherapy" was a "psychological service" under the Federal
regulations' enumeration of "related services" which a school district
providing education for a handicapped child must provide. Since a Montana
regulation exists which provides for submission to Federal regulations when
there is a conflict, the State regulations excluding psychotherapy from those
PAGENO="0180"
174
services which a school district must provide were overridden by the
Federal regulations.
We agree with the Montana Supreme Court's statement, that "In large
measure, this issue arises out of confusing if not conflicting Federal and
state statutes relating to special education.' We believe that additional
guidance needs to be given to the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services than is provided in the legislative history of
P.L. 94-142.
The provisions in the law limit the payment for medical treatment to
diagnostic and evaluation procedures, and at the same time authorize payment
for psychological services (under `related services'). This fails to acknowledge
the reality of the complex nature of the treatment modalities provided by
psychiatrists. These include a variety of psychotherapies which are
presumably fundable as psychological services, but because they are provided
by psychiatric physicians, they can also be classified as medical
treatments, and would thus not be paid for under the Act.
There must be clarification of this tormented issue so that litigation
will cease and the special educational and medical needs of identified
handicapped individuals can be addressed with the necessary resources,
be they educational or otherwise.
The APA and AACP, along with ten other consumer, provider and
professional organizations, endorsed the Position Paper Supplement, dated
March 21, 1980, of the National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services
on P.L. 94-142 which acknowledged continuing problems with the "major
gaps between diagnostic services and the actual delivery of an
appropriate continuum of mental health services to individual children
PAGENO="0181"
175
8
and adolescents." The Consortium endorsed the utilization of related
services and recommended the following:
(1) That related services by personnel specified to furnish educational
and psychological counseling to handicapped children be a
required provision of P.L. 94-142. These services should be a part
of the support systea in the remediation and amelioration of
handicapping conditions of emotionally disturbed children.
(2) That interagency agreements between state educational and mental
health agencies be reached, which shall determine and specify both
administrative and reimbursement systems to provide continuing
mental health services outside the educational system to children
who need them but whose parents are not able to pay for them in
whole or in part. While educational systems should not be
obliged to pay first dollar for continuing psychotherapy services
(after diagnosis and evaluation), children and adolescents shall be
assured needed psychotherapy services under the interagency
agreements funded through any and all existing sources.
Such available sources of funding would include Medicaid, Private
Health Insurance, Community Mental Health Centers, and funding
by other State agencies such as Mental Health and Child Welfare.
P.L. 94-142 states that services hecessary for utilization of
special education shall be at no cost to the parents. Since some
continuing psychotherapy services may lie outside P.L. 94-142,
parents are not automatically or entirely shielded from costs
for them. Together with local and State School Districts,
parents should be able to participate as a last dollar resource
in the provision of such services.
(3) That each State P.L. 94-142 advisory committee be required to
include a qualified child mental health professional. This
resource professional should identify the mechanisms to provide for
the mental health needs of children, through local mental health
centers, other agencies, and private providers; thus assuring that
the Individual Education.Plan not ignore or omit the related
mental health needs of the child in order to avoid or minimize
expense.
In addition to these recommendations, the APA and AACP recognize
(1) that physicians need to be included in diagnostic and intervention roles
as indicated by the child's physical and/or mental condition; and (2) that
parents need to be involved with their children in a variety of intervention
processes in order for them to learn to manage and help their children live
at home. There must be a sustained collaboration between parents and professionals
PAGENO="0182"
176
for handicapped children to make real progress in special education programs.
Another major area of concern is that of funding. We realize that
appropriations are not within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction and that you,
Mr. Chairman, have been a leading advocate for adequate services.
However, we believe, concomitant with the need for clarification of "related
services" is the necessity to have Congress provide adequate funding for
special education and related services under P.L. 94-142, which this
Subcommittee has so carefully designed. As you know, Congress authorized
paying for special education and related services under P.L. 94-142 at the
rate of five percent of State costs in 1978 and increasing to 40 percent
of State costs by 1982. Unfortunately, Congress has not appropriated the
fully-authorized amount. For example, for F.Y. 1980, only 12 percent,
instead of the 20 percent which could be made available, was appropriated.
In drafting this bill, your Subcommittee recognized that considerable
additional expenditures would be necessary to comply with its provisions.
Ultimately, this will be cost effective both in economic and human terms.
We are fully cognizant of fiscal constraints but we would hope that full
funding of P.L. 94-142 will be forthcoming to ameliorate the shortfall in
funding for needed special education and related services.
We also wish to point out that handicapped children who cannot be
educated in the classroom often require placement in residential facilities
for the severely mentally retarded ar~d severely emotionally disturbed.
To make such units function effectively requires dedicated staff, with
considerable experience and expertise. *However, we are concerned that the
major criterion in the choice of facility may be cost, not quality of
education or treatment. Because of this, we are concerned that some
PAGENO="0183"
177
10
excellent private facilities which have been providing services for many
years may be forced to close. There is grim experience to suggest that they
would be replaced by less adequate facilities. Furthermore, non-placement
or inadequate placement of these children imposes unwarranted burdens on
untrained personnel, causing staff burn-out, an ever present and serious
problem.
There are also a number of serious problems with confidentiality under
the law. Because of the openness of the record, errors occur on both ends of
the confidentiality continuum, i.e., either too much or too little
information appears in the record. The problem can be compounded if the
[EP is not developed with involvement of fully-qualified medical and child
development experts. Most often, in the effort to avoid the communication
of any sensitive, private information, and the problems which can arise
therefrom, important data on the family and the child are not included.
In terms of educational planning, the open record can thus become a
relatively useless document.
Professionals working for the school are sometimes under pressure
to come up with [EPa based on programs that are already available -- but
which might be ideally suited to the needs of the child. (Obviously,
no school system has an infinite array of programs, classrooms, and faculty).
At the same time, outside professionals are encouraged to take an advocacy
position on behalf of the child and/or his or her family, which sometimes
result in conflict between the school, on the one hand, and the outside
professional and the family, on the other. This will often become manifest
in implementation of the due process portion of the law. We quite agree
with those who prefer to see resolution of the problems through less formal
means than hearings or court proceedings. Amicable resolution of conflict is
superior to the rancor and anxiety of formal adversarial proceedings.
PAGENO="0184"
178
11
There is a distinct need to train school personnel to work with
handicapped children. This could be accomplished through cooperation
and consultation with medical and mental health professionals. Thus,
there are ongoing needs to train such professionals in how to work
*cooperatively with school personnel under 94-142. Our organizations believe
that considerable, additional discussions are necessary with OSERS to
explore a variety of such inputs for our own membership as well as for
medical students and resident physicians in various'fields. Conversely,
there is need to train school personnel to work cooperatively with medical
and mental health team members.
Having presented major concerns with the content and specifics of
this law, we wish to reiterate that it does provide a major and
significant framework and a bold articulation of public policy and
priorities.
We particularly would like to vigorously endorse those provisions
of the Act that provide for early childhood education. We believe that this is
a prime site for preventive intervention and that whatever monies are
invested at this point in development will be repaid many fold by improved
function and diminished dependency in later years.
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry applaud the intent of P.L. 94-142 and welcome the opportunity
of working with you and the staff and, suggesting legislative amendments
in conformity with my presentation. We hope thus to strengthen and improve
this landmark legislation and to york out the substantive content problems
of concern.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning and
I will be available to answer any questiont you may have.
PAGENO="0185"
179
Response of Dr. Noshpitz to Questions Asked by Senator Randolph
1. In your opinion, what mental and eiotional needs of handicapped
children are not being met?
Because P.L. 94-142 is irnplexented in local systens, it is difficult
to generalize about unset needs. We believe the following points should
be used as a guide to assess each local systen' s capacity to meet these
unmet mental and e~otional needs.
a. We believe that there currently is an insufficient degree of
mental health consultation to inpatient and outpatient pediatric
services, special educators, teachers, recreational services,
sheltered workshops, vocational programs and other rehabilitation
services.
b. There is not adequate psychiatric and other mental health
diagnosis, evaluation, assessment, and screening.
c. There currently are significantly unmet mental health inter-
vention needs for various therapies (e.g. individual, group, family
milieu, psychopharmacological). In addition, there is a lack of
adequate parental guidance and counseling.
The above should be included as part of a range of services. It is
financially unwise and therapeutically unsound to allow a school systen
to select only one or t~ xrcdalities of treatment, thus excluding other
appropriate treatments and causing sate children to receive no or
inappropriate care.
Therefore, participation in this program should be conditional on
provision of a full array of services ranging fran early intervention
to hospitalization.
2. Would you please describe the extent to which medical and other.
professionals should have input in the IEP process?
It should be required that there be rredical input with each
school in the develorxrent of the IEP, which the IWA/AACP believes must
include psychiatric and pediatric consultation. 2~ny screening of children
for mental and physical problens that say influence their schoolwerk or
school adjusteent should be formulated into a statanent of relevant
findings and recxxrrrendations.
In addition, each state plan should include several itans not
previously mandated: a) that there be ire~ers of both Health and ~ntal
Health professionals on the state and local advisory ccarrnittees so that
they have their input into the state and local plans and b) that each
state plan specify that there be written inter-agency agre&rents between
the state Departments of Education, Health and ~ntal Health in terms of
the cooperative responsibility for the health and mental health care of
children, and that this requirarent be conditional to the receipt of
education funds. This is particularly isportant since at the federal
level there are now separate departments of education and health and
PAGENO="0186"
180
Page 2
and hunan services. This charge s~ould prevent various school districts
fran refusing to consider the therapeutic needs of their children in
special education for fear that they may be stock with the treatrrent
programs which they cannot afford or which will reduce their capacity for
providing special education programs to children in their charge. The
concept of shared responsibility for these children mist be erphasized over
and over again.
3. Please elaborate on the problens regarding the protection of
confidentiality of sensitive, private information?
Since the IEP is an essentiafly public docurnant, any confidential
details should not be inclt~ed in the miedical and mantal health report.
Only pertinent findings and reo~xrrendations for specific action should
be attached to the IEP. These might be such details as might be offered
to teachers when a child rrental health professional consults with the
school.
4. You raise a very irrportant issue with reference to "related
services." In your jndgirent, where should the line be drawn
between the responsibilities of the public schools and the State
rrental health programs with reference to providing mantal health
services to P.L. 94-142 children?
It is difficult to define the cutting edge because of the varieties
of capabilities of the educational and nental health systens within
each jurisdiction. The answer to the dil~ra must be to require wrking
interagency agre~tents as a condition to the receipt of federal funds.
This requiresent is a sine qua non to effecting appropriate treatirent
for each child covered by the mandate of P.L. 94-142. These interagency
agrexrents could provide that direct treathent services, incleding
psychotherapy, be paid for through such third party payors or parental
funds as s~uld ordinarily cover this type of professional expense.
The schools should be concerned with and pay for nental health asseamments,
evaluations and diagnoses that arise with school related problens. The
schools should also be required to purchase irental health consultation for
school staff werking with handicapped children. Finally, where necessary,
the school systari should pay for residential care when such is indicated.
Peiinbursatent for such residential placexent should be at a level which
recognizes the cost of providing such needed services.
PAGENO="0187"
181
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, sir. We know it is far from per-
fect.
The next witness will be Dr. Sharon Robinson, who is director of
instruction and professional development in Washington, repre-
senting the National Education Association.
Doctor, welcome to our subcommittee hearings. Again if you
could summarize, and we will place your entire statement in the
record.
STATEMENT OF DR. SHARON ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION'S PROGRAM FOR INSTRUCTION
AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the interest of time, I will attempt to summarize.
Senator STAFFORD. Could you bring the mike up just a little so
that we can hear, especially those in the back of the room.
Dr. RoBINSoN. I am Sharon Robinson, director of the National
Education Association's program for instruction and professional
development. The 1.8 million member NEA particularly values the
opportunity to share with you urgent concerns of the Nation's
teachers about one of the most important Federal educational ini-
tiatives ever enacted, the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act.
In an effort to summarize, I would just say that this initiative
imposes upon our members at a classroom level in a most dramatic
way. Perhaps no initiative other than desegregation is felt so
keenly at the level of the classroom teacher. And our members
have been very open in sharing concerns with us.
I could capsulize those concerns by stressing that they are these:
training, adequate training. It is a matter of morale, as well as a
matter of professional integrity. Our members are concerned about
being able to provide adequate instructional services to all students
who come into their classrooms. They recognize it as an imposition
as well as a threat to the children that they attempt to serve when
they have students for which they recognize their training is inad-
equate.
The issue of class size is also an instructional matter that has not
been dealt with adequately at the local level. We have been trying
to gauge the impact on class size of the introduction of one handi-
capped child to the classroom. The best information that we can
get from our members, lacking hard empirical research in this
area, suggests that there should be a reduction of five students for
every handicapped child mainstreamed into the regular classroom.
Another issue of particular concern to us is the involvement of
teachers in the placement process. While the law is being imple-
mented in some places through which perfunctory involvement of
teachers is allowed, this involvement is not universally mandated
by strict requirements that all are held to observe.
The issue of adequate resources comes into play when our teach-
ers are required to fill the need and to seek out support services for
children that come into their classrooms; the identification of those
services is near impossible. The entire system needs to be tuned up
so that the support resources for supplying the needs of handi-
capped children are readily identifiable and available.
PAGENO="0188"
182
Compliance and enforcement procedures are not always forth-
coming and the whole process is not easy. The bureaucratic struc-
ture almost defies adequate attention given to any particular com-
pliance problem relative to the intent of this law. And, finally, as I
am sure you will hear often during the course of these hearings, we
must bring to your attention the issue of funding. All these con-
cerns work together in what I call an intent to fully implement
this initiative. While our members are in sympathy with the notion
of 94-142, many are even committed advocates for the whole notion
of mainstreaming.
We do have to recognize and call to your attention the negative
impact of incomplete implementation of any initiative or any inno-
vation. It is that kind of systematic observation and analysis that
we would encourage on the part of the committee, as you seek to
rectify some of the deficiencies in the initiative.
Thank you.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Doctor. We really
appreciate your being here and I can assure you that your testimo-
ny will get attention from the entire subcommittee and eventually
the full committee.
In your case, if it is agreeable, we would like to submit some
questions in writing for response in writing also.
We thank you for your presence here very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robinson along with questions
and answers follow:]
PAGENO="0189"
183
nc~a
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION * 1201 16th St. NW. Washington 0 C 20036 (202) 833.4000
WILLARD H McGUIRE, President TERRY HERNDON, Eoecutive Director
BERNIE FREITAG. Vice-President
JOHN T. McGARIGAL Secretary-Treasurer
STATEMENT
OF THE
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
ON
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
BEFONE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
PRESENTED BY
SHARON ROBINSON
NEA DIRECTOR OF INSTRUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
JULY 31, 1980
PAGENO="0190"
184
Hr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Sharon Robinson, director
of the National Education Association's program for Instruction and professional
Development. The 1.8 million-member NEA particularly values the opportunity to
share with you urgent concerns of the nation's teachers about one of the most
important federal educational initiatives ever enacted, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act. These concerns are especially critical as the date
for full implementation of that law -- September 1, 1980 -- is upon us.
That date is surely circled on the calendars of many of our members since,
in the final analysis, it is the teachers who must strive to fulfill the mandate
of the law -- to deliver a free appropriate public education to all handicapped
children aged three through twenty-one. The teachers -- not Congress or state
education agencies or school boards or panels or commissions -- must meet this
enormous challenge despite too little involvement in the process, too little
training in educating these children, too little money, and too few resources.
The simple fact is that the ideal of a free appropriate public education for
all handicapped children will not be a. reality on September 1, nor perhaps for
some time to come unless changes are made in the funding, regulation, administration,
and enforcement of the law.
Let me stress, however, that we are not interested in trying to lay blam~ on
any agency or individuals. Certainly, teachers are dedicated to the goals of
PL 94-142; and we believe that the vast majority of all those involved with its
implementation are equally supportive of those goals. It is just that all of us
are a bit staggered by the charge to provide the best education possible for eight
million children with special needs, indeed to meet the needs of all children, when
staff, resources, and support are so desperately low.
PAGENO="0191"
185
-2-.
We want to underline that the Education Department's Office of Special
Education (and its predecessor agency) has been concerned, cooperative, and
responsive in many ways. Policy papers from this office have, for example,
supported some teacher involvement in development of each state's Comprehensive
System of Personnel Development (teacher training plan) and in the process of
developing the Individualized Education Programs (TEP). While required by the
law, enforcement of this teacher involvement has not occurred to any great degree.
We are all making strong efforts. But we must do more if the reality is to
resemble the ideal. Toward this goal, I would like to share teacher perceptions
of a few of the central issues we have identified as most critical to improved
implementation of the law.
1. Adequate training for teachers. The inservice training, mandated by
the law, has been provided for very few educational personnel who bear
responsibility for providing services to the handicapped students. Even where
some training is offered, teachers say it is not really relevant to what they
need to meet the day-to-day challenges of educating handicapped children, nor
are incentives for participating -- also discussed in the law -- being offered.
The central problems are that most of those who need training are not getting.
it, and that teachers, who know most about what they need, are not being involved
in development of training programs.
To meet these basic deficiencies, a number of steps must be taken. The
Office of Special Education should monitor and enforce the law's mandates for
development by states of quality programs for personnel training and retraining.
The states should place both regular and special education teachers on their
PAGENO="0192"
186
-3-
personnel development panels to help devise recotrazendations for realistic programs.
Teachers should have a prominent role at the local level in helping to determine
the content of inservice programs, and the full range of incentives in the law,
such as released time, should be made available to teachers so that they can
fully participate.
In short, no teacher should be assigned a handicapped student until that
teacher is trained to understand and meet the student's needs. People who have
not been in the classroom can have no idea of the impact on a teacher's morale
of feeling, as one put it, "woefully unprepared" but being unable to do anything
about it.
Certainly, a step in the right direction is the proposed Senate amendmant
to the Higher Education Act to set up a new fellowship program for elementary
and secondary teachers in areas where there is a shortage of personnel trained
to teach the handicapped. As far as we're concerned, there is a shortage of
such teachers everywhere!
2. Class size. Teachers would like to individualize instruction for all
children, and they make a valiant effort to do so. Even to meet that goal for
children with a "normal" range of needs, current clasS sizesare unmanageable.
When a child needs help or encouragement, he or she needs it now, not tomorrow
or next week. The loss to a child's learning or self-esteem because a teacher
could not give the needed attention may never be recouped. The frightening
thing is that the teacher never knows for sure just how serious the eventual
repercussions will be.
Educational researchers have now proved conclusively that reduced class
size not only produces increased student achievasient but also that smaller
PAGENO="0193"
187
classes have a positive effect on classrootn processes and environment, student
attitudes and behavior, and teacher satisfaction. Teachers can use a greater
range of instrtictional techniques and a greater variety of materials. Discipline
problems decrease since students' frustrations are fewer, and teachers are better
able to diagnose causes of misbehavior and deal with individuals before major
problems occur. From verifiable gains in student achievement to better human
interaction, the benefits of smeller classes have been documented. If smaller
classes are this important for students in general, you can imagine how critical
they are for handicapped children.
Teachers in the classroom don't have to imagine. They know from experience.
NEA's 1980 National Teacher Opinion Poll showed that 81 percent of teachers
believe that when a handicapped child is placed in a regular classroom for some
or all of the time, class size should definitely be reduced. Reduction by five
students for each handicapped student was the median reconinendation of teachers
polled. There are some class-size reduction plans already in effect in school
districts which are based on a "weighted-count" formula for determining class
size not by the numbers of students but by the level and type of their needs.
These could provide a good starting point for development of a model by the
Office of Special Education for use by local school districts.
3. Involvement of teachers in placement and planning. There is currently
no recognition in the law of the right of the teacher, either regular classroom
or special education, to call for the possible reassignment of an inappropriately
placed handicapped child. This is true despite the fact that teachers are
precisely the ones who most likely know best whether children's needs. are being
met in their current placement. Without provision for teacher input on this
68-332 0 - 81 - 13
PAGENO="0194"
188
-.5-.
critical decision, handicapped children will continue to drift aimlessly in the
wrong classroom environment without the services they need -- to the detriment
of themselves ~nd other students.
Equally important is the participation of teachers in the initial decision-
making about the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP). It is absolutely
essential that the teacher who will have to carry out the goals set out in the
IEP -- as well as the teacher who has had most exposure to the child previously --
be fully involved in the IEP process. Only when ~his occurs will there exist
the maximum opportunity for adequate evaluation and instruction of each handicapped
child. NEA members think that this involvement of the receiving teacher is so.
important that they have incorporated their support for it into NEA's continuing
policy statement on education of the handicapped.
4. Adequate resources. The list of resources that teachers need and do
not have would take up a sizable chunk of the fine print in the Congressional
Record. They can besommarized as more people, more time, and more materials,
equipment, and facilities.
The "people" include everybody from regular classroom teachers so that class
size may be reduced, to more specialists to diagnose protlems and prescribe
solutions, to aides to do everything from preparing braille instructional materials
to assisting with less physically mobile students. The "time" includes released
time or compensatory time to participate in inservice training, work on IEP's,
and work with other teachers or parents to provide needed services to handicapped
students. Much of that precious time, by the way, is all too often taken up
with intolerable amount of paperwork imposed by local and state agencies.
PAGENO="0195"
189
-6-
The "materials, equipment, and facilities" needed to serve the varied -
types of handicapped children are staggering. They include special instructional
materials for those with any one of several learning disabilities; braille
typewriters; amplification devices for the hearing impaired; and "crisis rooms"
for the emotionally disturbed. And we're talking about school districts which
already do not have enough books or classroom equipment.
5. Compliance/enforcement. A major difficulty with enforcing compliance is
the lack of hard data on the extent to which local and state agencies are fulfilling
the mandates of the law. This is an area in which OSE needs to make additional
efforts. When we look at the magnitude of the task of monitoring, and the difficulty
that even experienced agencies have had with enforcement, we cannot harshly
criticize the Office of Special Education. The OSE staff is strong in educational
theory and practice -- and we certainly need that expertise -- but they have
little training or experience in monitoring and law enforcement skills. Agency
staff need more training and need to work more closely with the Office for Civil
Rights, which has staff with the necessary expertise.
Nevertheless, we have to be aware of the problems resulting from this lack
of full enforcement. Handicapped students linger in the limbo land of waiting
lists -- waiting to be evaluated, waiting to be placed, waiting to be served
adequately. Even when handicapped children have ostensibly been identified,
evaluated, and placed for services, too often they are misclassified, misplaced
(literally as well as figuratively), and ill-served. This doesn't speak to
those who have never even begun the process toward proper placement and services.
Further, the handicapped child who is swiftly identified, properly evaluated,
and rightfully placed is often faced with an inadequately prepared teacher.
PAGENO="0196"
190
-7-
The teacher also may be trying to deal with too many students of too many kinds,
as well as not having the necessary resources and:back-up personnel.
Unfortunately, OSE is, at this point, nonitoring paper, not people. What
good is the most responsive, efficient plan in the world if the plan is just
that? What good is a plan that is never fully implemented due to lack of
coixsn~tment or understanding by education agencies or to lack of resources for
teachers?
Performance Adninistrative Reviews are cursory and draw little, if any,
follow up. A disapproving shake of the head often constitutes the substance
of enforcement demands made to state or local education agencies that fail to
comply with either the letter or the spirit of the law. In some cases, OSE
has simply not made clear what these agencies should be. doing and how they
should be going about it. We need, for example, policies on non-discriminatory
evaluation procedures, criteria for placement of children in the least restrictive
setting, guidelines on use or abuse of standardized tests, and enlightenment on
the scope of education-related services required.
Further, OSE has not set out the most serious problems for first-and-
foremost attention. Priorities have to be identified for both monitoring and
enforcement. Priority areas should include: teacher inservice education and
training; handicapped students denied any services; handicapped students still
on waiting lists; institutionalized students still not being served; handicapped
students remaining segregated; minority students being disproportionately
misclassified; handicapped students being illegally suspended and expelled;
handicapped students not receiving lET's; and parents not being notified of
their rights, or surrogate parents not being adequately identified.
PAGENO="0197"
191
-8-
We know that the Secretary of Education has charged a task force to look
into many of these problems. We look forward with great interest to its
recocrrsendations and the Department's follow-up actions.
We have left the greatest problem until last because it underlies all the
others. That problem is funding. Most school districts were in desperate financial
straits before PL 94-142 was instituted; they are in worse shape now -- due to
the worsening economic picture in the nation, the so-called "tax revolt," and
the state and federal mandates for programs like PL 94-142 which do not carry
with them the funds necessary for implementation.
The law authorizes funding at the level of 30 persent of the average
per-pupil expenditure for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, going to
40 percent subsequently. We are looking at more like 12 percent in real funding.
State artd local goveroments simply cannot make up the difference.
For our part, the teachers of this nation are committed to make the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act work. What is needed from the federal goveromant
is full funding, good administration, careful regulation, and thorough enførcement.
Teachers are willing and dedicated partners in the effort to see that this
unprecedented challenge is met; on their behalf, we ask that your cotmaitment
match theirs in reality as well as in ideals.
PAGENO="0198"
192
inic~a
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION* 1201 16th St., N.W. ~tg~on,,pCg9Q~6* ç~O2 833.4000
WILLARD H. McGUIRE. President t93U ~Ub-rJo~y ~ ~FktON~~ecutive Director
BERNIE FREITAG, Vice-President
JOHN 1. McGARIGAL Secretary-Treasurer
August 12, 1980
The Honorable Jennings Randolph - .~
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Handicapped / V
Room 4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
The National Education Association welcomes the opportunity to supplement our
earlier testimony on implementation of Public Law 94-142 as requested in your
August 1 letter which contained two questions.
Your question #1: "...you suggest that a handicapped student
should not be assigned to a teacher until that teacher is trained
to understand and meet the needs of the student. Suppose we have
a small school district with limited resources, does NEA feel that
the student should then receive no services or would it be more
beneficial to place the student in the class and have the teacher
receive training within a reasonable period of time?
The law is very clear. If a local school district is unwilling or unable to
provide services, then it's the state's responsibility. If small districts
cannot provide both teacher training and a free, appropriate education for
their handicapped students, then Congress should move to increase the amount
of funds directly to those districts or to the states so that area, regional,
or statewide programs can be initiated. This again raises the fundamental
problem of inadequate funding that I alluded to in my written testimony of
July 31, 1980.
The requirement that teachers receive training prior to the placement of a
handicapped student in their classrooms is of the highest priority for our
members. A teacher who is not specifically trained is soon demoralized.
Moreover, the absence of such training is an anathema to the goal of providing
an appropriate education based upon the individual needs of the child. An
alternative to prior training could be for the teacher to receive training
concurrent with the placement of a handicapped child in his or her classroom.
We wouldn't advocate such an approach other than as a last resort, lest such
become the mode.
(continued)
PAGENO="0199"
193
Your question #2: "In a time when Federal agencies and school
systems are faced with massive budget restraints, how does NEA
suggest that reduced class size be accomplished?"
Special educators and school boards have long recognized that students with
special needs require more teacher time and. individualized instruction.
Accordingly, class sizes for the handicapped have been smaller. However,
with the advent of PL 94-142 and "mainstreaming," regular classroom teachers
are being asked not only to provide specialized services without the benefit
of special training but also to teach their regular load of 25 or more
students. We have literally lost ground.
When teachers advocate reduced class size, they are often patronized by being
told about available special services. However, these services--no matter
how essential--do not resolve the problem of numbers. The critical problem
of numbers is acutely exacerbated when handicapped children are placed in
regular classrooms.
The public, and especially parents, want schools to function better and improve
not only student achievement but also student attitudes and behavior. There
are ways to improve. A most important way is to reduce class size so that
teachers can use a variety of instructional techniques and give each student
enough personal attention to recognize and deal with instructional and behavioral
problems before they get out of hand. We know that it will cost money. But
reduction of class size is the single change that we can make that has been
shown by education researchers to bring such significant and gratifying results
regardless of the type of student involved or subject being taught. Therefore,
we believe that it is our responsibility as the organization representing
teachers to point out the importance of reducing class size and help the public
to understand that doing so will more than pay for itself in the preparation
of more independent, productive citizens.
Teachers have Lor a long time known that class size is important to the fulfill-
ment of their professional responsibility to educate our young people. However,
only recently have the research studies begun to show the correlation between
achievement and class size. A study by Gene Glass and others on class size
concluded that "average pupil achievement increases as class size decreased.
The typical achievement of pupils in instructional groups of 15 and fewer is
several percentile ranks above that of pupils in classes of 25 and 30."
The following suggestions are offered as ways to reduce class size in the face
of budgetary restrictions:
1. At a time of reduced enrollments, school districts should not
cut back on the percentage of their support to public schools
but rather use their funds to reduce class size.
2. Federal laws and policy statements should recognize that the
effort required to achieve effective instruction is a significant
factor in determining proper class size, particularly in main-
streamed classrooms. Such laws and policy statements should
also include incentives toward reduced class size.
PAGENO="0200"
194
-3-
3. Concerned teachers, citizens, and legislators must join
together to highlight and educate the public as to the impor-
tance of class size for providing a free, appropriate public
education for all our children.
4. Congress should explore the issue of class size as it relates to
the education of handicapped children by calling for regional or
national hearings o~ the issue.
At this point, I will offer the following additional comments:
During the recent Oversight Hearing on the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, one witness suggested that the individualized educational
program (IEP) for all disabled students is actually a "roadblock to the
implementation of the law. This view represents unfortunate insensitivity
to the intent and import of the IEP.
The NEA strongly supports the concept of the IEP. The states and the local
education agencies must insure adequate time to prepare the IEP, identify all
req~uired support services, and establish the full participation of appropriate
role groups.
Rather than regard the IEP as a time-consuming "roadblock" to the implementation
of PL 94-142, we regard it as the contract which represents the local and state
commitment to the education of each handicapped child. Without such a state-
ment, the parents of handicapped children would be involved with the classroom
teacher only, thereby encouraging the perception that the classroom teacher
is solely responsible for the educational needs of the child.
The IEP serves the valuable function of defining and fixing responsibility for
delivery of the various services, including classroom instruction. It repre-
sents the contract binding all parties involved to the educational objectives
of each handicapped child.
In conclusion, we hold that developing individualized education programs
would benefit all children. This is rather the core of PL 94-142. Teachers
desperately want to make the concept work. Accordingly, our basic plea is for
the creation of conditions whereby teachers can succeed.
If I can provide further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Sharon Robinso , Director
Instruction and Professional
Development
SR/ebl
PAGENO="0201"
195
Senator STAFFORD. We next have a panel, Dr. David Williams
representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, from North
Carolina, and Dr. Jean Ramage, executjve manager of professional
relations in San Diego, Calif., representing the National Associ-
ation of School Psychologists.
On behalf of our subcommittee, I welcome you both here. I do
not know which order of precedence you wish to go in so I will
leave that for you to determine between yourselves.
Ladies first. We would ask you, as we have the others, to summa-
rize if you would, and your full statements will be in the record.
We will probably submit questions to you in writing.
STATEMENT OF JEAN RAMAGE, PH. D., EXECUTIVE MANAGER,
PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND DAVID R. WILLIAMS, M.D.,
THOMASVILLE, N.C., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ACADE-
MY OF PEDIATRICS, A PANEL
Dr. RAMAGE. Thank you, Senator Stafford. We appreciate being
invited here because special education is an extremely important
area. We are very glad that Public Law 94-142 oversight hearings
continuing.
We are particularly grateful that the committee invited profes-
sional organizations. We have been frustrated in getting any infor-
mation into the record and we thank you for that opportunity.
Senator STAFFORD. I think, Doctor, if you would, in your case, if
you would move the mike away just a little bit. It might be easier
for our guests to hear.
Dr. RAMAGE. I am Dr. Jean Ramage, executive manager of pro-
fessional relations for the National Association of School Psycholo-
gists. With me today is Susan Beecher, a school psychologist from
Sacramento, Calif.
My comments represent input from school psychologists who are
employed in nearly every school district in the United States. My
comments also reflect the contributions of professional colleagues
in mental health, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and other
mental health specialists, and from professionals and related pupil
services such as schools, social workers, school counselors, school
nurses, school pathologists, and numerous other related services
specialists. I am especially indebted to the Association for the
Advancement of Psychology and the National Consortium of Child
Mental Health Services and to the National Alliance of Pupil
Services Organizations for their contributions in developing these
recommendations on Public Law 94-142. The membership of
these groups together with the National Association of School Psy-
chologists reflect a substantial segment of the related services com-
munity.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, has had a dramatic effect on the delivery of special education
and related services to children. The provisions of the act have
brought about major changes in educational practice. This in turn
affects all education. The educational system needs time to absorb
PAGENO="0202"
196
the impact of these changes. Therefore, we recommend caution in
considering major revision of Public Law 94-142 at this time.
Public Law 94-142 has not only increased available services, but
it has given access to these services to a greater number of handi-
capped children. However, the potential impact has not been real-
ized because of inadequate funding and the need to coordinate
services in schools and in the community. State and local agencies
are still in the process of clarifying policy regarding the delivery
and funding of these services. These efforts reflect the need to
encourage the development of collaborative agreements between
education agencies and State and Federal agencies administering
title XIX, title XX, Rehabilitation Services, SSI-title XVI-and
title V.
CONTINUUM OF SERVICES
The least restrictive environment provision has forced closer at-
tention to the continuum of services needed by handicapped chil-
dren and youth. These services vary by the nature and severity of
the handicap.
Children with special needs must be identified as early as possi-
ble. At present there is no incentive for the educational system to
work with other systems, such as the medical system, for children
age 0 to 3. Therefore, we recommend that this group be allowed to
be in the child count in a State which chooses to serve these
children.
For youth between the ages of 16 and 21. there is a need to link
with other systems, especially Rehabilitative Services. This should
be somewhat easier now that the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services have been transferred to the Department of
Education. Rehabilitative Services have served individuals with
many handicapping conditions. However, they have not traditional-
ly served the learning disabled individual. Therefore, we recom-
mend that a coordinated effort in this area be made a high priority
to assure the successful transition of children from school to pro-
ductive adulthood.
Recognition of the continuum of services has increased the neces-
sity for professionals with varied expertise to work together. Since
many different service providers have not always worked closely
together, there is a need for continued policy clarification and
identification of cooperative efforts that are working effectively-
that is, model programs. This is particularly pertinent to the provi-
sion of related services.
RELATED SERVICES
In the related services area there are some major problems. The
following are some of the most important concerns and recommen-
dations that are suggested by school psychologists and other relat-
ed services personnel.
One, personnel: There is currently an inadequate number of
trained personnel in and out of schools to implement fully the
mandates of Public Law 94-142. There is a need for a comprehen-
sive manpower study of related professionals, and provisions for
further inservice and preservice training.
Two, supplanting of services: A related problem is what I call
supplanting of services. This happens when personnel who used to
PAGENO="0203"
197
provide services to all children find their roles restricted to the
special education populations, thus eliminating the option of doing
preventive work with high-risk children who often become the
educational problems of tomorrow. Part of this problem is the lack
of trained personnel, and the lack of funds to hire them.
Three, funding: The limited amount of funding has profoundly
restricted the provision of related services, especially counseling
and psychological services. Part of the problem has been the child
count provisions, where funds are based on one count per child,
and not on the number of services needed by the child. The danger
is that the evaluation will focus on labeling the child. While this
approach may satisfy the needs of the system, it does not necessar-
ily address the needs of the child. In fact, this approach may
increase the likelihood that the child will be subjected to the
educational stigma that often accompanies such labeling.
Lack of clarity in fiscal matters has led to confusion between
agencies. In some instances, services outside the school have been
cut off because there was an assumption that the school would pick
up costs. Sometimes needed services have not been entered in the
child's IEP because of concern that schools would have to pay the
total costs. What is recommended is that a variety of successful
cooperative agreements be identified as models, and be made avail-
able to State and local education agencies.
Four, understanding of related services: Some concern has been
raised about the interface of related services personnel and special
education. Part of the issue is related to which agency has jurisdic-
tion over, the service. Part of the problem might be resolved if
related services personnel were represented on the State and local
advisory boards when the State and local plans are being devel-
oped.
One of the problems has been that less qualified people have
been put into positions for which they have no expertise. This has
been particularly problematic in the initial evaluation process,
where the most qualified personnel are often not involved, but
which is the point where their expertise is most needed.
SUMMARY
In summary, let me say that Public Law 94-142 mandates many
important special education and related services for handicapped
children. The educational system is still adjusting to the new re-
quirements of the act.
The following recommendations are based on what we perceive
as a need to support State and local efforts to adapt, and to make
modifications in the act that will further enhance its responsive-
ness to the needs of handicapped children.
Reauthorize the act substantially as it is.
Work to insure that appropriated funds approach the level of
authorization.
Enhance potential for success by allowing children aged 0 to 3 in
the child count, and making it a priority to provide services to
learning disabled individuals aged 16 to 21.
Provide inservice and preservice training for related services
personnel. I would also agree with the needs for more service for
the teachers and particularly the regular teachers.
PAGENO="0204"
198
The next recommendation is to continue policy clarification and
the development of interagency agreements.
Collect information on the number of services delivered as well
as the number of children served.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify and to convey our
recommendations. We pledge to continue working toward the qoals
set forth in Public Law 94-142. If we may be of assistance to the
subcommittee on this or any other matter, please call upon us.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ramage and responses to ques-
tions follow:]
PAGENO="0205"
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF
SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER
199
Testimony of
Jean Ramage, Ph.D.
on behalf of
The National Association of School Psychologists
before the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
on the subject of
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(P.L. 94-142)
United States Senate July 31, 1980
Convention
Sharon Petty
7047 Pebble Creek
West Bloomlield, Michigan 48033
EXECUTIVE MANAGERS
Membership & Fiscal
Michael Chris
2953 Silver Lake Blvd.
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44224
Committee Services
Mary St. Cyr
10 Overland Drive
Stratford Connecticat 06497
Professional Relations
Jean Leppaluoto
11127 Via Temprano
San Diego, California 92124
PAGENO="0206"
200
SU1~IARY OF TESTIMONY ON
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT (P .L. 94-142)
Public Law 94-142 mandates many important special education and related
services for handicapped children. The educational system is still adjusting
to the new requirements of the Act.
The following recommendations are based on what the National Association
of School Psychologists perceives as a need to support State and local efforts
to adapt, and to make modifications in the Act that will further enhance its
responsiveness to the needs of handicapped children.
* Reauthorize the Act substantially as it is.
* Work to ensure that appropriated funds approach the level of
authorization.
* Enhance potential for success by allowing children aged 0 to 3
in the child count, and making it a priority to provide services
to learning disabled individuals aged 16 to 21.
* Provide inservice and preservice training for related services
personnel.
* Continue policy clarification and the development of interagency
agreements.
* Collect information on the number of services delivered as well
as the number of children served.
PAGENO="0207"
201
Thank you for inviting the National Association of School Psychologists
(NASP) to testify before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources of the United States Senate. I am Dr. Jean
Ramage, Executive Manager of Professional Relations for the Association. My
comments represent input from school psychologists, who are employed in nearly
every school district in the United States.
My comments also reflect the contributions of professional colleagues
in mental health, such as psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health
specialists, and from professionals in related pupil services, such as school
social workers, school counselors, school nurses, speech pathologists and
numerous other "related services" a ecialists. I am especially indebted to
~ ~ ~ ~I i~~o
the National Consortitftn of Child Mental Health Serv~es an~'to the N~Tional
Alliance of Pupil Services Organizations for their contributions in developing
these recommendations on P.L. 94-142. The membership of these groups, together
with NASP, reflect a substantial segment of the "related services" community.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, has
had a dramatic effect on the delivery of special education and related services
to children. The provisions of the Act have brought about major changes in
educational practice. This in turn affects all education. The educational
system needs time to absorb the impact of these changes. Therefore, we
recommend caution in considering major revision of P.L. 94-142 at this time.
P.L. 94-142 has not only increased available services, but it has given
access to these services to a greater number of handicapped children. However,
PAGENO="0208"
202
the potential impact has not been realized because of inadequate funding and
the need to coordinate services in schools and in the community. State and
local agencies are still in the process of clarifying policy regarding the
delivery and funding of these services. These efforts reflect the need to
encourage the development of collaborative agreements between education
agencies and State and Federal agencies administering Title XIX, Title XX,
Rehabilitation Services, SSI (Title XVI), and Title V.
CONTINUUM OF SERVICES
The "least restrictive environment" provision has forced closer attention
to the continuum of services needed by handicapped children and youth. These
serviceè vary by the nature and severity of the handicap.
Children with special needs must be identified as early as possible.
At present there is no incentive for the educational system to work with
other systems, such as the medical system, for children age 0 to 3. Therefore,
we recommend that this group be allowed to be in the child count in a State
which chooses to serve, these children.
For youth between the ages of 16 and 21, there is a need to link with
other systems, especially rehabilitative services. This should be somewhat
easier now that the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
has been transferred to the Department of Education. Rehabilitative services
have served individuals with many handicapping conditions. However, they
have not traditionally served the learning disabled individual. Therefore,
we recommend that a coordinated effort in this area be made a high priority
to assure the successful transition of children from school to productive
adulthood.
Recognition of the continuum of services has increased the necessity for
PAGENO="0209"
203
-3-
professionals with varied expertise to work together. Since many different
service providers have not always worked closely together, there is a need for
continued policy clarification and identification of cooperative efforts that
are working effectively -- that is, "model programs." This is particularly
pertinent to the provision of related services.
RELATED SERVICES
In the related services ares there are some major problems. The following
are some of the most important concerns and recommendations that are suggested
by school psychologists and other related services personnel.
1) Personnel. There is currently an inadequate number of trained personnel
in and out of schools to implement fully the mandates of P.L. 94-142. There is
a need for a comprehensive manpower study of related professionals, and pro-
visions for further inservice and preservice training.
2) ~~j~pp~anting of Services". A related problem is what I call "supplanting
of services". This happens when personnel who used to provide services to all
children find their roles restricted to the special education population, thus
eliminating the option of doing preventive work with high risk children who
often become the educational problems of tomorrow. Part of this problem is
the lack of trained personnel, and the lack of funds to hire them.
3) Func~pg. The limited amount of funding has profoundly restricted the
provision of related services, especially counseling and psychological services.
Part of the problem has been the child count provisions, where funds are based
on one count per child, and not on the number of services needed by the child.
The danger is that the evaluation will focus on labeling the child. While
this approach may satisfy the needs of the system, it does not necessarily
address the needs of the child. In fact, this approach may increase the
68-332 0 - 81 - 1~
PAGENO="0210"
204
likelihood that the child will be subjected to the educational stigma that
often accompanies such labeling.
Lack of clarity in fiscal matters has led to confusion between agencies.
In some instances, services outside the school have been cut off because
there was an assumption that the school would pick up costs. Sometimes needed
services have not been entered in the child's IEP because of concern that
schools would have to pay the total costs. What is recommended is that a
variety of successful cooperative agreements be identified as models, and
be made available to State and local education agencies.
4) Understanding of Related Services. Some concern has been raised
about the interface of related services personnel and special education. Part
of the issue is related to which agency has jurisdiction over the service.
Part of the problem might be resolved if related services personnel were
represented on the State and local advisory boards when the State and local
plans are being developed.
One of the problems has been that less qualified people have been put into
positions for which they have no expertise. This has been particularly problematic
in the initial eyaluation process, where the most qualified personnel are often
not involved, but which is the point where their expertise is most needed.
SUMMARY
Public Law 94-142 mandates many important special education and related
services for handicapped children. The educational system is still adjusting
to the new requirements of the Act.
The following recommendations are based on what we perceive as a need
to support State and local efforts to adapt, and to make modifications in
the Act that will further enhance its responsiveness to the needs of
handicapped children.
PAGENO="0211"
205
* Reauthorize the Act substantially as it is.
* Work to ensure that appropriated funds approach the level of
authorization.
* Enhance potential for success by allowing children aged 0 to 3
in the child count, and making it a priority to provide services
to learning disabled individuals aged 16 to 21.
* Provide inservice and preservice training for related services
personnel.
* Continue policy clarification and the development of interagency
agreements.
* Collect information on the number of services delivered as well
as the number of children served.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify and to convey our
recommendations. We pledge to continue working toward the goals set forth
in P.L. 94-142. If we may be of assistance to the Subcommittee on this
or any other matter, please call upon us.
PAGENO="0212"
206
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
Responses to Questions from Oversight Hearing
P.L. 94-1~42, July 31, 1980
Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped
1. In your testimony, you mentioned the need for identification ~f coopera
tive efforts that are working effectively. Does your association know
of any such `model programs"?
The testimony was suggesting that these "model programs" be identified
through the research that is being done in the Office of Special Education.
However, this information could be collected from the various collective
organizations that are concerned about children with handicaps. I would be
glad to assist in gathering information from the following organizations:
THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR CHILD MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The purpose of the Consortium is to bring together national organiza-
tions to work in concert to improve the delivery of services in child mental
health. The Consortium has been concerned about the delivery of mental
health services to handicapped children. Their position on P.L. 9~-l42
is enclosed. The Consortium is composed of the following professional
organizations and consumer organizations:
American Academy of Child Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of Children's Residential Centers
American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children
American Association on Mental Deficiency -
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
Americay Psychological Association
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry
Child Welfare League of American
Mental Health Association
National Association for Retarded Citizens
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Congress of Parents and Teachers
National Council of Community Mental Health Centers
Society of Professors of Child Psychiatry
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PUPIL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS
The purpose of the Alliance (NAPSO) is to work towards the betterment
of children and youth through pupil and related services. The Alliance is
* in the process of developing a position paper on related services. Those
that attend Alliance meetings include the following:
American Occupational Therapy Association
* * * American Personnel and Guidance Association
American Physical Therapy Association
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
American Psychological Association
Association for the Advancement of Health Education
* Council for Exceptional Children
International Association of Pupil Personnel Workers
PAGENO="0213"
207
2
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators
National Association of School Nurses
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Work Consultants on State
Departments of Education
National Association of Social Workers
National Associationof State Consultants for School
Psychological Services.
Also, information on "model" programs can be gained from Robert Hennison-
Walling of the Office of Special Education. He has been collecting this
information.
2. You talked about the inadequate number of trained personnel needed to
implement P.L. 9k-1k2. Specifically, in which disciplines do you see
the most inadequate numbers of personnel?
According to data from the Office of Education's report to Congress
on the implementation of Public Law 91+~lk2 (January 1979), the need is
greatest in the area of psychology and speech pathology.and audiology.
Over 5,000 psychologists and 3,000 speech pathologists and audiologists
were needed. The chart with this data is enclosed. This is the most
recent data available from the Office of Special Education, although new
data should be available shortly. (Call Paul Byrne, 2~45-27O9) Please
note that the data is old (1978-i979). However, through the contacts with
other professionals through. the Consortium and Alliance mentioned in
number 1, the above shortage appears to still exist. There is also a need
for school counselors and school social workers who understand the needs
of the handicapped.
In the area of school psychology the shortage is apparent all over the
United States. At the most recent national conference of the National
Association of School Psychologists the question was raised at the meetings
of "trainers" of school psychologists as to who had former students still
looking for positions. Not a hand was raised and over one fourth of the
programs were represented. This meeting was in April of 1980 and a number
of educators ("trainers") indicated their students were already hired for
the Fall of 1980, an unprecedented phenomena in recent times.
The training of school psychologists have never received substantial
monies from federal funding. The majority of school psychologists have
specialists training, that is at least 60 units of post-baccalaureate
coursework and a year of internship. The National Instituteof Mental Health
funds primarily doctoral training programs, so only a handful of school
psychology programs have been funded; yet there are over 200 programs.
Another small number of programs have been funded because of being located
in special education departments. Most school psychology programs are not
in special education departments, they are in educational psychology or
psychology departments. However, all school psychologists are trained
to work in schools applying learning and behavioral theories to the school
setting.
Since psychologists are familiar with the assessment of most
handicapping conditions, they are an invaluable asset in the decision
making process regarding the individualised education program. Psycholo-
gists also have skills in developing psychological programs of counseling
and parent advising, so desperately needed at this point in time by many
of the children with handicaps. Also, school psychologists are the
PAGENO="0214"
208
3
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
professionals with training most similar to rehabilitation counselors, so
they can serve as the liaison to this important human service area. There
is a joint school psychology and rehabilition program between James Madson
University and Virginia Pei~technic Institute.
Therefore, it is recomended that pre-service and in-service monies be
designated for training in the related services ares most needed; that is,
school psychology and speech pathology and audiology.
3. You mention the need for linkage with rehabilitation services for disabled
youth between the ages of 16 to 21. What is your perception of the role
postsecondary education with reference to learning disabled children from
18 to 21?
Postsecondary education needs awareress of children and youth .who have
specific learning disabilities; that is, they have a disorder in one or
more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, whoch may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to mathematical
calculations. The effect at the postsecondary level is in two directions.
The first is that in the educational process, the postsecondary institutions
should be aware of the special needs of their students for alternative
methods of presentation and opportunities to learn. The State of California
has developed guidelines for the learning disabled college student. San
Diego State University has instituted a program.
Postsecondary education also needs to plan programs to assist individuals
not~only to learn to read and write, but to prepare them in the skills to
succeed in the world of work. Specific learning disabilities may need
to be remedied because an. individual may not know how to get along ~n the
world of work, including time management, personal comunication and follow-
ing policies of the organization. Thus, there is a need for psychologists,
rehabilitation counselors and vocational educators to work closely together.
The National Association of School Psychologists has endorsed the
specialty of vocational school psychologists. With the integration of
special education and rehabilitative services, there is going to be a greater
need for such professionals. .
PAGENO="0215"
209
amhi~m~Amaiz~ ~ Na~Aa~iz fk?~alPyh~1nia~ AAi,~ifChild~sR,~u1Cao~
~/~naI ~
POSITION PAPER
THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR CHILD MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
Public Law 94-142
Adopted December 17, 1979 by the following member organizations:
)aserican Academy of Child Psychiatry
American Association of Children's Residential Centers
American Association ef Psychiatric Services for Children
American Association on Mental Deficiency
~merican Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Society for Adoles'ent Psychiatry
Child Welfare League of America
Mental Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Congress of Parents and Teachers
National Council of Community Mental Health Centers
PAGENO="0216"
210
* Consortium
Position Paper on P.L. 94-142
December 17, 1979
Pagel
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142,. -
has the following purposes:
1. To assure that all handicapped children have available to then a
free appropriate public education which emphasizes special
education and re1~ted services,
2. To assist states and localities in providingfor the education of
- all handicapped children,
3. To assure that the rights of handicapped children and their
parents or guardians are protected, and
4. To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate
handicapped children.
The National Consortiem for Child Mental Health Services supportr the
intent of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public L~w 94-142,
to address the educational needs and rights of handicapped children and youth.
Funding
Congress authorized paying for special education and related services
under P.L. 94-142 at the rate of 5% of state costs in 1978 and increasing.
to 40% of state costs by 1982. However, Congress has not appropriated the
allowable amount. For fiscal year .1980 only 12% instead of 20% has been
appropriated.
Since the mandates of the law require considerable-additional expenses,
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports the full
funding of Public Law 94-142.
PAGENO="0217"
211
Consortium
Position Paper on P.L.-94-142
December17, 1979
Page 2
Personnel Development
Public Law 94-142 requires that every handicapped child receive the
special education and related services identified in the individualized
education program. A fundamental step in the provision of such services
is the preparation of necessary personnel. In light of the least
restrictive environm~nt and related services provisions of the law, the
personnel required to carry out the mandate far exceed the number of
fully-qualified personnel available. For example, states indicated in
their state plans that in 1979-1980 an additional 5,000 psychologists
and 3,000 speech pathologists and audiologists would be needed by the
schools.
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports
~p~rovision of fiscal and technical assistance to states, localities
and institutions of higher education for the provision, of sufficient
quality special education and related services personnel.
Interagency Agreements
Legislative authority exists for a continuum of services for
handicapped persons from birth to adulthood. Although in theory many
services are available, they are frequently not received because of the
maze a person must negotiate in order to receive the services. This is
especially true for children and youth served under P.L. 94-142.
Primary responsibility for services under this Act resides in educational
agencies, thus proper coordination of resources involves intersgency
agreements.
PAGENO="0218"
212
Consortium
Position Paper o~ ~`.L. 94-142
December 17, 1979
Page3
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports the
development and dissemination of interagency agreements at the local, state
and federal levels that maximize the services to children with special needs.
Handicapped Children
The term "handicapped children" means those children determined to be
mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handi-
capped, seriously emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, other health
impaired, deaf-blind, multi-handicapped, or as having specific learning
disabilities, who because of those impairments need special education and
related services. A particularly bothersome problem has been that when
children move from district to district they may or may not receive services
depending on differing interpretations of the handicapping definitions.
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports
the development of model programs that assist in equitable and coordinated
services for handicapped children.
Related Services
Related services include those supportive services required to assist
*a handicapped child to benefit from special education. These services
include audiology, counseling services, early identification, medical
services, occupational therapy, parent counseling and training, physical
therapy, psychological services, recreation, school health services,
social work services, speech pathology and transportation. There is
evidence that children are not receiving the full range of related services
delineated under Public Law 94-142.
PAGENO="0219"
213
Consortium
Position Paper on P.L. 94-142
December 17, 1979
Page 4
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services takes the
position that there is a need for further policy clarification regarding
the area of related services and urges the Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped to make this a top priority area among the policy papers it
is developing
Secondly there is a need for personnel within the Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped who are specialists in the areas of related services.
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services urges the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped to have specialists in the
compliance, personnel training, and research branches that are specifically
responsible for the coordination of related services.
One related service is specifically designated as being for "diagnostic
r evaluation purposes" only, and that is the "medical services." This
tends to create confusion regarding the provision of a continuum of
mental health services needed by children so that they can profit from
special education. The continuum ranges from counseling which is provided
by school personnel to long term psychotherapy by specialists outside
the school setting.
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services realizes the
need to clarify funding of mental health services needed by handicapped
children and has established a Task Force to help resolve this issue.
PAGENO="0220"
214
Consortium
Position Paper on P.L. 94-142
December 17, 1979..
Page5
Evaluation Procedures
The regulations for P.L. 94-142 indicate that the evaluation is to
be made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at
least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of
suspected disability. The child is to be assessed in all areas related
to the suspected disability, including where appropriate, health, vision,
hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic
performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.
The National Consortium for Child Nental Health Sgrvices supports
comprehensive nonbiased assessment conducted by a multidisciplinary team
when such assessment is conducted by personnel qualified in the area
they are evaluating.
Individualized Education Program
The regulations for Public Law 94-142 indicate that in interpreting
evaluation data and in making placement decisions, each public agency
shall draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude
and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition,
social ar.:cultural background and adaptive behavior; shall insure that
information obtained from all these sources is documented and carefully
considered; shall insure that the placement decision is made by a
group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the
meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options; and shall
insure that the placement decision is made in conformity with the least
restrictive environment rules. If a determination is made that a child
is handicapped and needs special education and related services, an
individualized education. program must be. developed for the child.
PAGENO="0221"
215
Consortium
Position Paper on P.L. 94-142
December 17, 1979
Page 6
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports
the development of the individualized education programs for each
handicapped child based on the complete evaluation and the due process
protections for parent participation.
Least Restrictive Environment
Public Law 94-142 mandates that to the maximum extent appropriate
handicapped children, including children in public or private institutions
or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped,
and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of handi-
capped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the
nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily. This is what is usually referred to as the "least.
restrictive environment."
The National Consortium for Child Mental Health Services supports the
concept of "least restrictive environment" insofar as it leads to better
services. The term should not be generalized to mean that all children
are better off in the public schools. Some handicapped children at certain -
stages of their development function better in a structured setting such as
twenty-four (24) hour care can provide.
PAGENO="0222"
216
Progress
Toward a Free
Appropriate.
Public Education
A Report to Congress
on the Implementation of Public Law 94-142:
The Education for All Handicapped
Children Act
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Office of Education
January 1979
PAGENO="0223"
217
57
See Appendix 0. Table 0-3.5
Figure 3.5 School Staff Other Than Special Education Teachers Available and Needed1
Number of Staff Members (Thousands)
20 40 60
Teacher sides
Psychologists and diagnostic
staff
Other non-Instructional staId
Speech pathologists and
audiologists
Supervisors
Home-hospital teachers
Vocational educators and
work-study coordinators
School social workers
Physical educatom
Occupational and recreational
therapists
0 20 40
LEGENDI____
Available (1976-77).
Needed for 1977-78
________________________ Needed for 1978-79
`Some States combined calegories. See Appendix D, table 0-3.5.
PAGENO="0224"
218
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Doctor. We appreciate
your being here.
Dr. Williams, we are ieady for you.
Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.
I am David Williams, private practice in pediatrics in Thomas-
yule, N.C., today representing the American Academy of Pediat-
rics, dedicated to the health and welfare of infants and adolescents.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-
142, is clearly one of the most significant pieces of legislation to
address the education needs and rights of handicapped children.
Since its implementation, commendable progress has been made
toward providing a free and appropriate public education for all
handicapped children.
The academy is strongly committed to the intent of this legisla-
tion and believes its potential for success is great. It is expected,
however, that a program which endeavors to make such significant
changes will often create new problems as well as crystallize our
perception of the old as such is in the case in the law. The overrid-
ing and fundamental problem is that despite the passage of Public
Law 94-142, millions of handicapped children are stifi not receiving
a free and appropriate education and related services. The reasons
for this failure are varied and complex.
As pediatricians, we will focus on those areas best served from
our expertise. The academy strongly believes that an interdisciplin-
ary effort is critical to success of this program. Education of the
handicapped child is no longer the exclusive domain of any one
profession. The accurate identification, evaluation, and manage-
ment of programs to meet the complex needs of these children
demand a corroborative effort from a number of different disci-
plines. Physicians are excluded from participating in the imple-
mentation of this law to a level commensurate with the demand for
their skills and training.
I would like to talk about several aspects of the law from that
standpoint. First would be an identification. We feel that pediatri-
cians are probably those people best able to identify these children
early. Some can be identified from birth. You pick up various types
of problems that you know will lead to various types of handicap-
ping conditions, and we would urge that physicians be brought into
this identification process and it not be just an education identifica-
tion, but that physicians be brought into it early.
We do believe that early intervention is crucial, that with early
intervention we could prevent a lot of handicapping conditions and
lots of complications of these conditions.
We would recommend that eventually the law extend to birth.
We would recommend that this not be the exclusive domain of
education and that if we extend the law downward, that people
from the medical profession be brought into it so that they can
make recommendations about what type of intervention is needed.
This is being done in other bureaucratic systems. I know that we
are trying to identify child delivery. We are trying to see a good
sense of cooperation so that all children will be eligible for this
identification and not those just eligible by various types of finan-
cial criteria.
PAGENO="0225"
219
Another issue is the evaluation process. Under this law, it is not
clear if all children need a medical examination. We certainly feel
that most children do deserve a good medical and comprehensive
evaluation, including physical examination and layup. We would
not necessarily like to see this mandated, that all children who
enter the education system have that evaluation. We feel that a lot
have been tied into a primary care physician. Most of us have
children who have an inch or two-a chart in our office, meaning
that we have identified them, we have rapport with the parents,
we have sent them to various referral sources. The real problem is
that we work with them from birth to age 4 or 5, and they enter
school, they are having problems and we do not have a good
rapport with the school.
We would urge a good sense of cooperation between the school
officials and private physicians, some way to foster a good sense of
cooperation. I do believe that, historically, this has been hard to do
with physicians. They have been aloof, they have been hard to
work with, they have been hard to reach. I do think that this trend
has changed and that physicians now are aware of the problems of
these children in schools and stand ready to work with them.
We do believe that IEP is important. We would like more medi-
cal input into the IEP. We feel that if discussion was brought into
the spirit of this law in terms of identification, intervention, and
assessment, that it would just be natural to have this opinion for
the IEP.
We recognize the fact that there are many children who enter
the educational system without previous good assessment from
physicians. They have not had good primary care. They have not
had good medical care. We recognize that there are perhaps mil-
lions of those entering school. We would encourage that those
children be evaluated medically. We would encourage that they be
seen by some type of medical care facility and that these opinions
and recommendations be incorporated into the IEP. We do have a
serious problem with related services. We feel that the scope of this
has not been identified. We feel that many children cannot be
educated in a special education system without identifying and
helping with related services. The schools particularly have done a
good job with this, with hearing and speech. Perhaps they have not
done a good job with psychological testing, psychiatric and counsel-
ing and many other areas.
We feel that these services are available much more than people
feel; that perhaps they are available already in the system; that
this is not being perceived by the schools and with better percep-
tion by the schools, we feel that many of these services are availa-
ble. Obviously, there is a big economic impact of this law. Carrying
through with all the related services will be expensive. We would
caution against leaving the related services out of the IEP. We
would hope to strengthen interagency agreements. We would not
like to see unprecedented withdrawal of services by public agencies
operating with public funds sources other than BEH.
We would not like to see withdrawal of responsibility for third-
party reimbursement, which is being done, and is not in the spirit
of this law. We certainly would like to see a more clear definition
of the scope of related services. We feel that the general failure to*
68-332 0 - 81 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
220
provide related services to handicapped children stands as one of
the most critical barriers to the successful implementation of this
law.
The American Academy is not just beggars. We have been pro-
viders. We have convened a national organization of providers for
one meeting to discuss the problems of related services. We plan to
have another meeting. This is most productive and we feel that it
will help.
We also have a project ongoing in the academy funded by the
Office of Special Education of the Department of Education to help
train pediatricians. We hope to train 1,500 by December of this
year. We recognize that pediatricians need to have a better under-
standing of the law, have a better understanding of how to work
with the schools, have a better understanding of the handicapped
child. Pediatricians have historically been interested in the handi-
capped child but we do feel that this project will help and we are
appreciative for the money and the funding.
We are in the process of a development plan, of a program to
define and interpret Public Law 94-142, to the leaders of the chap-
ters, their States. This is in the early stages, but we do feel it is
important. We do not shy away from the request for more funds.
We feel that this is important. However, we also feel that bringing
the physician into this law, more direction from the central Gov-
ernment in how to bring the physician in, using the records of
those who have been seen, using the assessment for all children,
would be important.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Thank you.
Senator STAFFORD. Doctor, we are grateful to you and to Dr.
Ramage for helping us in our consideration of 94-142. I think you
are the first pediatrician who has testified in front of the subcom-
mittee. I will give a lot of weight to what you have told us here this
morning. So we are grateful to you both.
We may submit some questions in writing to you and I can
assure you that the other members of the subcommittee will be
interested in what you have told us today.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams along with questions
and answers follow:]
PAGENO="0227"
221
American Academy of Pediatrics
Testimony
before the
Subcommittee on Handicapped
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
Oversight Hearings on
P.L. 94-142
Education for All Handicapped Children Act
Presented by
David R. Williams, 1*LD., F.A.A.1'.
July 31, 1980
Division of Government Liaison
1800 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
703-525-9560
PAGENO="0228"
222
Mr. Chairman, I am David Williams, a private practicing pediatrician
in Thomasville, North Carolina and Chairman of our state chapter of
the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Academy is an international
association of 22,000 pediatricians dedicated to the health and welfare
of infants, children and adolescents. It has a deep and long-standing
commitment to the issues affecting our nation's handicapped children.
Since the Academy's Committee on Children with Handicaps was established
in 1957, it has undertaken a variety of measures to improve the conditions
affecting such youngsters. In 1966 the committee initiated a project to
explore all appropriate means to develop a significant partnership
between pediatrics and special education in the early identification of
various handicaps, and it has continued to pursue this effort. Most
recently, the Academy launched a joint effort with the Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped to develop extensive training programs
for pediatricians and other physicians in the diagnosis and care of
handicapped children.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, is clearly
one of the most significant pieces of legislation designed to address
the educational needs and rights of handicapped children. Since its
implementation, commendable progress has been made toward providing a
"free and appropriate public education for all handicapped children.
The Academy is committed to the intent of this legislation and believes
its potential for success is great.
It is also to be expected, however, that a program which endeavors to
make such meaningful changes often will create new problems as well as
crystallize our perception of the old. Such is the case with P.L. 94-
142. The overriding and fundamental concern is that despite the passage
of P.L. 94-142, millions o handicapped children still are not receiving
the free and appropriate education and related services guaranteed them
by law. The reasons for this failure are varied and complex; as pedia-
tricians, we will focus on the areas best served by our expertise.
The Academy strongly believes that an interdisciplinary effort is critical
to the success of this and other programs to ameliorate the conditions
which hamper handicapped children. Education of the handicapped child
is no longer the exclusive domain of any one profession. The accurate
identification, evaluation and management of programs to meet the complex
needs of these children demanda collaborative response from a number of
disciplines. As such, we believe that health and education cannot be
separated when considering the handicapped child.
It is plain that P.L. 94-142 intended to affirm this belief when it
assured all handicapped children a free, appropriate education emphasizing
special education and related services to meet their unique needs. In
reality, though, handicapped children are not receiving the support
services necessary for them to benefit from special education. We are
particularly concerned that the critical relationship between a handi-
capped child's health and his or her educational success has been
ignored throughout the implementation of this law.
PAGENO="0229"
223
2.
The Academy believes this failure to provide handicapped children the
related services necessary to benefit from special education stands as
one of the most critical barriers to the implementation of P.L. 94-142.
Although there are several reasons for this failing, that we will
examine in our testimony, a most serious problem is that P.L. 94-142 has
structured a role for physicians and other related-service professionals
that does not allow them adequately and appropriately to contribute
their knowledge and skill to the children served by this legislation.
Consequently, in the implementation of this statute physicians are
excluded from participation at a level commensurate with their abilities,
training and interest.
Let us now examine the specific aspects of this legislation.
I Identification
A sound and accurate identification program is critical to the success
of this law. Yet it is well known that a significant number of eligible
children are not being identified due to gaps and inconsistencies in
present identification systems.
Shortcomings in these identification systems are particularly disturbing
because there are medical and educational programs in operation which
identify infants or children as high risk for later developmental
disabilities. The factors indicating that risk are often best recognized
by the physicians who have provided ongoing health supervision through
prenatal and postnatal care. For instance, there is ample evidence that
infants under age 3 with severe disabilities can be identified quite
early. Many of these babies have been followed for medical problems or
as high-risk infants as a result of care in premature nurseries and
newborn intensive care units. Unfortunately, many screening programs
have been instituted to detect developmental problems without any consultation
with the physician providing the child's ongoing medical care. Models
built solely into the educational system are often not successful in
reaching very young children, as they have few links with the primary
health care system, the major source of care for the high-risk infant.
On the other hand, many handicapped children are missed because physicians
may not know how services can be obtained or what referral alternatives
exist. To alleviate this problem, we recommend that the follow-up of
children by the medical profession be clearly linked to whatever identification
programs are provided through the education system under P.L. 94-142.
The key to the success of such a model, however, is that it will tie
identification to referral and follow-up so as to establish continuity
of care.
II Early Intervention
There is little argument that the long-range solution to the problem of
handicapping conditions is to prevent them in the first place. Thus the
Academy considers it essential that greater emphasis be placed on early
PAGENO="0230"
224
3.
intervention programs that begin to apply known rehabilitative tech-
niques to correct disabilities at the earliest possible age, when they
are most effective. We recommend that the age limits covered by P.L.
94-142 eventually be extended to birth so that remedial action can
take place at the earliest appropriate time.
Infants who are blind or deaf, visually impaired, multiply handicapped,
moderately or severely retarded, orthopedically impaired, severely
disturbed emotionally (such as the autistic child) or suffering from
other health impairments all profit from intervention programs when
started early. Such intervention techniques and programs are preventive
in that they minimize and attenuate the handicapping conditions of
developmental abnormalities. As such, these programs are the most cost-
effective means of avoiding institutionalization and more complex systems
of care.
At present it is optional that states provide services to children under
age 5. Although we appreciate the fiscal implications underlying this
provision and the concern about variances in state school age requirements,
the costs to society over the long run will be considerably less if delay
is avoided. Systematically reaching handicapped children during the
pre-school years provides options which no longer may exist at ages when
children usually enter the educational system. Certainly, the earlier
the intervention, the greater the long-range benefit to the child and
family.
We again would caution, however, that to lower the age mandate for
educationally directed programs, without providing for the appropriate
interaction of the medical field, would be a disservice to all handi-
capped children.
III Evaluation
Another critical issue is the evaluation process whereby the handicapped
child's needs and services are determined. It should be obvious that
the child's health needs warrant extensive consideration. However, an
Academy review of state regulations determining the extent of physician
participation in the evaluation process concluded that "the actual
frequency with which a physician's examination is utilized as part of
the evaluation process for special education is not consistent with P.L.
94-142 policy, which includes health as a recommended area of assess-
ment." The study discovered that only 357, of the states require or
recommend that a medical evaluation be part of the evaluation process
for all handicapped children suspected of needing special education.
As an example, in a recent survey, 39 Special Education Agencies which
were contacted stated that an educator decides whether a physician
should be consulted concerning the medical needs of a child. That is,
if a mentally retarded first-grader is being evaluated by an educationally
directed team, then that team (without medically trained personnel)
decides whether a neurologic examination is required or whether labor-
atory testing is needed to determine if the child is anemic.
PAGENO="0231"
225
4.
The Academy recognizes that not all children with handicaps have health
needs different from those of the general population. However, many of
these children, especially ones with sensory and developmental defects,
demonstrate clear medical implications. Furthermore, handicaps which
involve behavioral or learning problems on occasion have some link to
the child's health status and may have been ameliorated if given medical
attention.
If one accepts that a significant number of the conditions and diseases
causing developmental disabilities have medical and health-related
causes, and that many handicapping conditions are correctly associated
with ongoing major medical conditions, then one must rely on medically
trained personnel to define the nature of these handicaps accurately.
For example, take the case of a child with paralysis of all four extrem-
ities, a language delay and an articulation problem. In this case, the
value of the primary care physician in educational planning can be
demonstrated in many ways. The physician may learn that jaundice during
the newborn period was the cause of the child's cerebral palsy. This,
in turn, often leads to impaired auditory nerves which result in a high-
frequency hearing loss. With this knowledge, the physician will immed-
iately refer the youngster to an audiologist. Moreover, the physician
may realize the child with this condition frequently has an associated
nearsightedness. If this has not been checked previously, he or she would
request an ophthalmologic exam. The primary care physician also knows
that this youngster is susceptible to developing contractions of the
joints if not given appropriate preventive physical therapy. Therefore,
referral to a physical therapist probably would be made. In addition, a
physician may realize that a careful evaluation by a physiatrist may
result in certain orthotic aids which would allow the youngster to write
more clearly, transfer from wheelchair to school seat or, if necessary,
to toilet seat. Lastly, the primary care physician may note that the
child is having subclinical seizures (lapses of consciousness that may
not be evident to the casual observer). An electroencephalogram will
confirm this and appropriate medication may then be prescribed. There
are numerous similar example~ that can be cited. While many children
with learning problems may hive no physical defects, frequently a medi-
cally treatable cause of learning disabilities is uncovered with a
careful health exam. For example:
*a slow-learning child may prove to have a thyroid
malfunction which could be treated adequately with
thyroid medication;
*a slow learner may have his or hea~ problem secondary to
lead intoxication.
Arguments have been cited that procedures are too costly and a physician's
time too restrictive for a medical evaluation to be provided each child
being considered for special education services. What has not been
considered are the advantages, in terms of time and cost, of developing
an intermediate method or procedure to be administered by the physician
PAGENO="0232"
226
5.
which would provide more educationally relevant information than a
screening process, yet would be less extensive than a comprehensive
medical evaluation. Such a procedure would be of use in evaluating
children who do not present readily identifiable medical conditions
and/or whose behavioral and learning problems respond well to accepted
educational practices.
Therefore, we recommend that all children involved in special education
programs under this legislation be evaluated by a physician who is
knowledgeable of the child's past medical and developmental history,
including a physical examination and appropriate laboratory testing to
determine medical conditions that may be causing, or at least influencing,
the child's enrollment in special education programs.
IV Individual Education Plan (IEP~
We are acutely aware of the positive value of medical input if it is
used as an integral component of the IEP process. When indicated,
medical treatment of a specific handicap is essential to the educational
success of a given child.
As such, the Academy considers it essential that a physician be consulted
prior to writing the IEP for each child to ascertain medically related
factors and services needed for the child to benefit from special edu-
cation. The degree of that involvement and the presence of the physician
at the IEP conference should be determined by the needs of the child.
In certain cases the physician may feel strongly that the child's health
needs require his/her presence at such a team meeting. In other instances,
it may be that a report or completed form will suffice. Primary care
physicians also should be responsible for determining what other medical
consultations are necessary as they are most knowledgeable of the medical
needs of the disabled child. It seems inconceivable that the primary
care physician who has followed a handicapped child since birth, who has
prescribed physical and occupational therapy, who has recommended speech
therapy, who has provided the parents with major guidance during the
early years of their child's rehabilitative course, should be effectively
denied the opportunity to continue that relationship once the child
enters the educational process. Although the law does not prohibit
physicians' involvement in this regard, neither does it facilitate their
participation.
A specific example of the need for me~1ical input is a child who was born
prematurely and who lacked adequate amounts of oxygen during birth.
This oxygen deficit can cause an injury to the brain, a condition that
could interfere with smooth coordination of the arms and legs. The
physicians who cared for the child during the newborn period would be
aware of the potential damage and would carefully monitor the child's
development during the first year of life. Prescriptions for braces,
splints and special chairs and devices often are provided by the primary
physicians or medical specialists to whom the child is referred.
Visual and hearing defects are potential problems and would be carefully
PAGENO="0233"
227
evaluated. Orthopedic surgery, if required, would need to be coor-
dinated with the educational program of the child. If walking is impaired,
wheel chairs and braces are additional concerns and would have to be
prescribed in addition to physical and occupational therapy guidance for
their use in the classroom setting.
Additionally, the physician would possess information concerning the
child's seizure problems, if they existed, and would be knowledgeable
regarding side effects of medication used for convulsions. Teachers and
physicians can develop effective mechanisms to share this information
regarding expected reactions and the child's actual reactions in the
classroom.
It would appear that the preceding information would be invaluable to
the educational team in planning an IEP for this child, yet the majority
of such IEPs are currently generated without any attempt to secure such
information, let alone with any structured method to use the information
even if supplied by physicians.
The omission of the physician as an essential participant in regulating
the development and implementation of the IEP has led to discontinuity
of care and has created communications problems between schools and
physicians. Parents often are forced to seek independent medical advice,
evaluation and treatment because the IEP did not reflect medical input.
Also, if pediatricians, physicians and other professionals are to work
together to improve the opportunities for handicapped children, then
mandating inclusion of medical participation in the IEP planning process,
while advising parents of what they can expect and how they may go about
requesting services for their children, is necessary. Such measures also
could result in a decrease in the number of requests for appeals and/or
independent evaluations.
V Related Services
The importance of the relationship between special education and related
services cannot be understated. This view is supported by the Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped (BEH) in its first annual Report to Congress
on the Implementation of P.L. 94-142. "Implicit ... in the Act itself
are the fundamental ideas that education of the handicapped must
include related services in addition to special education, whenever
these services are needed, and that a wide array of services should be
available to meet children's unique needs."
In reality, however, many handicapped children are not receiving the
services necessary for them to benefit frdm special education; indeed,
in several cases, they are even being denied services provided them
prior to P.L. 94-142. Part of the problem already has been alluded to,
that is, in order for a handicapped child to receive the necessary
related services, knowledgeable people from various fields must have
input into the evaluation and/or IEP process to diagnose needs and
prescribe services.
PAGENO="0234"
228
However, the problem goes far beyond this. With the advent of P.L. 94-
142, school districts are now responsible for ensuring that handicapped
children are provided services necessary for them to benefit from
special education. Because schools have not provided many of these
services in the past, this new responsibility demands close coordination
with public and private agencies which do provide them. Several problems
have ensued.
1. Perceived Availability of Services
Host would agree that the array of services demanded by
P.L. 94-142 is far more comprehensive than existing
service systems can provide. However, it is important to
recognize that the actual services and service providers
do, for the most part, exist. That these services may be
available outside the public school system, though, has
not been explored thoroughly. In practice, of course,
the task is to make these services available to handi-
capped children and young adults who require them. Given
that these services are available, we must identify the
systematic barriers which preclude their use.
2. Economic Impact
This reason often if given in response to the previous
question as the availability of services usually is also
a function of the ability to pay for them. And, as we
are well aware, school districts are already financially
strapped. For several years school district adminis-
trators have informed state and federal officials that
economic realities constrain efforts to provide for
additional aandated services.
As a result of the above two factors, a disturbing parallel
trend has emerged. It involves the widespread practice
of omitting recommendations for related services from the
individualized education plans developed for handicapped
children. School districts and states improperly have
narrowed the definition of related services so as to
exclude many essential and legally required services from
the child's IEP. Many professionals have indicated that
instead of expanding the realm of support services, many
school districts attempt to meet the need only within the
scope of programs and services available. Teachers are
told not to list available services for a child that are
too costly to the system. In essence, the child's needs
are "adjusted to meet the realm of services available."
The logic is simple -- no one is accountable for services
which never are recommended.
PAGENO="0235"
229
8.
3. Ineffective Interagency Agreements
School districts, states and BEH have failed to work out
effective interagency agreements to furnish access to
federal programs already providing "related services."
Although such agreements have been pursued and are "in
place," too few have been implemented effectively at the
state and local level. Nor do existing agreements in-
volve all the appropriate agencies providing these services.
At least, these agreements should be expanded to include
Maternal and Child Health, Title XX, Indian Health and a
variety of other agencies.
Although such coordination takes time, considerable
effort and money, we believe such efforts are critical to
the success of this program.
4. The unprecedented withdrawal of services by public
9g~encies operating with federal funds from sources
other than BEN
This withdrawal was apparently predicated on the belief
that state education agencies now have the sole respon-
sibility for educating handicapped children and young
adults. There appears to be development of the "dumping
syndrome," where other agencies, public and private
providers of education and related services, are shifting
fiscal responsibilty for handicapped children to the
schools. Of course, part of this problem is attributed
to the failings of interagency agreements. In another
sense, P.L. 94-142 has created a tangle by transferring
responsibility for services provided, without clear legal
authority to establish educational policies for other
agencies or to monitor and enforce those standards. This
transition of service provision, coupled with the lack of
funding, has created an enormous gap in the services
delivered to handicapped children.
5. The withdrawal of responsibility for third-pa~ç~
reimbursement
In at least one state, a major health insurer has refused
to underwrite previously reimbursible expenses for
evaluation and treatment services to handicapped children
and young adults, citing the local public schools' respon-
sibility to pay for such services if they have been
indicated as required in conjunction with a child's
program of special education. This has occurred in spite
of the specific statement of the law which indicates that
private insurers are not relieved of their responsibility
to cover such services.
PAGENO="0236"
230
9.
6. Lack of a clear definition of the scope of `related
services"
A most critical problem is the lack of a clear definition
of "related services." There is widespread confusion
concerning the extent to which supportive services are
necessary for a child to benefit from specialeducation.
For example, while we realize that certain handicapped
children require physical therapy, the question remains,
"To what extent does this physical therapy relate to the
child's ability to benefit from an education program?"
The same dilermda is faced when a school district must
consider the need for individual or family counseling.
There are obviously myriad other examples. Given that a
child's total program of special education must be
viewed, in principle, as an entity combining specially
adopted instruction and related services, we believe this
issue surfaces as a central component of the overall
program.
The tragic net effect of the foregoing is that in the face of the demand
for greater services to children identified as handicapped, it is likely
that fewer services are actually available. What is especially tragic
is that all or most of these so-called related services are clearly
available, either within the educational system or allied disciplines.
The general failure to provide related services to handicapped children
stands as one of the most critical barriers to the successful imple-
mentation of P.L. 94-142; it must be addressed.
Although we cannot pretend to know all the answers to these problems,
certain strategies are clear:
1. Clarify and improve funding and programmatic service
delivery roles and responsibility;
2. Escalate efforts to implement interagency agreements at
local and state levels; expand these to include all
appropriate agencies;
3. Identify structural barriers to use of public and private
"related service" providers and develop mechanisms to use
these services;
4. Clarify definition of scope of "related service;"
5. Monitor more closely and enforce existing regulations;
In an effort to address some of these related service issues, the Academy
recently convened a meeting of national organizations whose members
typically provide such services. (See Appendix I for list of partici-
pating organizations.) We anticipate convening several of these meetings
with the hope of finding answers to some of the critical questions.
PAGENO="0237"
231
10.
VI State Agency Advisory Panel
Although we realize that the states are responsible for the composition
of their own State Agency Advisory Panel, we strongly urge that physicians
be included as members of these panels. A recent survey indicates there
are presently only 13 physicians serving on these panels or in this
capacity.
We believe that medical input at this policy level will encourage greater
physician participation in P.L. 94-142 activity, as it has been demon-
strated that medically related screening, evaluation and treatment
procedures devised on a state-by-state basis are capable of being cost-
effectively interwoven into the individual state's educationally related
processes. Physicians long have been discouraged by identification
programs without supporting remedial projects, and by duplication of
identification endeavors by educational and social agencies when the
child's problem is already well known by his or her personal physician.
We strongly recommend that physicians be invited to serve on such panels
to assist the State Educational Agency in formulating plans that include
the existing medical projects and to stimulate provision of those proven
successful in other states.
VII In-Service Training Surveys
The Academy recommends that physicians and all related-service personnel
be included in the annual in-service training surveys mandated by P.L.
94-142. We believe that this will be a critical first step toward
building a better informed and coordinated network of personnel to
implement the law, and the Academy has demonstrated its willingness to
assist in this process.
One of the initial moves the Academy made in devising a training curri-
culum for physicians was to identify their in-service training needs.
In so doing, we discovered that physicians have not been included as
part of the annual surveys.
Since passage of this law, the Academy has taken a variety of measures
to encourage physicians' involvement with P.L. 94-142. More than ever
we recognize the need for pediatricians to be trained in the specifics
of the educational system, and we have launched a joint effort with
the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH) to develop extensive
training programs for pediatricians and other physicians in the diagnosis
and care of handicapped children. (See Appendix II for Curriculum
Content.) By the end of this three-year project, we expect to have
trained more than 5,000 physicians. We are most enthusistic about this
program and believe that BEH should be commended and encouraged to
continue such initiatives. We further believe that these programs
eventually will facilitate the participation of all necessary related-
service personnel. At least three other training programs, initiated by
physicians, which are also fully or partially funded by BEH, are directed
toward providing physicians in training and practice with the necessary
knowledge and skills to provide optimal care to children with handicaps.
PAGENO="0238"
232
11.
No discussion of this legislation would be complete without considering
the economic problems which impede its success. Clearly, the P.L. 94-142
mandate to provide all handicapped children a free, appropriate education
and related services is an expensive endeavor which demands significant
financial commitments. Yet states are required to implement and enforce
this law with inadequate funding from both the state and federal government.
The abysmal level of federal aid already has forced local districts to
use financial stopgap measures which will not hold up in the long run.
If Congress is truly dedicated to this legislation and the children it
proposes to serve, it must authorize and appropriate more realistic
funding levels. No amount of reforms or clarification in the regulations
can make this law effective if the money isn't there to implement it.
In summary, we thank you for giving the American Academy of Pediatrics
the opportunity to present our concerns regarding P.L. 94-142. The
Academy strongly supports the concept of this legislation, but we reit-
erate respectfully our viewpoint that physician participation must be
encouraged through regulations to allow them to bring the full impact of
their training and abilities to bear on the handicapped child by fostering
cooperation between the medical and educational systems. Failure to
achieve this cooperation will lead to discontinuity of care, duplication
of service and failure to identify the child at the earliest possible
moment when the potential for remedy is greatest.
This cooperation can be further strengthened through the recognition
that many handicapped children have medically related, diagnostic and
health concerns that contribute to their educational disability, and
that physician involvement in the remedy of such disabilities will be of
assistance to those concerned with the child's educational program.
PAGENO="0239"
233
Appendix I
AD HOC NATIONAL MEETING OF RELATED SERVICES PROVIDERS
National Professional Associations Rgpresentative
American Academy of Pediatrics Alfred Healy, M.D., FAA?
1801 Hinman, P 0 Box 1034 University Hospital School
Evanston, Il. 60204 University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
American Academy of Child Psychiatry Jay Hirsch, M.D.
1424 16th St., N.W. Suite 2O1A 1971 Second Street
Washington, D.C. 20036 Highland Park, Il. 60035
American Medical Association Herbert Grossman, M.D., FAAP
535 North Dearborn St. Child Development Section
Chicago, Il. 60610 UCLA/NPI Pacific Research Group
P 0 Box lOO-R
Pomona, CA 91766
American Occupational Therapy Association Ms. Jane Davy
1383 Piccard Drive
Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20850
American Physical Therapy Association Ms. Carolyn Heriza
1156 15th St., N.W., Suite 500 1619 West Hedgecroft
Washington, D.C. 20005 Seabrook, TX 77586
Mr. Garry Garrett
Associate Director
Professional Relations Department
American School Health Association Mrs. Virginia Thompson
P 0 Box 708 Director, School Health
Kent, Ohio 44240 Houston Independent School Dist.
3830 Richmond Ave
Houston, TX 77027
American Speech, Language and Hearing Stanley Dublinske, M.A.
Association Director, School Affairs
10801 Rockv~lle Pike Program
Rockville, MD 20852
National Association of School Nurses, Inc. Ms. Peggy Rufner
Statler Hilton Hotel, Suite 104 7706 John Hancock Lane
7th Ave & 33rd St. Dayton, Ohio 45459
New York, N.Y. 10001
PAGENO="0240"
234
Page 2.
National Professional Associations Representative
National Association of School Psychologists Jean Ramage, Ph.D.
1511 K St., Suite 927 San Diego State University
Washington, D.C. 20005 San Diego, CA 92124
National Association of Social Workers Nrs. Nancy Banchy
1425 H St., N.W. Suite 600 Ninnesota State Department of
Washington, D.C. 20005 Education
651 Capitol Square
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, Minn. 55101
PAGENO="0241"
235
AD HOC NATIONAL KEETING OF RELATED SERVICES PROVIDERS
Resource Consultants
1. Legal Consultant: H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, J.D.
Assistant Director, Institute of Government
P 0 Box 990, University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
2. Office of Special Education:
Bob Henneson-Walling
6206 Tecumseh Place
Berwin Heights, MD 20740
3. Office of Maternal and Child Health:
Merle NcPhearson, M.D., Chief
Rehabilitation Services Branch
Office of Maternal & Child Health
Dept of Health & Human Services
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 722
Rockville, MD 20857
4. C. C. S. S. 0.: Judy Riegelhaupp, Associate Commissioner
Special Education
31 St.James Ave
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
5. N. A. S. D. S. E.: Leonard Hall, Ph.D.
Division of Special Education
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
P 0 Box 480
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
6. L.E.A. : Larry Vuillemot, Ph.D.
4440 Grand Ave
Gurnee, Ii. 60031
7. State and Territorial Directors - M.C.H. & C.C.:
Horace K. Tenney, III, M.D.
Division of Public Instruction
126 Langdon St.
Madison, WI 53702
68-332 0 - 81 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
236
Appendix II
CURRICULUM CONTENT
The course is divided into four major units:
The Child
The Family
The Education System
The Community
Unit 1, The Child, examines the role of the primary care physician
along three dimensions: identification of handicapping conditions,
medical evaluation, and the continuing health care of handicapped
children and young adults. Each of these three dimensions is examined
with regard to both current practices and recent advances. Obviously
time will not permit any one area to be covered thoroughly. A list
of topics in each area is currently being developed as possible areas
to be covered. This will allow you to select froia several predetermined
topical areas that you choose to include in this first module. We will
be giving you these topical areas by July 11 so that you may begin
making preliminary plans and consider each of the options.
Unit 2 introduces the physician to the family unit. The module
addresses problems in physician/parent communication and the physician's
role as counselor to the parents of a handicapped child. A series of
shct videotapes presenting parents discussing problems associated with
parenting a handicapped child serve as points of departure for group
discussion centered around the following issues:
1) Informing parents their child has a handicap.
2) Acquainting the physician with the initial and long term
psychological impact of having a handicapped child.
3) Parents reactions to the news that they have a handicapped
child.
4) The impact of the handicapped child on a marriage.
5) The impact of the handicapped on siblings.
6) Parental perceptions of the physician's role in helping
them manage their handicapped child.
7) Parental coping and adjuatment difficulties ifl the
community.
In Unit 3, state and local legislation and practices are discussed to
acquaint the physician with the particular demands and resources of
his/her locale. This will be followed by the presentation of case
studies to illustrate the problems a physician is likely to encounter
as it applies to his/her particular state and his/her particular role
in its implementation. This unit is developed around an educational
planning model. It examines the process by which handicapped children
are identified, their educational needs assessed and their programs
planned, implemented and monitored within the educational system.
Unit 4 seeks to highlight for the physician critical issues and problems
faced by the handicapped in the community. These areas include indepen-
dence, independent living, social integration, employment, sexuality,
and parenting. Short videotapes cover parental expectations of the
future for their handicapped child, the physician's role in life planning
for handicapped children, attitudes and human differences, and perspec-
tives of handicapped young adults.
NR:ce
6-16
PAGENO="0243"
237
American Academy of Pediatrics
Summary of Recommendations for P.L. 94-142
Education for All Handicapped Children Act
P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975
and provides that "all handicapped children will have available to them a free,
appropriate public education emphasizing special education and related services
designed to meet their unique needs; .. ." While commendable progress has been made
since implementation of this legislation, the Academy believes several critical
disparities and ambiguities in the law require clarification before P.L. 94-142 can
truly meet the needs of handicapped children.
A most serious problem we have encountered to date is that the law has structured
a role for physicians that does not allow them to adequately and appropriately
contribute their knowledge and skill to children served by this legislation.
Consequently, physicians are not participating in the implementation of this law
to a level commensurate with the demand for their skills and training.
The following is a summary of the Academy's recommendations for changes in the
existing program.
1. Identification
A significant number of eligible children are not being identified
due to gaps and inconsistencies in present identification systems.
Shortcomings in these identification systems are particularly
disturbing as they are medical and educational programs in operation
which identify infants and children as high risk for later develop-
mental disabilities. However, many identification programs are
educationally administered and do not include physician input.
Therefore, we recommend screening programs to detect developmental
disabilities should include consultation with the physician
providing the child's ongoing medical care.
2. Early Intervention
The fundamental and long-range solution to handicapping conditions
is to prevent them in the first place. Greater emphasis should be
applied to early intervention programs that begin to apply known
rehabilitative techniques to correct disabilities at the earliest
possible age, when they are most effective. We recommend the age
limits covered by P.L. 94-142 should eventually be extended to birth.
3. Evaluation
Al 1 children involved in special education programs under P.L. 94-142
should have an evaluation by physician who is knowledgeable of the
child's past medical and developmental history. We believe this is
consistent with P.L. 94-142 mandates; however, a recent Academy
survey revealed only 35% of the states required a medical evaluation
for a handicapped child requiring special education.
PAGENO="0244"
238
4. Individual Education Plan
It is essential that a physician be consulted during the development
of an IEP for each child. The degree of physician involvement
and the physician's actual presence at the conference should be
determined by the needs of the child.
5. Related Services
The general failure to provide related services to handicapped
children stands as one of the most critical barriers to the success-
ful implementation of P.L. 94-142. Thereasons for this failure
can be collapsed into the following general areas:
a. Perceived availability of services: For the most part
actual services and service providers do exist; that they
may exist outside the educational systems, however, has
not been thoroughly explored.
b. Economic impact: The availability of services is also
a function of the ability to pay for these services.
c. Ineffective interagency agreements.
d. Unprecedented withdrawal of services by public agencies
operating with federal funds from sources other than BEH.
e. Withdrawal of responsibility for third-party reimbursement.
f. Lack of a clear definition of related services.
Testimony suggests strategies to address these problems.
6. State Agency Advisory Panel
Physicians should be included as members of the State Agency Advisory
Panels so as to assist State Educational Agencies in formulating
plans that include existing medical systems of care.
An Academy survey revealed that only 13 states had physicians repre-
sented on their panels.
7. In-Service Training Surveys
Physicians are not included in the annual personnel surveys required
as part of the state's annual plan.
In fact, physicians are one of the ~ personnel for which annual
reporting data are not now required.
Therefore, we recommend all related service personnel should be
included in the annual in-service training surveys (mandated by
P.L. 94-142) as a critical first step towards building a better
informed and coordinated network of personnel to implement the law.
PAGENO="0245"
239
August 14, 1980
Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
IS8OAUCt8 AM 8:03
data ~ - /9 -
T;~ ~
American
Academy of
Pediatrics
Division of Government
Liaison
American Academy of
Pediatrics
1800 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 525-9560
Elizabeth J. Noyes
Director
President -
Brace D. Graham, M.D.
Vice-President
R. Dan Bum, M.D.
Executive Director
Robert G. Frazier, M.D.
Secretarp
Gerald E. Hughes, M.D.
George A. Nauman
Distdci Chairmen
Sprague W. Hazard, M.D.
Deertleld, Massachusetts
Milton Gordon, M.D.
Huntington, New Yark
Allan B. Coleman, M.D.
Washington, D.C.
Martin H. Smith, M.D.
Gainesoille, Georgia
William C. Montgnmery, M.D.
Detroit, Michigan
Edmund C. Burke, M.D.
Rochester, Minnesota
Blair E. Batson, M.D.
Jucksan, Mississippi
Jameo E. Strain, M.D.
Denoer, Colorado
Paul F. Wehrle, M.D.
Los Angeles, California
Rodrigo Loria Cortes, M.D.
San Jose, Costa Rica
Jacnb Rertato Woiski, M.D.
Sax Paulo City, Brazil
Angel Eduardo Cedrats, M.D.
Buenos Aires, CF. Argentina
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
American Academy of Pediatrics at your subcommittee's oversight
hearings on P.L. 94-142. Enclosed are our responses to testimony
questions for inclusion in the hearing record.
The Academy appreciates your continued interest in our nation's
handicapped children and looks forward to working with you in the
future.
Sincerely,
David R. William~, M.D.
Enclosures
DRW:ns
PAGENO="0246"
240
1. Could you provide us with a list of States which require a medical
evaluation for a handicapped child needing special education.
A 1979 Academy review of state rules and regulations found that sixteen
states require or recommend medical evaluations for all children requiring
special education regardless of their handicapping condition. (See
Appendix, Table I) Other states indicate the need for physician parti-
cipation depending on the child's handicapping condition. (See Appendix,
Tables II - IX) No state provides a guarantee that each child, upon
being considered for special education services, would be seen by a
physician for evaluation.
In fact, further study of the regulations reveals that only two states,
Massachusetts and Maryland, base their recommendations for physician
input in the child's evaluation ~ on non-categorical needs. All
other states, even those with general recommendations for physician
involvement, provide some form of categorical framework which determines
the type and frequency of physician input. This tendency to link
physician participation to a disability implies a desire on the part of
state education agencies to merely certify a child aé eligible for
special education services by virtue of his disability, rather than
seeking to discover any instructionally relevant information through a
medical evaluation.
For a more complete and thorough understanding of states regulations
governing medical evaluations and the implications of those rules, I
urge you to examine the attached appendix, excerpted from "Patterns of
Physician Participation in the Evaluation of Handicapped Children for
Special Education Programs: A Report on State Regulations 1979."
2. How would you describe the ideal physician consultation process a
school should use in the development of an IEP for a handicapped
child?
Ideally, the physician who has provided the child's ongoing medical care
should be contacted prior to writing an IEP for each child. Such an
initial communication would prevent duplication of services and allow
the physician to share with the schools his knowledge of the child's
rehabilitative history, his/her family, the success and/or failure of
previously prescribed therapies and, most importantly, any medically
related factors and services the child needs to benefit from special
education. The degree of physician involvement thereafter and the
presence of the physician at the IEP conference should be determined by
the needs of the child. In certain cases the physician may feel strongly
that the child's health needs require his/her presence at such a team
PAGENO="0247"
241
meeting. In other instances it may be that a report or completed form
will suffice. As such the primary care physician should also be respon-
sible for determining what other medical consulations are necessary as they
are most knowledgeable of the medical needs of the disabled child.
The critical point to note is that physicians must be given the oppor-
tunity to share with the school system their unique knowledge of the
child's disability, to bring the full impact of their training and
abilities to bear on the successful management of the handicapped
child. Currently, the majority of IEP's are written without any attempt
to secure medical input, let alone any structured method to use the
information even if supplied by physicians.
In order to facilitate communications between the educational and
medical systems, the Academy's Committee on Children with Handicaps is
developing a form which will more readily extract and present the
relevant information the two disciplines need to share. In addition,
part of the Academy's training course will teach physicians about the
educational model --how needs are assessed, programs planned, implemented
and monitored. We hope such efforts will further promote dialogue and
cooperation between these two disciplines.
The omission of the physician as an essential participant in the IEP
process, has led to discontinuity of care and has created communications
problems between schools, parents and physicians. If pediatricians,
physicians and other professionals are to work together to improve
opportunities for handicapped children, then mandating inclusion of
medical participation in the IEP planning process, while advising
parents of what they can expect and how to request services for their
children, is necessary.
PAGENO="0248"
242
Attachment A
Excerpts from:
PJ~'RRNS OF PJtYSICIAN PARTTCIPATTON TN T'NE }~TAUjATIOjJ OF HANDICAPPED
CHIU)P}~I FOR PPECTAL RDUCATT(F~ PRCOPAr4R:
A REPORT ON SNATE RFflUL!~TD )NN
1979
Nilliam T. Twarog, M.FLI.
N.D. Bo'iine, D.D.
Terry B. Pcrkeley
A collaborative effort of: DivIsion of ~rnUu1atory PedIatrics
ChIldren's Hossital Medical Center, Boston
Bureau of Ed~~catIon for the Nandicasped
Washington, D.C.
Amen. can Academy of Pediatrics
Evanston, Illinais
fupoorted by PRIIII51BH7O13O from the Bureau of EDucation for the Handicapped,
u.s. Office of Education, Denartnent of Health, Education, and Welfare
PAGENO="0249"
243
III. ALYSIS OF REA~ULATIO~S
Introduction
The states' rules and re iat~or~s Covernin~ the invoivesxsit of
physicians in the interdiscinlinary evaluatIon of iIc~prt~J childrtn
for special education purposes have been surrrarlzeJ in table forrat ~.r.
this section. ~3ecause the language of the regulations varies to a ~`eat
extent, it was necessary for the authors to draw certain conclusions
regarding the actual physician role in the evaluation process. Certain
instances in which a decision was made on the part of the authors are
as follows:
1. When a state indicates that a `specialist" 15 required to per-
form an evaluation, but that specialist's identity as a physician is
not specifically noted, it is presumed that the `specialist' is not a
physician. (For exanpie, Texas requires that an "eye specIalist make
the determination as to the extent of disability for the child with
visual handicaps. Texas provides rio further description of the eye
specialist"; therefore, it is presumed that this person may not be a
physician, and thus is not included in this section.)
2. When a state indicates that a review of a child's health history,
or a health, vision, or hearing screening be performed, the context in
which this provision is made and/or the definition of the terms i5
utilized to determine whether or not a physician is intended to be the
orofessioflal providing this service, in instances in ~thich a physicIan
Is not explicitly cited as the professional. (Colorado, for exauple,
provides for a review of a child's health history and current health
status; however, because no mention is made of tiie professional who is
to r~rovide thIs service and because the definition of thi3 process
PAGENO="0250"
244
inrlies that a school nurse may be able to provide this inforration,
it is presumed that a physician is not involved in the process and,
therefore, this information was not included in the analysis of the
regulations, although it is included in the anpendix. ~iniiar terms are
used by Illinois, Iowa, and ~ontana.)
3. Functions which are performed traditionally by a ph.ys~cian
are presumed to require a physician's inVolvement even when no explicit
mention of the professional is made. (Examples of such a determination
are as follows: medical statement, reoort, information, findings and/or
evaluation (Arizona, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky,
Texas); physical examination (Ohio); and neurological examination
(Pennsylvania, Tashingtcn).
Further, any functions which are presum~d to be performed by a
rhysic~an, such as medical reports, statements, certificaticns of
disab1l~ty, etc., are presumed to involve an examination of the Child
by that physician and, therefore, the term evaluationni is used to des-
cribe these processes.
`~. Then ambiguous language and/or punctuation is used, reaming
is derived from the context or from previously used te inolo~j and/or
runctuation.
(Thr example, Hawaii notes that for the mentally retarded child,
oarticularly for those with mouerate and severe retardation, a medical
examination is `essential. It was decided that the medical examination
was a recoanended procedure, but not required, on the basis of more
directive language used in reference to other handicapping conditions,
e.g., Hearing Lmpaired-"msst consist of.'
~ifl at least one instance, that of Hebraska, the professionals
PAGENO="0251"
245
responsible for conducting an evaluation are sinply listed after the
handicapping condition. For three disability groups, it 1was determined
by the authors that each professional mentioned was requ4.red for the
evaluation process. This determination was made because the professions
were separated by a comma rather than the word `or, which was used in
the case of one disability group, thereby indicating an optional utili-
zation of one professional or other.)
~ion-Categorical ~Iedical Evaluation for Special Education Services
After a review of state rules and regulations, it was found that
sixteen states utilize the services of a physician in obtaining infor-
mation concerning a child who may require special education services
regardless of suspected handicapping conditions. decause of the nurtoer
of qualifying provisions attached to the regulations, it is difficult
to make a clear distinction between those states which require and those
which recommend that medical evaluations be part of conprehensive assess-
merit. Table I lists those states which require or strongly recoirriend
and those which recosmend or sirr4ply suggest medical evaluations.
Additional treatment of these data rray be found in Table X.
Further study of the state regulations reveals that other pacte~ns
emerge which determine the manner and circumstances surrounding the use
of medical examinations. Althou~i brief descriptions of theae patterns
fbllow, true understanding of the scope of the provisions iaay be gained
only by referring to the exercepted regulations included in the appendix,
studying each state's education code, and/or obsorving actual practice
in each state.
PAGENO="0252"
246
TABLE I
Nori-Cate~orical Medical Evaluation for Special Education Services
Reuired/Strori~ly Reccx~~nded RecoYTriended/Suggested
Comecticut Ar~carisas
Massachusetts California
Mississioi,i Delaware
New Jersey - Louisiana
New York - Maine
~ode Island Maryland
Tennessee New HaJsr)shire
Vir~nia South Dakota
1) :~edical EvaluatIon Determined b~; Ccecial Class Placement
Three states (Connecticut, iCassachusetts, and ?~hocie Island) ma~e
the provisIon of a medical evaluation by a physician dependent, at least
in part, on the possibility of the child being assi~ied to a self-
contained or separate classroom.
~ecent descriptIons of the ccntiriuum of special education place-
ment have been the foundatlcn of the concer5t of the least restrictive
alternative of P.L. 9~4_l142. The continuum of niacument ra~i~es frt~ the
least restrIctIve setting, which is the re~;slar classroom, to the most
restricted, whIch is a hospital or institutional setting. The self-
contained classroom is generally considered to be somewhat mid-way
between these two extremes.
Connecticut requires that a medical evaluatIon, for the purpose of
determining the nature and extent of a handicapping conditIon, be
nrovided for all children who are excected to be placed in a special
class for six n~nths or longer. Cinilarly, a full evaluatIon, inCicruiflg
a general medical assessment, is required by Phode Island regulations
for those chlldren whose condition indicates that they will require place-
merit in a self-contained special classroom.
PAGENO="0253"
247
-61-
The possibility that a child with special needs rsay 3pend as
little as twenty-five percent of his/her time out of a regular class-
room is adequate cause for Nassachusetts to require that a full evaluation,
including an assessment by a physician, be perfor~ed.
It should be noted, althou~i special class placements are
si~iificant, other factors as well are considered valid causes for
requiring a physician assessment in Nassachusetts and Connecticut.
2) The Physician as a Consultant to the Evaluation Team
3oth Nississippi and New Jersey have unique regulations which
require that the teams responsible for ~ecuring evaluative infonration
about a handicapped child should have access to a physician on a
consultant basis. !tississiopi recorrrrends that the physician should be
a pediatrician; New Jersey indicates that a school physician should be
available to the child study team.
3) The Physician as Team i~ember
New York requires that each school district should establish a
`Coamittee on the Handicapped," the responsibility of which is to
review and evaluate infonriation on handicapped children at least on
an annual basIs. Of the minimum four members required for corsaitteu
membership, one is a school physician, who is responsible for reviewing
all medical data and interpreting it to the other corrsiittee members.
The New York regulation is similar to those in Nassachusetts and
Louisiana which call for the physician to be a team member, and to have
a continuing role beyond the evaluation phase of special education services.
L~) i4edical DeterTnination of Special Education Elig±bilit~
Two states, Tennessee and Virginia, rely on a medical cliaguosis
PAGENO="0254"
248
-62-
or report, arncn~ other criteria, to determine ;~heti:er or riot a child
is eligible for special education and related aervices.
5) ~1edical Evaluation as a Component of the Co:aprehensive Assessment
iassachusetts, ~bode Island, and .ew Jersey each include an exam-
ination by a physician as a component of the corr~rehensive assessrr~nt
of a handicapped child. Louisiana, also, provides for the comprehensive
assessment of a handicapped child, but reserves the provision of a medi-
cal examination to the discretion of the Farish Cupervisor (Echool
~uperintendent ordesi~g~iee, e.g. Administrator of Epecial ducation).
~ive other states (Arkansas, Delaware, ~aine, :~land, arid ~outi~
Dakota) indicate that a medical evaluation or medicaL diagoosis may be
an appropriate comoonent of the cccpnahensive evaluation.
One state, re'.: azcpshire, follows the stronger lead of assaciiusetts,
~1ississippi, and iew York in suggesting that a physician might be con-
sidered for membership in its Special Education bvaiuatiorVFlacement ~eams.
~) California
California is unique in its approacn to the assessment of Children
for special education. It is sinilar to :~sachusetts in attempting
to avoid a categorical approach to providing special education, but
like Venaont, another state which is non-categorical in approccn, it
does make reference to broad disability groups. Although an earlier
version of the California Education Code made specific reference to the
physician as a member of the assessment team, subsequent amendments only
indicate that physIcians, as well as nurses and other professionals, be
available to the `admission cormiittee. ~eference to the availabIlity
of physician services Is noted for n~ntally retarded and educationally
PAGENO="0255"
249
-63-
handicapped pupils, yet no such mention was found for physIcally
handicapped pupils.
CATFX~0RICAL MEDICAL EVALUATIOi~ FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIO~J CEIWIC~
Hearing Inoairments
Although P.L. 9~4.-l~42 nvike~i a distinction between the deaf arid
hard of hearing child, most states retain this distinction. They do
not usually retain that distinction in terms of the specialiot required
to evaluate the existence of extent of hearing loss. The specialists
rt~st frequently called upon to perform an evaluation on the. hearing
impaired cb.ild are audiologIsts and physicians who specialize in auditory
problems. Sixty-three percent call for some participation by a phy-
sician in the evaluation process (Table II).
Of the 20 states requiring an examination by a physician, five
indicate that it must be performed by an otolaryngologist, nine by an
otologist, and six do not specify the physician' a area of specializa-
tion. Ten states require an audiologist `s examination in addition to
that of the physician. An examination by an ophthalmologist or o~tcme-
trist IS required by three states.
PAGENO="0256"
250
TAB1~ II
Hear gjn~'athiients
An Evaluation by a P~vsiciar? An Evaluation by a Physician1 and
is Recuired an Audiologist is Reauired
- District of Cohstia3
Arkansas Päwail2
Illinois Indiana
Montana Michigan
New Mexico Nebraska
North New York3
North Dakota Ohio
Oklahona Rhode Island
Texas Virginia
West Virginia2 Wisconsin
An Evaluation May Re Perfors~d by
P~vsician1 or an Audiologist
Alaska
Idaho
Louisiana
Mississinpi
Missouri
Nevada
New Hagoshire
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vera~snt
~Otolar~~ingologist, Otologist or Physician (soecialty not indicated).
AlabarT~, Hawaii, North Carolina and West Virginia reouire that an
additional evaluation be perfor~d by an onhthalxTologist or an
ot'to~etrist.
3The District of Col~mbia and New York reouire these evaluations
only for t!~ hard of hearing child.
Vision Irna.r~nents
~nli~e t~e diStinCti0fl between levels of sc-verity ~n auci±tory
process, P .L. 914~l!42 includes ~oti th~ blind and partially si~ht~J in
PAGENO="0257"
251
-65-
one category: the visually handicapped. lost statos retain the distinc-
tion between blindness and partial sight, but generally utilize the
same specialists for the evaluation of both degrees of impairment.
Table III presents the states which require or recommend physician
participation in the evaluation process. Fifty-nine percent of the
states indicate some level of such involvement.
Of the 11 states ;~hich require a medical evaluation, all but one
indicate that the physician be an ophthalmologist or an eye physician.
Thzo states require that the child also be given a general physical
examination and one state requires an additional examination by an
ontornetrist. Nineteen states allow for the use of an ophthalmologist
or an optometrist to perform the evaluation.
Table III
Vision Irrn,aii~nts
An F~raluation by an ODhtha]J~logist An Evaluation May Be Performed by an
- or Other Physician is Reauired Or,hthalTrologist or an Ontometrist
Alaska Alabame
Arkansas Delaware
Illinois Elorida
Michigan (eorgia
Nebraska1 Idaho
New Han~shire Indiana
North Dakota Louisiana
Phode Island Mississinni
Utah ~~issouri
Virginia , Montana
West Virginia Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
lTen~nt
Washington
Wisconsin
:LAn evaluation by an ootometrist is also reouired.
2~st Virginia reaulres this evaluation only for the partially
seeing child.
- 68_312o_81_17
PAGENO="0258"
252
~sical and ~eaith Lnpainrents
Although most states follow the guidelines of P.L. 914_l142 in making
a diStinCtiOfl between the orthopedically handicapped and other health
iairments, for the purpose of this analysis they will be tnsateu as
one group. Predictably, the utilization of uhysician services in the
evaluation of children with physical and health imrairrencs is t~e eat-
cot (required in 7l~ of the states). Of particular interest is ~u:e
fact that only six states specify that the pnysician responsible for
the evaluation of orchopedically handicapped children should be a
snecialist (i.e., an orthopedist or the euuivalenu). Lasle Ti lists
the states in this category.
Although special education services extending into the bore or
hospital are not cons~derau as a separate category cy F .0. J5-l'~2, ~ariy
states include separate regulations definin~ eligicility criteria.
?abie TO-a presents the information regarding states which reasi:w a
rhysicism exaroinaalon in order for a child to qualify for hor~ or
hospital services. Although a number of states include urejiancy,
either in this category or as a separate classification, it has cut
included in the consideratiOn of this daca, ncr is it ~cluded in
~t_lL~2.
~`otionai and/or Focial Impairment
The regulations for P.O. 9~4-l~2 include serious enotional ujoture-
once as a hand~cappt~flC condition. The definition of that conditic:.
includes autism, cut no social maladjustment, unless it is acconpaidni
by serious emot~onai disturtance. Of the 29 states which either require
or reconcend a rbysic~an'5 evaluat~cn, one conuines social mcd
hondicops, one includes a separate category for the socially .:hiadj usteu,
PAGENO="0259"
253
-67W
TABLE IV
Physical and Health Irnoair~n~ts
An Evaluation Must Be Performed by a Physician3-
Alaban~ New Pamnshire
Alaska New Jersey
Arkansas - New Mexico
District of Coluirbia - North Carolina
Florida North Dakota
Georgia r)hio
Hawaii Oklahon~
Idaho Oregen
Illinois *Per~sv1vanja
Indiana South Carolina
Kansas Tennesee
Kentuc1~y Texas
Louisiana tTtah
Michigan Virginia
Mississinpi Washington
Montana Wisconsin2
Nebraska West Virginia
Nevada
1An Or'thooedic sr)ecialist or other nhvsician.
2Wisconsin "suggests" meithershin of an orthonedist, r,hysia~ris~
or pediatrician on the interdiscinlinarv tean.
TABLE IV - a
Horne/Hosnital Instruction
An Evaluation Must Be Performed by a Physician
Arizona Missouri
Arkansas Montana
Connecticut Nebraska
Florida New Jersey
Georgia North Carolina
Illinois Oklahon~
Indiana South Carolina
Kentuc1'~y Washington
Louisiana West Virginia
Michigan Wisconsin
PAGENO="0260"
254
-6~-
one describes autism as a separate disability, seven use the ter~n
~behavior,~ and the remainder use "emotional'~ in conjunction with in-
pairnent, handicap, or disorder.
In Thble V, it may be seen that only two states require a psychia-
trist's evaluation and two states recor~mend such an evaluation. Five
states require and three states recorsr~nd a general exanination by a
physician. There are nineteen states that require an evaluation by
either a psychiatrist or a psychologist.
TABIF V
Evalu tin by a Physician
P~tional and/or Social Imoair~rent
An Evaluation May Be Perfon~ed bva
is t~ecuirea
Alabas&~
Florida1
c~uo
Orn
Virginia
An Evaluation by a Physician
Psychiatrist or a Psychologist
is ~ec~mienoeu
Califoi~ii~
Louisiana?
North Carolina
An Evaluation by a Psychiatrist
Alaban~
Arkansas
District of Colurrbia
Florida1
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Michi~n
Mississioni
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
New York
Worth Dakota
rennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
is~ !ieauireu
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
An Evaluation by a Psychia~i~
is Recosr~nded
Rhode Island
West Virginia
1Aiaban~ and Florida aooear in two sections of this table.
2A neurological examination is also recorrTnended.
PAGENO="0261"
255
-69-
Speech Imoairments
Physician' s evaluations for children with speech impairments are
required or recommended by fifteen states. In slightly more than one-
half of these states, a physician's evaluation is required for those
children who exhibit voice disorders. Two states specify that the
evaluation be done by an otolaryngologist and one state suggests that
the child with speech handicaps be evaluaned by an otologist, neurologist,
laryngologist, or audiologist, when appropriate.
TABLE VI
S~peech Imoair~nts
An Evaluation by a Physician is An Evaluation by a Physician
Recuired in Thstances of isRecorm~nded
Voice Disorder
Alaska Alabama
Georgia1 Florida
Indiana2 Idaho
Louisiana New york3
Mississir)pi Ohio
New ~exico Oregon
Ohio Pennsylvania
Washington
1An evaluation by an otolaryngologist is reouired.
~Also for susrected acoustic, neurological or T*~ysiological c~idiltions.
~Referra1s to an otologist, neurologist, laryngologist and audiologist,
as arvronriate, are reconriended.
PAGENO="0262"
256
-7,)-
:ental Retardation
P.L. 9!4_1142 regulations utilize the American Association cm dental
Deficiency (A.A.1.D.) definition of mental retardation. The regulations
make no reference to levels of severity. Traditional educational
practice has recoguized three levels of retardation: educable, train-
able, and profound, and this distinction still has currency in most
states. A.A.M.D. employs the tenr~ mild, moderate, severe, and orofound
to distinguish among levels of severity. ~lthough the educational and
A. A.~LD. terns are not precisely analogous, for the purfoses of this
report they have been combined.
Only five states require or reccoroend a physician's evaluation
for all levels of retardation. L'i addition, two states recoonend a
physician' s eva.luatia~ for those children with mild retardation, four
states require it for children with moderate retardation (one state
recarrends an evaluation), and three states require an evaluation by a
physician for children with severe or profound retardation. Overall,
only twelve states require or recoriznend a physician' a evaluation for
children with retardation of any level of severity.
PAGENO="0263"
257
-71-
TABLE VII
Mental Retardation
An Evaluation by a Physician is Reouired
For all de~'ees of retardation:
Califor,iia1
Hawaii1
New Mexico2
Oregon
Virginia
For mild or educable mental retardation:
North Caro1in~
West Virginiafl
For moderate or trainable n~tal retardation:
District of Coluxitia
Georgia
North Carolina
North Dakota
West Virginia
For severe mental retardation:
Georgia
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
For profound mental retardation:
District of Col~unbia
Pennsylvania
Utah
~E~aluation is recoTrrended, not recuired.
Anticinated degree of restriction in the child's nlacement deter-
mines the need for evaluation.
~Fva1uation nn~y be nerformed by a ohysician or nurse.
PAGENO="0264"
258
Learning Disahiiit~eS
As noted in the discussion section or this report, the area of
learning disabilities has been studied widely by physicians in recent
years, an activity paralleled by education. It is si~ificant to note,
therefore, that only ei~it states require, and thirteen recommend, a
physician's participation in the comprehensive evaluation process. These
figures represent approximately 14l~ of the states. ~ouever, when a
physician's examination is required or recommended, a neurological
examination is included as a component of that process by ten states.
TABLE VIII
Learning Disabilities
An Evaluation by a Ph~rsician An EvaluatIon by a Physician
isRecuired Is Recoim~nded
Arkansas1
District o~' Colim~bia~- California
N~ ~ersey~ Idaho
(hto 1~ansas
Pennsylvania1 Kentucky
Texas Louisian
Virginia Michigan
WashingtaT~ Mississit'ni
Montana
!~Torth Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island1
West Virginia
1lncludes a neurological examination.
PAGENO="0265"
259
-73-
Deaf-~3lind and/or iulti-ihndicams
Although the deaf-blind and the r~ulti-hanc1icapped child are
separately identified in P.L. 9~4-1~42, few states include both as dis-
crete handicapping conditions in their regulations. There exists a
tendency to include the multi4iandicapped category more ñ'equently
than the deaf-blind as a handicapping condition recjairing special
education services.
Tne data presented in Table EC reflect only those statea WaiCil
indicate that these two categories require specialized services and,
further, call for some physician involvement in evaluation. The ru-~u-
lations for these two categories which ore operational in other states
most often irsoly that the professional required for other categories
of dizability should be utilized ~f such a condition ia present in a
specific child being evaluated. ~erefore, in a state whic~i requires
physician evaluation for the child with hearing impaLrnent 2nd for one
with visual Lripairrnents, it is presumed that these physician services
would be required for a child with a corbination of these m:o disabili-
ties. This cross-referenced analysis has not been included Li Taule IX.
PAGENO="0266"
260
TABLE IX
Deaf/Blind and/or .Multi-Handicaos
P1n Evaluation by a Physician is Reuired
Alabama1
Arkansas
Distric~ of Col~mt)ia
Georgia
Indiana
K~tuck~ 2
Louisiana
Michigan3
North Carolina1
North Dakota
Ohio
Utah
Virginia
1lncludes an evaluation by an onhtha1rr~lôgist or ontaretrist.
2yor the Deaf/Blind child, Georgia and Louisiana recuire evaluations to
,be ~erforsed by an onhthalTrologist and art otologist or audiologist.
~Su~ested evaluators are: neurologist, orthoaedic surgeon, ophthalzm~lo-
gist and otolaryngologist.
PAGENO="0267"
261
-75-
TABLE X
Physician Particination in the Evaluation
of Children for Soecial Education
CA~I~Y AND CONDITION S'TA~.S
A. Physician's evaluation for all children
susr)ected of needing soecial education:
Require/Strongly Recotanend 8 15.7
Recorr~nd/Suggest 8 15.7
B. Physician's evaluation according to
disability grouns:
Hearing Imoairs~nts
Reouire 20 30.2
Recorm~nd 12 23.5
Vision Io~aii~nents
Require 11 21.6
Recorrs~end 10 37~3
Physical and Health Inpairn~nts
Require 35 68.6
Recorrn~id 1 2.0
Fn~tiona1 and/or Social Imnair!n~its
Reouire 7 13.7
Reconmend 22
Soeech ImnairiTents
Recuire (voice disorder) 8 15.7
RecoaTnend 7 13.7
Mental Retardation
Reauire 0 17.6
Recorsnend 3 5.0
Learning Disabilities
Re~iuire 8 15.7
Recoi~end 13 25.5
PAGENO="0268"
262
-76--
iv. ~ONCLUSICNf
The ro' s act~vit~es, upon which this report is based, have
been a direct result of the premise that the physician is a critical
participant in the educational experiences of handicapped children.
This premise has been minimized or altogether rejected in the opinion
of many members of the medical profession. They maintain that the
evidence mbich supports their view is to be found in the regulations
of P.1. 9~4-l~2 whIch describe the physi~cian as providing little more
than dia~jiostic services to special education. Althougji riany areas of
involvement have been proposed, it was felt that an examination of
the current responsibilIties assi~ied to the physician should be under-
taken, delaying further consideration of roles to another tine.
results of that investigation have revealed that it is in the area of
student evaluation that the ehysician is most frequently identified as
a participant. A review of state regulations detenrilning the course of
physician participation has resulted in the following conclusions:
1. The actual frequency with which a physician' s
examination is utilized as mart of the evaluation
process for special education 15 not consistent
with P.1. 914_lL~2 policy which includes "health"
as one recornended area of assessment.
It is recngnized that not all chIldren with handicaps will have
health needs that differ from the general population, and yet many
children, especially those with sensory and developmental defIcits,
demonstrate ulcer mafical io~lIcaticns. Iddltionally, those handicaps
which involve behavioral or ieanidsig problems are frequently found to
PAGENO="0269"
263
-77-
have somo link to the child' s health status, and may result in ar~lior-
ation when given attentIon by a physician.
Arguments have been cited in the discussion section that the pro-
cedures are too costly and the physician' s time too restricted to allow
for a medIcal evaluation to be provided each ChIld who is being conoidered
for special education services. bliat has not been given adequate con-
sideration are the advantages, in tents of time and cost, of developing
an interTcecLiate method or procedure to be administered by the physician
which would provide more educationally relevant infonnaticri than a
screening, yet would be less extensive than a comprehensive medical
examination. Such a procedure would be of use in evaluating those
children who do not present readily identifIable medical conditions and/or
whose behavioral and learning problems resoond well to accepted educational
practices. *
At present, only 355~ of the states consider a medical evaluation
by a ph~,sician to he of sufficient importance to reouire or reconnei id
t:iat it be nart of the evaluation orocess for all cmildrcm suspected
of needing special education. ~o state provides a ~puaranoee that eac..
child, upon being considered for soecial education services, ;:ould be
seen by a physician for evaluation. bvem the most ccripreue~siie recula-
ticr~s are too broad to allow for on interpretation by a local cc.u~ol
JLs;nict ;riuLch would circumvent sAcii an evaluation.
2. ~iien state regulations indicate tue mewu for a
physician's participation in the evaluation of
~cnndIcaaped chilixwn, it is most often a cate-
gorically based examination by a specialist.
PAGENO="0270"
264
-7b--
Cnly two states, haryland and hassachusetos, base their recoumerid-
etlons for physician input in the chIld's evalustion solely on non-catngor-
ical need. f11 other states, even those which have general recciu~eiwiatioiis
for rhysician' s involvererit, provide sous form of categorical frn~e;orL
which determines tile type and frequency of physician input. Thin inn-
dency to link physician participation with nisability inplies that here
exists a desire on the part of state education agencies to ~a~e tne cnild
certi~'ied as being eligible for special education services cy virt~e of
belonging to a rarticular disability group, rather than seeking to
discover an'j instructionally relevant information through a physician' s
evaiuat~on.
in the discussion SCCtiOfl of this report, in was postulated that
there is a predictable juxtaposition of physician specialist so ai~ãb~lity
groun. This view was upheld in the review of state regulations accoruing
to handicapping category. Lri only four instances (Alabana, hawaii, hortii
Carolina, Thst hirgin.ia) was there a cross-aver of specialist utiliza-
tion, breaking the pattorm sf disability/specialist linkage. in thus~
states, it is reccraiended that the child ;ith nearing L.;painu~ no receive
an evaluation by an ophthalmologist or optorietrist. Iii all otner Astances,
the specialist, when indicated, was cited in tile context of the dIsabIlity
roost frequently associated with that professional's area of traIning.
:iention of the use of the child' s frsriily or priroary care physician
as a resource in evaluation was made in only four states anu one use of
a pediatrician as a preferred member of an inberdisciplinarl tuna was
nads by only one state. These data support the proposition that one
education agencies overly rely on specialists for obtaining nadical input
and, thereby, fail to take advantage of the sniaue hrowlodge of child
PAGENO="0271"
265
-1-
and family possessed by the prii~ry physician. The focus on the
trainiag of both student and practicing physician in the techniques of
evaluating and managing handicapped children will greatly enhance
the ordinary phhsician's role in intereisciplinary team functionhio-~.
Increased conpetencies on the part of the primary physician will rna~e
it even more important for the educat±on agencies to seen input from
this source.
3. The language and terminology used by tiie states
to describe the onysician's participation in the
evaluation process is vague and imprecise.
In the process of preparing the data uerived from a review of
state regulations, in was necessary to establish a nuriber of assuoptions.
This necessity arose from the peat variability erriong states in the
use of terminology to describe the physician's role in the evaluation
process.
In an attempt to discern a cornon underst ichig of ;uc
as `i-ehical evaluat~on,' `med~cai report, and nedical certificate of
hand~cap at the state level, the states were asked to provide t;ieir
official definition of each of these terms (or to pro `ide their t~rws
end definitions if their usage were different) on t~ e survey form.
force states offered no definitions, and those id at Jim cescrile their
definitions did so subjectively, end not by reportLrd ow state's
official definitions.
Upon exaining the regulations, it was found that only six states
rrovided a definition of the factors which shocim ~rwue:t Li a ~wsichL
eveluation. These definitions, however, vary ~eaty ~eoaib and clarity.
\dditionally, einht states were found to provine sowe general instructiors
PAGENO="0272"
266
as to information that should be included In the physician's report
to the interdisciplinary tears. Such Information usually included
the following: suonary of findings, medical restrictions as to p~~ace-
nent, and reccrmc-ndations. These guddelines aopeared as part of the
reCulations which applied to specific nondicaps and were not ~mcessariiy
constant or similar' tlirougliout the categories even within the same
state. -
Three states Giassachusetta, hew Jersey, and ,ouismnna) supplc-meL~t
their definitions by providing a form to be co:rplet&i 3~ tjll r)ivjsiciafl
who conducts the general physical examination. Forms are as provided
by Phiahorsa and hisconsin for ohysicians' reports on physically im~iaired
children and by South Carolina for resorts on orthopedically ~andicapped
and visually imr)aired children. In general, these fence consist of a
series of items ~`thich assist the physician in formulating his/her rer~ort
in educat~onolly relevant terms, and allow for a ~tt~r anthr ending
of the physician' s report on the part of the non-medical team members.
The failure to provide precise descriptions of medical evaluations
is not the sole responsibility of the education agencies.
generally accepted examination procedures, there are no widely accepteu
and corrzconly ut~l~zed guidelines for a phys1c~an' s developmental or
school-related examination. For the most part, physicians terse to
desend upon experience in including or excluding tests arid ~irocedures
in examining a handicapped child. horeover, there does not exist, in
medicine, precIse definition of `reports, statements,' or `certification.
Presumably, resorts and certificates are based upon evaluative data, yet
whether these terms are synonor'sous or, rather, connote levels of
thoroughness of examination, IS open to debate.
PAGENO="0273"
267
-di-
Agreement on definition of procedures is difficult to obtain. It
is nossible, however, for states to detail with greater specifIcity
the types of medIcal infor~ration which would be useful for special
education programming. Further, medical associations and societies can
be influential in establishing guidelines for conductiiig .edical
evaluations of handicapped children and in rging the adoption of
standardized fonris for the reporting of their findings in a fashion
mast useful for educational purposes.
Senator STAFFORD. The next panel consists of Mr. Aubrey W.
Fillbrandt, principal, Winfair School, elementary director, Windom
Elementary Schools, Windom, Minn., representing the American
Corrective Therapy Association; James Foshee, Ph. D., assistant
commissioner for mental retardation, Nashville, Tenn., represent-
ing the National Association of State Mental Retardation Program
Directors; and Ms. Lana Ford, regional occupational therapist, as-
sistant professor, occupational therapy curriculum, Medical College
of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.,
representing the American Occupation Therapy Association, Inc.
I am grateful that our panel is represented by two most distin-
guished Senators, my colleague and friend, Senator Boschwitz, to
present to the committee the member of the panel from his State.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUDY BOSCHWITZ, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator BoscHwlTz. I would like to say a few words about Aubrey
Fillbrandt. Aubrey and I have known one another through the
political wars. I got to know him 10 years ago and to know of his
interest in education, particularly of children who have severe
disabilities. As a matter of fact, for years he was principal of
Winfair School, which is in a town of about 4,000, am I correct, in
south-central Minnesota?
Senator STAFFORD. That would be a city in Vermont.
Senator BOSCHWITZ. And indeed Aubrey has made many contri-
butions in the area of rehabilitation of children in our State who
have profoundly severe retardation or multiple handicaps. So he
comes very well qualified. He and I started to correspond about
these matters shortly after I came to the Senate, and I suggested at
that time, a year ago, Mr. Chairman, that when we do have hear-
ings, that he come and testify. So it is with great pride that I
introduce him to the committee, and I know, knowing the senior
Senator from Vermont, that you will listen to his testimony care-
fully and learn from it and, indeed, this man has a great deal to
offer.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator Boschwitz, for
that presentation of your distinguished constituent. Very happy to
68_/32 0 - 81 - 18
PAGENO="0274"
268
have all three of you here on the panel. And, as usual, the Chair
will ask you to summarize your statements, place your full state-
ments in the record, and if we have questions in the committee, we
will submit them to you in writing, and responses in writing if that
is agreeable. Whatever precedent you wish, and who speaks first,
we will leave to you three to determine.
STATEMENTS OF AUBREY W. FILLBRANDT, PRINCIPAL, WIN-
FAIR SCHOOL, ELEMENTARY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS, WINDOM, MINN., REPRESENTING AMERICAN COR-
RECTIVE THERAPY ASSOCIATION; JAMES G. FOSHEE, PH. D.,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR MENTAL RETARDATION,
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RE-
TARDATION, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL STATE MENTAL
RETARDATION PROGRAM DIRECTORS, INC.; LANA FORD, RE-
GIONAL OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY CURRICULUM, MEDICAL COLLEGE
OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, RICH-
MOND, VA., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL
THERAPY ASSOCIATION, INC., A PANEL
Mr. FILLBRANDT. I suspect that since the Senator took the time to
introduce me, I should go in this order and begin this process.
I appreciate your coming, Senator Boschwitz, and I appreciate
the opportunity on my behalf to have this chance to talk to the
subcommittee.
It says in the programing that I represent the American Correc-
tive Therapy Association. I am hopeful that I am here representing
severely/profoundly retarded multiple handicapped children in this
presentation today.
I have heard quite a few biases this morning and I guess I could
spend quite a bit of time responding to some of those but I will get
on with my primary purpose in being here.
I would start by making a statement in reference to related
services. I think what applies here is that which governs least
governs best.
The reason for that is in Hatton, N. Dak., and in Washington,
D.C., we have such different people available to provide services,
and there are a lot of different professions that can be helpful to
children so I think to tie down specific kinds of services would be a
catastrophe for the small cities, small towns throughout the
Nation.
OK. To get on with my presentation, and I am hopeful that you
would enter the written testimony as you indicated you would.
Senator STAFFORD. We will place your full statement and those of
your fellow panelists in the record as if read.
Mr. FILLBRANDT. OK.
Those of you who have a copy of my written testimony, let me
bring your attention to the first page. It is the summary page, item
No. 4. I am really here to "recommend that the standards set forth
by the American Corrective Therapy Association for certification in
Corrective Therapy be included in the body of Public Law 94-142."
I am not suggesting that this be a specific service that must be
provided, but could be used if available, with reimbursement.
PAGENO="0275"
269
What I am suggesting is the mere mention of it in the law would
be helpful to State departments, educators, principals, et cetera.
Let me tell you where I am coming from.
I have worked with special education children for a long time.
But, 5 years ago, we would go out to the day activity center,
preferably, and with a novice, nontenured psychologist, we would
pick out the boys with dark hair and crew cuts. If he did not wet
his pants and spill soup no more than once a year and could speak
three languages, we would say you may come to our trainable
program. So, since that time, I have come a tremendous way in
becoming an advocate, particularly in reference to today, for the
retarded multihandicapped children. These 42 children have been
in my school for the last few years, and I have seen remarkable
progress, which I will allude to later.
Back to the written document. If you will turn to the last page,
please, and what I am really saying here is that in section
121a.14(b)(2)(ii), what I am recommending is that you "add correc-
tive therapy between adapted physical education and movement
education. The amended section would therefore read, `The term
includes special physical education, adapted physical education,
corrective therapy, movement education, and motor
development.'
In other words, it is just a specific term to bring to the attention
of people throughout the Nation that, yes, this is a service that can
be helpful to multiple handicapped children. It is not suggested
that schools must use this service but it would be a helpful service,
particularly for severely profounded retarded. As you go through
the documents you will find that for the training of these handi-
capped, corrective therapists have much to offer them. Corrective
therapy really goes back to about 1946, assisting with the rehabili-
tation of veterans throughout the Nation, and it is not until recent
times when severely profoundly retarded children have been
coming to the public school, that they have gotten into this area
because many of the same kinds of problems exist for these chil-
dren as exist for the veteran who is needed to be rehabilitated.
The children population that I am talking about, the 42 that
attend Winfair School, are very, very handicapped children. Half
cannot talk, cannot walk, cannot feed themselves, do not have good
receptive language, are not trained, so we are talking here about a
very, very handicapped child. The tremendous success that the
corrective therapist has been in our program is mentioned on page
2 where 137 of the 253 goals that we had for these children this
past year were on gross motor kinds of goals and our corrective
therapist, Sandra Dekock, who was a fantastic person in addition
to her professional training, was involved with, as you can see, over
half of the goals for these children-and to give you some specific
examples of how these children have been helped, I would like to
mention three children in our program with reference to where
they were when they came to our program and where they are
today.
Right now there are two States in the United States who,
through related services in their regulations, acknowledge correc-
tive therapy, and that is Texas, very recently, and the State of
PAGENO="0276"
270
Minnesota. Minnesota has been using the services of corrective
therapy as a related service for a number of years.
OK. Child A. When child A began school at Winfair, he could
maintain a sitting position without head supports for 3 seconds. I
will not go through all of the goals that have been covered in those
3 years, but I could respond to those if it would be important. His
current status is, he sits independently in any type of chair. He has
established a good reciprocal pattern of creeping which is his pri-
mary means of ambulation, and he is able to hold himself erect in
the parallel bars for several minutes. Tremendous progress for this
young child. He was to see an orthopedist this morning to increase
stability in his lower extremities and greater training will be initi-
ated in the fall. Strength and endurance are important in progress
for walking.
Child B entered the program in Winfair and she was classified as
a fragile ambulator and her wheelchair was a primary motivator
from one place to another. She has precarious standing balance.
Currently she can walk independent for 2 to 300 feet. Her balance
continues to improve. However, it still needs a great deal of prac-
tice. Her future goals at Winfair are improving protective exten-
sion and more balanced activities.
Child C was able to stand with supports and walk with maxi-
mum assistance. His creeping pattern was a lateral pattern which
is bunny hopping, his muscle tone was hypotonic. Child C is pres-
ently an independent ambulator with functioning balance skills.
His creeping is improved to where he uses a reciprocal pattern
almost exclusively. He has made substantial progress in balance.
Not only have these children been helped tremendously through
this corrective therapist, but it is very important that there be
continued efforts on the part of our therapists to help this type of
child.
I certainly appreciated being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fillbrandt along with questions
and answers follow:]
PAGENO="0277"
271
TESTNJNY ON
HANDICAPPED CHILDR&'i ACT OF 1975
Presented to
SENATE SUBCOI~UITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, CHM.
Oversight hearing on the implementation
of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142)
July 31, 1980
by
Mr. Aubrey W. Fillbrandt, Principal-Winfair School
& Elementary Director of the Windoin, Mn
Elementary Schools
PAGENO="0278"
272
Sth~1A.RY OF TESTTh)3NY ON HANDICAPPED
CHILDREN ACT OF 1975 (PUBLIC LAW 94-142)
by
AUBREY W. FILLBRANDT, WINDOM, MN
1. I have been a school adiainistrator in the State of Minnesota
for the past nineteen years serving children. This service
includes working with children getting Special Education
assistance of one kind or another.
2. For the past three years our elementary school has also
included forty-two Severely/Profoundly Retarded-Multiple
Handicapped children and young adults.
3. We have employed a Corrective Therapist the past three
years to direct our Adapted Physical Education Program
and to direct the personal physical development of our
pupils. Our therapist has been the most single influential
factor in our having a successful educational program.
More than 50% of our Individual Education Plans were
developed, implemented or supervised by the Corrective
Therapist this past year.
4. I recommend that the standards set forth by the American
corrective Therapy Association ?3~ certrf~a~I3n in
corrective ~flièrapy be included iPithe body ofTPüblTc Law
5. The following Appendixes will be found at the end of this
written testimony:
Appendix A - "Recommended Minimun Standards for Approved
Clinical Training Affiliations"
Appendix B - "Requirements for Certification in Corrective
Therapy"
Appendix C - `Position Paper - Corrective Therapy Services
to Handicapped Children"
PAGENO="0279"
273
My name is Mr. Aubrey W. Fillbrandt, Principal of Winfair
School and Elementary Director of the Windoru Mn Public Schools.
I have helped to provide special education services for
children as a school administrator for the past nineteen years
in the State of Ilinnesota.
Presently, the Windom, Mn Schools provide various special
education services for seven surrounding school districts.
For the past three years I have administered a program in
the Windom Schools for Severely/Profoundly Retarded-Multiple
Handicapped. These forty..two children and young adults live in
a community (privately owned) residential facility and are bussed
to school daily during the regular school year and for four hours
a day during summer school which last six weeks.
I would like to focus my testimony on "meeting the physical
development and physical education needs of handicapped children
and young adults" in the public school setting.
We have had a full time Corrective Therapist on our staff
for the three years we have been serving Severely/Profoundly
Retarded-Multiple Handicapped in our public school setting.
The need for our Corrective Therapist to direct our Adapted
Physical Education Program and to direct the personal physical
development of our pupils is well documented in the Individual
Education Plans that have been devioped for our pupils from the
1
PAGENO="0280"
274
Page 2
"Hccne for Creative Living" these past three years. This past
year there were 253 goals written and 137 of these goals were
gross motor goals.
Some of these goals were as follows:
A. Initiating transfer skills for the
wheelchair
B. Increase head control
C. Increase weight bearing on arms
D. Increase or maintain range of motions
B. Increase head and trunk control
F. Improve reaching skills
G. Increase rolling skills
H. Increase positive resonses to
vestibular stimulation
I. Improve static balance
J. Strengthen appropriate reflexes
K. Increase rela~tion
L. Increase sitting balance
M. Increase mobility
N. Improve gait pattern
0. Increase muscular strength and
coordination
P. Improve hand-eye coordination, and
0. Increase skills leading to independent
ambulation.
More than 50% of the Individual Education Plans were
developed, implemented or Supervised by the Corrective Therapist.
Without an adequately trained individual, much of the appropriate
education weuld not have been implemented or even identified.
PAGENO="0281"
275
Page 3
A recently published study by Aloia, Knutson, Minner and
Von Seggern reported that physical education teachers indicated
their training, experience and abilities ware significantly
lower in regards to the physically handicapped child.n They
believe that this response could be the result bf~ general lack of
exposure to the physically handicapped child in the regular
physical education class.
The Mierican Corrective Therapy Association has a unique
history of providing physical education services to our' country's
veterans through the medical coninunity of the Veterans AdrniniStra
tion. Corrective Therapists have been employed primarily in the
Veterans Administration Hospitals until recent years when there
has been a shift in the employment trend towards the public school
system.
Much of the demand for Corrective Therapy services has been
realized with the advent of Public Law 94442 which provided the
funding to equalize education opportunities for the handicapped
student.
Corrective Therapists ware getting scattered recognition
throughout the nation from special educators in the early
seventies as motor education became a more prominient emphasis
in the curriculum of the special education population.
The need for specialized physical education services was
PAGENO="0282"
276
Page 4
augrented ~then public school systens became aware of the student
with multiple handicaps, including severe and profound mental
retardation. A major misunderstanding that needed to be bric~ged
by many corrective therapy students wishing to enter the
educational field was explaining their background as physical
education majors. Often times a physical education degree did
not guarantee certification as an educator in a particular state.
This has been a burden to the involvement and recognition of
Corrective Therapists as qualified adapted physical educators
throughout the fifty states.
It is part of my resolve here today to recomend that the
standards set forth by the J%merican Corrective Therapy Association
for certification in Corrective Therapy be included in the body
of Public Law 94-142.
The current terms cited in Section l2la. 14 (b) (2) (ii),
special physical education, adapted physical education, movement
education and motor development lack uniform interpretation for
professional preparation and have an arbitrary value for expected
outcomes. Inclusion of corrective therapy in this Section would
establish a reference to a uniform standard for professional
preparation and perfontance canpetericy for physical education
services to the handicapped.
PAGENO="0283"
277
Page 5
Administrators in school systems, state department
personnel and compliance officers need to be familiar with
Corrective Therapy and what it has to offer the more severely
handicapped populations in the public school system. Without
this proper reference, the mandated physical education services
will continue to be misunderstood and not properly acknowledged.
It is my belief that it is in the national interest in
implementing 94-142 that a discipline such as Corrective Therapy
be recognized for its contribution to the health and educational
field and that we capitalize on this experience for our school
age population.
* ibis, Gregory F., Knutson, Richard, Minner Sam H., Von Seggern,
Nary.
"Physical Education Teachers' Initial Perceptions of
Handicapped Children." Mental Retardation, Vol lB
No. 2, (Apr. 1980), pp. t~5-~37
APPENDIX A "Recommended Minimum Standards for Approved Clinical
Training Affiliations" - American Corrective Therapy
Association, Inc.
APPENDIX B "Requirements for Certification in Corrective
Therapy" - American Corrective Therapy Association, Inc.
APPENDIX C - "Position Paper - Corrective Therapy Services
To Handicapped Children," (Adopted-July, 1979) - American
Corrective Therapy Association1 Inc.
PAGENO="0284"
278
AMERiCAN CORRECTIVE THERAPY ASSOCIATION, INC.
recommended
minimum
standards cor
approved
clinical
training
af~fi I iations
PAGENO="0285"
279
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR APPROVED CLINICAL TRAINING AFFILIATIONS
PURPOSE:
To provide hospital and school affiliated experiences for the trainee in Corrective Therapy and/or Adapted Physi
cal Education which are adequate to supplement his prior or concurrent didactic instruction within the educa
tional institution.
TYPES OF TRAINING:
Lectures theory, ethics, orientation, disability discussion
Medical prescriptions and terminology
Treatment demonstration - techniques, modalities, equipment
Professional meetings and consultation
Observation of treatment and its organization
Supervised clinical practice .. corrective, developmental, habilitative
Administration .- treatment planning, recording, progression, reporting, clinic management
Laboratory and research experience
MINIMAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN SPECIFIC AREAS: (at least 400 hours total)
Introduction - (20 hours)
Orientation -* hospital or school, nursing service; medical guidance, vocational and social services, special applica
tion ~o the physically handicapped or retarded child.
Function of each Phys. Med. & Rehab. or Health Dept. service.
History, philosophy and scope of Corrective Therapy and Adapted Physical Education.
Mission of corrective program concerned .. areas and disabilities served, coordination with other health services,
immediate and longerrange goals.
Administrative procedures, ethics and professional advancement.
Orthopedics- (60 hours)
Diagnoses and disabilities (applicable to all areas).
Evaluation of strength, endurance, contraindications, range of motion.
Exercise routines -~ active, selected muscle setting, progressive resistance, postural, isotonic and isometric, practice
in affected activities of daily living.
Ambulation techniques nonweight-bearing, partial to full weight.bearing, use of prostheses, crutches, canes and
walkers.
Proper body mechanics .- safe, effective lifting and handling of patients or other loads.
Bracing corrective, supportive, functional.
Neurological" (60 hours)
Evaluation of paralysis, spasticity, ROM, coordination, ADL skills, work and pain tolerance.
Exercise~' passive, assistive, active, reciprocal, stretching, relaxing, toning and PRE.
Bracing~' body jackets and supports, full-length leg braces, below-knee bracing.
Ambulation or other locomotion., use of wheelchair, balance and weight bearing, walking aids.
ADL training, with adaptive devices if needed .. mobility, dressing, feeding, hygiene, transfer activities.
PAGENO="0286"
280
Neuro-Psychiatric (60 hours)
Diagnoses and symptoms - psychosis, psychoneurosis, psychomatic and persqnality disorders.
Evaluation of behavior patterns, individual or group, and attitude toward self, instructor and activity.
Treatment objectives -- acceptable expression of aggressions, relief of guilt feelings, narcissistic gratification,
arousal of interest, resocialization and physical conditioning.
Treatment activities -- individual and group prescription, purposeful exercise, rhythms, games and sports, drama,
arts and other socially acceptable action.
Role of therapist in observing symptoms and results -- levels of achievement, motivation, adaptability to readjust-
ment, socialization progress and physical well-being.
General Rehabilitation - (60 hours)
Paraplegia and quadriplegia -- passive to active exercise, stretching, PRE, mat program, ROM, relaxing spasticity,
bracing, ADL training.
Amputees -- stump shaping and conditioning, prosthesis fitting, ambulation and gait training for lower-extremity
amputation, muscle control and ADL function for upper-extremity amputation, care and adjustment of prosthesis.
Cardiac and general medical -- disability and prognosis evaluation, graduated exercise routines, checking of vital
signs.
Spedal Categories - (60 hours)
Blind -- orientation to situation and surroundings, ambulation with cane and/or dog, ADL and occupational
training.
Mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed -- disability and prognosis evaluation, AOL and educational training,
conditioning exercise and adapted sports.
The multiply-handicapped -- diagnosis and evaluation of disabilities, muscle-toning and re-education, balance and
locomotion training, functional self-care, individual and group activities.
Developmental and Adapted Physical Education-~ (80 hours)
Diagnosis and evaluation of the atypical child -- medical guidance, comparison normal, tests and measurements.
Prevention of poor health habits -hygiene, nourishment, rest, elimination.
Functional development - physiological and psychological.
Recovery from disability -- remedial, compensatory, assistive.
Adapted growth activities - corrective exercise, socialization, adapted games and sports.
Habilitation with handicaps -- utilizing personal resources, whether physically handicapped or retarded child.
Maintenance of vital capacities -- respiration, circulation, strength, coordination, stamina.
Rehabilitation to fitness for living -- maximum possible return, substitution for residual disability, mechanical and
emotional aids.
PAGENO="0287"
AMERICAN CORRECTIVE THERAPY ASSOCIATION, INC.
Requirements for Certification in Corrective Therapy
1. To be eligible for certification by the A.C.T.A., candidates shall have completed their training in a college or university accredited by the
A.C.T.A.
2. The candidate shall be an Active or Student member of the American Corrective Therapy Association, Inc.
3. The candidate shall have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in Physical Education or Corrective Therapy.
4. The candidate shall provide evidence of successfully completing 400 hours of clinical training in Corrective Therapy from an A.C.T.A.
approved training site.
5. The candidate shall show by their official transcript(s) that they have successfully completed the minimum number of credits in each
category listed below, and all required courses in each category marked by an asterisk (*)
Didactic curriculum and academic categories, with asterisks indicating required courses.
APPLIED SCIENCES HEALTH & PHYSICAL EDUCATION
* Anatomy 12 * Analysis of Human Movement 16
* Kinesiology Semester * Health Education and Problems Semester
* Physiology Units or * Principles of Health and Physical Education Units or
* Physiology of Exercise * Physical and Mental Habiitation
Growth & Development 18 * Tests and Measurements 24
Neuroanatomy Quarter Evaluation of Health and Physical Education Quarter
~ Neurology Credits Research in Health and Physical Education Credits
~ Pathology * Skills and Applied Techniques
PSYCHOLOGY CORRECTIVE THERAPY & ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION
* General Psychology 6 * Physical Education for Atypical 8
~ Abnormal Psychology Semester * Organizational and Administrational Corrective Therapy Semester
~ Physiological Psychology Units or * Kinesiotherapy Units or
Developmental Psychology Recreation in Rehabilitation
Mental Health 9 Intertherapy Relations 12
Psychotherapy Quarter Evaluation and Research Applied to Quarter
Social Psychology Credits Corrective and Adapted Programs Credits
JAM 2-14-80
PAGENO="0288"
282
POSITION PAPER
CORRECTIVE ThERAPY SERVICES TO HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
(Adopted July 1979)
The American Corrective Therapy Association strongly advocates
that services of Certified Corrective Therapists be made available
to children with handicap conditions under the mandates of Public
Law %-l42 (Education of Handicapped Children), Section l2la.307
Physical Education, Sub-section (c.) Special Physical Education.
Presently, this part of the law does not i~.entify any standard
that qualifies Special Physical Education. As a result, this
term lacks substance and is subject to wide disparity of tinier-
standing and interpretation of which most inherent~Ly is the lack
of awareness of the skills of a qualified practitioner in
physical education. -
The American Corrective Therapy Association supports the
concept of adapted physical education as the appropriate profession
to meet the physical and motor education needs of children with
handicaps in the academic esvironment. Certified Corrective
Therapists with the accompanying teaching credentials are highly
qualified in the instruction and application of physical and motor
skill development. The Certified Corrective Therapist is a
physical education major from an accredited institution who has
successfully pa'3sed a competency based examination in the a~sesses
areas of therapeutic exercise, adapted games and sports, neurology,
pathology, behavior and habilitation/rehabilitation techniques.
The Certified Corrective Therapist is capable of the following
functions: 1) identifying pathologies in nouro-motor function,
postural and orthop~ic sefect;, perceptual/motor dysfunction, and
PAGENO="0289"
283
POSITION PAPER Page 2
Corrective Therapy Services
deficiencies in movement and physical fitness. 2) Motor asses-
ment. 3). Physical fitness testing. 4) Developing, implementing
and evaluating program objectives. 5) Purchase and instruction
in the use of special designed equipment. 6) Promote inter-
personal and social skills through group function. 7) Provide
liaison function with related services. ~) Provide inservice
education to regular physical education program in order to
promote the least restrictive alternatives. 9) Provide council
and instru~tion to parents to enhance the effect of the services
to the child.
Therefore, based on the intent of the rule an~d its obvious
weakness combined with a solution that seeks to promote a standard
to assure quality service and which does not seek to prevent any
related services, the American Corrective Therapy Association
offers the following amendment for Corrective Therapy's inclusion
as an available mandated service to promote the intent and
compliance with P.L. 94-142 Section l2la.307 (c).
Section 121a.14 (b) (2) (ii)
Add "Corrective Therapy" between adapted physical
education and movement education.
The amended section would therefore read, "The term
includes special physical education, adapted physical
education, corrective therapy; movement education,
and motor development."
-~ 6~-332 0 - .81 - 19
PAGENO="0290"
284
WINDOM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
N.J. Bwf~ Sup.f0soef0,tofSc/~o~Is
Windom, Minnesota 56101
ELEMENTARY DIVISION
AufreyF~e,dr Bs~sntayDiecm~
WINFAIR SCHOOl. 4 HIGHLAND SCHOOL
l4544thAvanue ugus , 9 ~ ~ ~,
~ ~ Robeot Ca/so,,. BohR/op Ps/so/p.S
Soso,, /fa,ies. Assista,,t f/a Ps/so/psi
Hon. Senator Jennings Randolph -
Qasinnan
Subcommittee on the Handicapped ~g
Room 4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
Thank you so very much for the opportunity to present
testimony at the July 31st oversight hearing on Public Law 94-142.
I certainly enjoyed the opportunity and `I'm hopeful that it
will be of assistance to you in future deliberations.
-I'm enclosing responses to questions nthich you sent me
following the hearing.
Respectfully yours
(j2~L?/ 5A7'T
Aubrey Fillbrandt
AF/ja
erm: 1. Responses to Questions
2. Draft Postion Paper for Spec. Educ.
PAGENO="0291"
285
WINDOM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
H. J. Bwte~ Supenntend.ntofSchoth
Windom, Minnesota 56101
ELEMENTARY DIVISION
Aub,syF/Ibrindt B.mentvyDkector
WINFAIR SCHOOL HIGHLAND SCHOOL
1454-SthAvenue 68-10th Strest
A:bney F,//b,a,dt.Pntnc:pa/ Robe,: Can/son. 8:1/ding Ptincipa/
Stnsan I/antics. Assistant to the P,incipa/
August 14, 1980
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO MR. AUBREE FILLBRPNOT
BY SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH, CHAIRMAN- SUBCOtTIITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
Re: July 31, 1980 Testimony
0 - Question
A - Answer
1. 0. Have you documented the progress of your handicapped
students participating in the corrective therapy program?
A. Yes, the assessment, activity, progress and achievement
has been documented with each child the corrective therapist
has worked with in the past three years.
The Individual Education Plans are written annually and
are reviewed twice each year. The motor and physical
educational goals are implemented by the corrective therapist.
This is either through direct service or on a consultive basis.
The corrective therapist is involved in the consultation on
procedure and methodology in implementing the assigned goals
and in periodic re-assessment of those goals with the classroom
teacher.
0. Are you aware of any studies that document the effectiveness
of corrective therapy?
A. Yes, the Minnesota Department of Education and Office of
Physical Education did a joint study on Corrective Therapy
and developed a position paper on developmental/adaPted
physical education services, which included Corrective Therapy,
for the purpose of defining needed service and eligibility for
State Special Education Aid. )I'm enclosing a copy of this
Draft Position Paper)
PAGENO="0292"
286
-2-
2. 0. Does your corrective therapist do an assessment of his/her
students prior to initiating a program for the student?
A. Definitely!!
The Corrective Therapist at the Windom Public Schools uses
a preliminary assessment form for teats on gross motor and
reflex development and also uses the time motor file assessment
tool.
The Corrective Therapist is not limited to any one assessment
tool because the range and uniqueness of the disability often
dictate the moSt suitable assessment tool (or a portion of)
consistent with program need and goals.
I'm enclosing some samples of the assessment tools our corrective
therapist uses:
"Sensorimotor Integration Program"
"Posture Score Sheet"
"Sensorimotor Integration Program Checklists"
Other developmental assessments (or parts of) am utilize include:
"Gross Motor and Reflex Development"
T. Hoskins and J. Squire
Journal of the American Physical
Therapy Association 1973
1J53, 118-120.
"Purdue Perceptual -Motor Survey"
Achievement Center for Children
Purdue University -Lafayette, Indiana
Aubrey Fillbrandt, Prin.
Winfair School
Windmn, Mn 56101
PAGENO="0293"
287
SENSORIMOTOR INTEGRATION PROGRAM
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FORMS
Patricia Montgomery, RPT
EIleen Richter, OTR
Published by
~SION~NT'RNcO~O~
NAME:
DATE:
BIRTHDATE:
EVALUATOR:
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Sensorimotor History:
Reflex Integration Test:
Fine Motor Development Test:
Copy~ighI 977 by WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
lI~ be reprorlirced it cahob or part orlhout orellrrrp errietiot olcpyrighr orator.
W-142 B `ii rigiot reteroed. I 234567 89 Prourd ta LI.S N
PAGENO="0294"
REFLEX INTEGRATION TEST
In the upper table, circle whether each reflex is present (P), absent (A) or intermediate (F) accord-
ing to the criteria given on the instruction sheet accompanying this form.
The lower table shows the normat period of occurrence for each ref lea. The columns represent
different chronological ages as labelled and the normal ages for each reflex are shaded. If desired,
enter a check in one test column for each normal response.
REFLEX
Date: Age:
ABNORMAL NORMAL
Date: Age:
ABNORMAL NORMAL
Grasp reflex
P A
P A
Avoiding reaction
P F A
P F A
Neck righting
P F A
P F A
Body righting
A F P
A F P
Asymmetrical tonic neck
Left
P F A
P F A
Right
P F A
P F A
Symmetrical tonic neck
P F A
P F A
Tonic labyrinthine prone
P F A
P F A
Tonic tabyrinthine supine
P F A
P F A
Landau
P A
P A
Prone head righting
A F P
A F P
Supine head righting
A F P
A F' P
Lateral head righting
A F P
A F P
Protective extension
A F P
A F P
Equilibrium
Supine
A F P
A F P
Prone
A F P
A F P
Sitting
A F P
A F P
REFLEX
1. Grasp reflex
2. AvoidIng reaction
3 Neck righting
.1 4. Body righting
Left
6. Symmetrical tonic neck
7. Tonic labyrinthine prone
8. Tonic labyrinthine supine
9. tandau
288
TEST AGE IN MONTHS
1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5. Asymmetrical tonic neck
Right
15 18 21 24 30 36 48
~1~I1!HIIHHHI
I I I
10. Head righting prone
11. Head righting supine
12. Head righting lateral
13. Protective extension
14. Equilibrium
Prone
Supine
15. Equilibrium-siting
2
PAGENO="0295"
289
FINE MOTOR DEVELOPMENT TEST
Test items are arranged in order vertically, and age level norms are indicated by shading inthe appropriate age columns.
Four test columns are provided for an initial testing and three retestings. instructions br each test activity are presented in
the instruction sheef.
Place a check in the appropriate colamn by each activity the child performs accordingtothe directions on the instruction
sheet. Do not give credit unless an item is fully present. The childs motor age is the most advanced age atwhich he orshe
can perform at least 50% of the items.
A fine motor quotient (FMO) may be determined for each child on voluntary activities
Fine motorquotient Motor Age
Chronological age
If 50% of the items for 48 months are present, lisa quotient maybe computed It all items are present and the child is older
then 48 months,the MFO is not applicable. It maynot be appropriateto determine stifle motorqaotienl forolderchildren who
have developed splinter skills and can perform some of the h~gher items adequately, but who demonstrate inadequate
responses at lower levels.
- ACTIVITY 18 21 24 30 3~1
= 3. Hands open
- 4. Plays regarding
5. B
7. Brings hands and obiecto
- to mouth
8. Primitive squeeze
11. Squeeze grasp
19. Radial digital pincer grasp
20. Hits two~
40. t.
41. E
3
PAGENO="0296"
QU!STTONS
Coauthecthld:-
1) ObJect to being touched?
2) Disikebeingccddled?
3) Seecnirntableotteo held?
4) Ptelentotoochnothetthaobetouchsd?
TAC11LE 5) Reactnegalio&ytotheteelotoewcnghes?
8P~AT)ON 6) Dolikehaninghainand/cnteceoaashedy
7) fetce teclunesotclothing?
8) Aooldcertainteoturescltood?
9) laoteteeelfttomothenchichetn?
10) Fnequecnybompandpoltothe~cytii~~en?
Does the chd:
1) Seem 050dyaeeoctnetoescsd?
~ 2) MisSscmesounds?
IUNATON 3) Seetncontioedaboutthed:recti000tsoucds?
4) Uketomakeloudninses?
5) tiaveadiagnosed heating toss?
Does the child:
1) Eoploostheensfronmentwithsetell7
OLFACTORY 2) Diac#mioeteodors?
RNSAT)ON 3) Reectdelensiveiytostnell?
4) gontenoc009000ts?
Doss the child
1) Hadeethegeouedunsoeldetect-?
2) Haoedttlcuftyeye-tnocking?
3) Makeesnetselswttaccoyying?
Y~3UAL 4) heoeCiffloottydlsctin~~oa5ogDocthch~em?
$D*AT)ON 5) Appeanoeneitinetotgttt?
5) Resisthaohtgoiuueoocloceu?
7) Becomeeacitsdctlencoohocteduythcatietyct
olocel stimuli?
Does the cttid:
GUSTATORY 1) Actesthoughalltoodtastestheseote?
a~eATios 2) Explorebytasling?
3) Diohketoodsofecetteir.textute?
Does the child:
1) Dislike beingtossedintheait?
3) Seemteen)ulioepace
YESTIBtJLAR (ie.,goingupaoddoomstelts, idiegteetet-tottet)?
SENSATION 3) AppaatClwnsy.ofteebcotpingintothicgseod/
on taking doon?
4) Prefettaon-mos)ng.spinnieg xemtxate$deo?
5) Aoold belunceacth lies?
Does the child:
1) KeYeanydag005edmcsclepanoo$ogy
(ie..spenticity.tlaucchty. tigldity.etc.)?
~ 2) Seemoeokenotsttongetttooeomtal?
TONS 3) Fneqcentlygrespct)ectstoot~tttiy7
4) Haueaooekgt-aop?
5) tireeesily?
Does the child:
1) Manipcleleamellcbjectoeeoily?
2) Seemeccidentptcno? )i.e.. hacefre~oent
ecnepesand bt'uiseo)?
000P lION 3) Eathiesloppymanner?
4) Maueditflccltywithpencdactioilies?
5) Hacedutlicultydressingand/ottucrening clothes?
6) laces cccsiatenttrunddceoinencs?
7) Neglectcnesidaotthcscdyotaeemuneeerectlt?
1) Woothe childalootoneochtheu500l
dexeloprentel neliestoces
sitting, *060g. tulkingl?
2) Westhechlid iorableinirranc?Wnticclanty
ottee held?
3) Doesthechildttacod:ltcn:tyinolel:ng
head eteeetnaela?
4) Doesthechildlackaoeqtoat~ptotecton teectiocs
nhcn telling?
290
SENSORIMOTOR HISTORY*
Place a check in toe eppcoptleta column. tents teethed yes say ioØicate sansotirrotot ptobtems.
NO )
SflEGRATION
AND
O~OPwENT
*Aduored torn Pat aS get 07th Special
Wcrkotcp.St. Pad PoblicSchocls St. Pact I6nresoteAouost. 1973.
PAGENO="0297"
291
r~'U~~tP *~C~~:j
PAGENO="0298"
292
POSTURE IMPROVEMENT
Adapted Es reise Routines
Thu fu1ieain~ artud contorts inst bras dusutotod hscmiuss bot biuhlr effucshu thoda to ineruor body pestoec. Thc ceoelutn gnan eooii,tu at
tatbusud or iobaiur.rtd eraucics s&cd a-ill brOw ,buot puusoeu dcfcete The's evidilkis, aoeuus arid boise ,socr difflealt to ceecuet au titter paocs. it
foe such eescsece peurorn detuvtr Stat thusu scsluitlss ccoosieoco5cd All ratioeeabiu cvsditkoc should be enteecu.t eronetie for serei*lisud petfussional
ANTERIOR HEAD with Kyphosis
~ This is the roost commonly found posture
deviation and has many adverse effects. It
assaily responds quickly to the following
c~5~ procedures. 1. Simulated "breast stroke
swimming" while lying face dons ssith the
~ head held high. Five minute total `swim-
I \ ming" time each day for 35 days. 2. Lie
``.1 face up and arch the bach forming a bridge
,( from the back of the head to the buttocks.
~ Hold tes to twenty seconds-three times
each day. 3. Stood with back flattened
against the wall and press the hack of
tread against the u-all vigorously. Hold 65
seconds-these times each day. 4. Sit or
stand erect and kecathu in and out deeply.
Slnsvly raise arms up with inhalation and
lower with esholation. 5. Emphasine a set
A tall, stand tall, and walk tall attitude.
PRINCIPLE-Strengthen upper back muscles and stretch neck and
cheat muscles.
INCLINED TRUNK with Anterior Pelvis
This condition is usually seen in combisa-
ties esith either a forssard head and/or
lordseis lssvayback). Loss hack trouble and
pvotroding okdonien arc among the troshle.
~__. ` some side effects. Recommended procedures I
follow. 1. Lie on bock and support lower -
book svith hands. Flex koth legs high into
a s-igoeoas alternating bicycle leg exercire
for a total tioee of 5 minutes each day. 2.
Lie on bock and hold a tight knee/chest
position for 65 seconds-three timcressh
I day. 1. Standing svith legs straightened
I / heed fall forsvaed froos hips. Hold shoulders
I lightly dou-nwacd and under for ft seconds
( -three tineen vo~h day.
I
B
PRINCIt'LE-Streteh back muscles and strengthen and flatten ab'
donsinat ossscles.
LOW SHOULDER
This condition is commonly roused by ha-
~ bitual one-sided activity and position. It will
~ respond is part to the following procedures.
~ A. Lao- Left Shoulder-right head deeia-
tins. 1. Left arm is fully extended alcove
the head u-bile ntandisg, and right arm is
fully extended doevoward olvng the side of
the budy. Exert an upxsard reaching effort
with the teft.arm and a dnwsscard reaching
effort with the right arm. Hold for 60 see-
nods-three times a day. 2. Grip as aver-
heud huriuontal hoe with the left hand and
support the entire body weight for 60 see-
- asds-three times each day, B. Low Right
Shoulder-left head deviation. The same
procedures in reverse are recomnlended.
PRINCIPLE-Strengthen shoulder and neck rosaries and stretch
trunk muscles,
LOW HIP
A lose hip can be the result of a tipped
,c- pvlsiueronooo tonsically short leg. A spe.
(; -) cialiued professional rsastinatinn is suggest-
- - ed ire all eetiditiene exhibiting a temp or
-- grist-c than o Il degree tip. A ounvereected
I leo- bile COO tiring about a veuliosis. A
- A I healthy tipped hip ccv many timçs be cur-
/ \ \ `~ reeled by the feellosing procedorea. 1. Lie
,. ~ i on bock and lace cob's of feet together
) I j eebile bendieg and scearotiog ho ecu apart.
~-. - Alluu- leg xvnight to force knees to the out-
- side and dusco. This soill tend to louses and
square the peluic bones. Hold for CeO seconds -
--l tinees each day. 2. Stand on the leg of -
the high hip and place the foot 0f the tow
rode bep ten tb, edge' of a ~ ~ -
hId th I p 1 Ff15
each day.
I'RtNCII'LE-Raisc em hip, shift weight bearing and loosen pelvic -
articulation.
ANKLE INVOLUTION - Inward Ankle Roll
- (`~ This nerortition cart lee rongenitul trot iu
~ I,_ usually lb cress It of scaliness, fatigue, or
~l ` predieposos oue to sceooelary knee and track
pi-obtears. The center of the tibia should
sureeerlly be located immediately above and
/ behind the second metatarsal juinL It is a
relatisety simple procedure to re-aligo asd
atrengthen an ankle ssith the following pro-
,.- ~ ~ ttaoma. The foandat, as necebaeoce ,nuolved
cedures. 1. Rnll foot over on to outer edge
and beieg to lear some standing weight
thus steetvhirg the tatecal ligantente ant
re-aligning the tacxal jeivta. Hold ft nec-
nsds-three times each duy. 2. \Valh us tuete
fueatleastluminutcseach day u-bile bore-
footed.
~
PRINCIPLE--Stretch lateral ligumeestu, ,-e-slign metatarnals and
strengthen antIc cootrol.
SCOLIOSIS - Spinal Cttrvature
(1 i. Simtde Sealiusiu-e\ single "C" curer -
/ eeeooII~e develops on a result rtf -movement -
~e scour-s irs Ie~rloeeeerI and uhr'strt to' errreected
leefrice thie conelitieer peegresues into a eum-
\ semI vt'uliuaio. All faulty habits is sitting,
olt'epieeg arid sx-eeliing oh~eutd he coos idcretl.
. l.Vlees i etelicueted. cccieeiriitr'eerlotions fer a tow
/ shoetliler or a Isv hie eon he hr-Itrful in
,.- - -trot cactI too habits. The tprool musculature
I seoelit'vieeg thiv cereeliticer. B. Compuand
I Sealioxiu-A folle- mb'vvleped 5' cot-nc sea-
1 / liutis cannot lit' eec-ceded Ire use knows
( I escreire routitee'. Thy most ~that can be
\ / hepeel fer in cueeetpeonatian svhs'rcis hips
\ ~ unit sheetlders ace beveled aud spinal mar-
) eli's reuslized. :bll nnenetpensated ncotiosis
F shcolrl tic referred for spvnialized profes-
"
- CAT. tOO PX.it HA. HAMIfTON - AUBURN. N.Y.. U.S.A. At-I. nr:t'atevrertrter rect-,tr-rcerme:eiosvr:tm'
PAGENO="0299"
293
SENSORIMOTOR INTEGRATION PROGRAM CHECKLISTS
Patricia Montgomery, RPT
Eileen Richter, OTR
Published by
WE51RINPSYcHOEOGICALSRIVICES Key: * Activities for lower-functioning children
Unit I Roiling 00 ~ d tiy
Checklist A DiViSIONOF MANSON WESTERN CORPORATION ~~rate
NAME
OBSERVATION
Body righting (rotation)
Asymmetrical tonic neck
Neck righting (log rolls)
Tonic lebyrinthine prone
Tonic labvninthlne supine
REFLEX INHIBITION
Isolates head movements: (side to side)
`Supine: lootates head movement (lifts up)
.
`Rolls up fl a bail
`Rolls up/down incline
Rotlswithlteece bail between chin end shoulder
Rolls: arms over heed
Rolls: arms at side
`Rolls in barret
Racks: arms over heed -
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
`Rolls: beth directions
Rocks: estate aide
SIde-lying: moves arms and legs
`RaIses and moves legs
`RaIses and moves arms
`Stemach/back/side: spokes command
`Rolls: step/go
`Rolls: teat/stow
Follows trail while rolling
Rolls around circle
Obstacle course
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
`Follows tight-pointing
ASendsto picture tO seconds
`Hits swinging obiect
`Squeezes objects
`Eoptores hands under light
* Cepyvc~hI° I9t7 by WESTERN PSYCIIOLOGICAL SERVICES
Not lobe reproduced in choir or pan sWeet wrItten Inroissico of evpycghl over
W142 E All ri~hIs resorted I 23456789 Printed in U.S.A
PAGENO="0300"
294
Unit ii: Crawling
Checklist
OBSERVATIONS
Homologous: is symmetrical tonic reck utilized?
Prone rock: grasps ankles
Crawts sideways
Crawts forward/backward
Crawls ctockwise/counterclockwise
Trail
Obstacle course
Prose rock: sideto side, arms in front
*Saplne: scoots on back
SCOOTERBOARDS
Pushes with hands/feet
Sideways
NAME
1 1
Key: * Actioities tar tower-functioning children
2 Pertorms independently
Performs with assistance
Cannot perform
Does not cooperate
Harnofateral: is asymmetrical tonic neck utilized?
Reciprocal pattern
Extremity leg
No pattern or combination of patterns
REFLEX INHIBITION
Prone: raioes head in isolation
Prone: raises and turns head in isolation
*Prone on elbows
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Sapine: lifts balls togs
`
*Supine: lifts bath arms
Slop/go; fast/slow
Ferward/bsckward
Clockwise/counterclockwise
Trail. obstacle course
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Tug of war
Crack the whip
Procne es elbows: toys
Visuatly tracks circle
*xtsuallytrac)rs acrnss midline of body
COMMENTS
PAGENO="0301"
Key: Activities for lower-functioning children
2 Performs indeperdentiy
1 Performs with assistance
Caonot perform
Does not cooperate
295
Uidt iii Creeping
Checklist
NA~
OBSERVATION
Homologousr is symmetncal tonic neck utilized?
Iiomotatarat: a asymmetrical tsnic neck utilined?
RecIprocal
No pattern
R~LU INHIBITION
Moneshead side to side in isolation
`Moves rseed up and down in isolation
Creeps: washcloth between chin and shoulder
5Creepa: head straight
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
`Porward/backward
,
`Sidecar
Ctockwise/ceuntercluckwise
Creeps: follows hand signals
Camel-walks
Crab-walks: follows hand signals
Trail
Obstacle course
ROcbs all directions
liNE MOTOR ACTIVITIES -
`Tuttastelit hand to hood
`efera heist tofoof
Ffnponpalnts
-
.
*~hSlahu*oesdcd ball
*Sijcha45bloCfm
~*t~iiearch
~:~-
cb 10 blacks
fl$~wa~ofpaper
I
PAGENO="0302"
Key: ` Actisitiesforlower-functioning children
2 Performs independently
1 Performs with assistance
Cannot perform
Does not cooperate
296
Unit IV: Locomotor Review and Variations
Checklist
NAME
OBSERVATION
Ratts: stop/go, fasf/slow
Refteoes evident in rotting
Crawls: att directions
Identifies crawling pattem
Creeps: att directions
Identifies creeping pattern
Needs iodividuaf therapy
REFLEX INHIBITION AND FACILITATION
`Side-tying: onilaterat movements
`Side-tying: combined tateral movements
`3-paint batance
.
`2-paint balance
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Noetocomotor
`Sapine: bilateral symmetrical movements
.
`Sapine: faterat movements
Sapine: combined bilateral movements
Sapine: reciprocal movements
`Prone: bitaterat symmetrical movements
Prone: combined bilaferat movements
Prone: reciprocal movements
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Combthaflooe
`Creeps, rolls, creeps
Creeps, rotts, crawls
`Obstacle course
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Ftashtight tag
`Fotlosns flashlight trail
`I-loop activities
`Kicks suspended ball
Crab-walks: kicks ball
Alt-foars: kicks ball
GOMMENTS
PAGENO="0303"
Unit V: Sitting
Checklist
Reflexes that interfere with sitting pgstune
Associated reactions
Avoiding reaction
REFLEX FACILITATION
`Rocks on pillows
`Rocks on tiltboand
Bounces on hoppity-hop ball
`Rocks all directions
`Rotates trunk
STRENGTHENING ACTIVITIES
Shoulder depressors
Shoulder depressors: head to side
`Bounces on trampoline - -
`LLS: bilateral, circular arm movements -
`LLS: reciprocal movements . -
Circutar movements
SS. push-ups
FLEXIBILITY ACTIVITIES
`LLS: touches toes
LIS: ainptases
`LLS: chin to mess
`LLS: twists trunk
SS: bends, stretches
SS: pivots In circle
`IS: reaches all directions
`TS: twists
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Finger games
`Pinches cluthespios
`Playdoh exercises
`Object transfer
COMMENTS
297
Key. ` Achvilies for lower-functioning children
2 Performs independently
Performs with assistance
Cannot perform
Does not cooperate
NAME
OBSERVATION
Head righting: left/right
Trunk righting: lvft/riuht
Protective extension: loll/right
Head and trunk extension
PAGENO="0304"
Unit Vi: Kneeling
Checklist
NAME
Hall-kneeling; leg back, etc.
i(nèet-watks sideways
`Sits back, kneels up
`Bilateral symmetrical movements
`Reciprocal movements
Propela scootenbcards
Arcken back: stretches
`tsotates head mouements
Isolates trunk movements
VISUAL-MOTOR ACTIVITIES
`Soap bubbles
Strings beads
Prepnimary puzzles
`Bean bag toss
298
Key: * Activit:nstorlower-tunctioning children
2 Performs independently
Performs with assistance
0 Cannct pertvrm
Does not cooperate
OBSERVATION
Equihbniurn
Protective extension
Hip stability (supporttone)
-
REFLEX FACILITATION
Batartces on pillows
`Batonces: one knee
-
-
`Balances: tiltboard; trampolne
`Falls torwand, back op
-
Rooks all d:rect:ons
-
Nose to Poor and returns
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
`Kneel-walks forward
`Kneet-walks backward
-
COMMENTS
`Scnibblet
Circles
Peg designs
6
PAGENO="0305"
299
Unit Vii: Standing
Checklist
O3SERVATION
Back curvature
Flat feet
Leg length difference
Head position
Heel-toe gait
Reciprocal arm swing
Gait pattern
Protective eatension
COMMENTS
Key: * Activities for lower-functioning children
2 Performs irdepertdently
Performs with assistance
Cannot perform
Does not cooperate
NAME
REFLEX FACILITATION
with Support
*tsofatos head movements: sideta side
*tsafates head movements: up and down
flooks elf directions
Indepuadent
*Rocks all directions
Swingo one leg
Squats
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
with Support
Posh-offs are wall -
Kicks tag back
Pats wall between fegs
*Waltw sideways
Stasds on tiptoes
Stands on keels
Independent
Ksee bends
*lsolates head movements
salutes trunk movements
Walks sidewoys. walks bochward
*Walks on tiptoes
Walks or heels
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Passes ball
`Catches' light beam
Scnibbles
*Bilateraf inca
68-332 0 - 81 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
300
Unit VIII: Basic Balance Review and Variations
Checklist
NAME
Key: Activities for lower-functioning children
2 Performs independently
1 Performs with assistance
Cannot perform
Does not cooperate
Keeet:ng: equilibrium
Standing: general posture
REFLEX FACIUTATION AND INHIBITION
Staoding: isolates head movements
Elephant-walks
Hatpolato: sitting on blocks
Kneels: tiltboard
Side-nit ectonsion
T-ntool: kicks ball
GROSS MOTOR ACTIVITIES
*f*ltlcneel: stands up and retumsto kneel
Pash ups
Sif -ups
Duck-walks
Sits. kneels, stands
*Circular movements: sits, kneels, stands
Standing: one knee to chest
*Marchee
FINE MOTOR ACTIVITIES
Through tunnel
Boonces ball: two hands
Traces templates
OBSERVATION
Sitting: general posture
Sitting: equilibrium
Kneeling: protective eotensiOs
Gait pattern
Inverted: protective evtension
Kickstether bull
i
~)1 tO~ -` ~ 0 c ~ O~ ~O (~ 01 -J -~ 0) ~ ~ -J 01 ~ -~ 001 (31 N) 0 `-3 `-301 (.3 ~ 010 ~ -~ 001 ( -~ CX) `-3(0 (.301 .~ 0) `--101(001 -~ ~ CO -~
0 01 (.3 (0 C) ~ 0 `.3(X) 000(0 ~ 0(3) `-301001 01(0 COO (3) N) (*301 `-30) N) (*3010)01(3) `-4(33 N) 4(01(0 N) 01(3) N) 00) 000010
O 0) 01010101-' ~ 0N)N)0101N)'--J010101033)0(3)O) .(3X01(3)-J(0N)O1N) ~
10 ~ 4('.3N) N) 4(4(01X01-.JC~JL0OCO 04(~01~014(N)
-~ (CXC.) 01N) (3) Q((OOt04(01CO4(0)4(J(O0)(3)0)(O4(4((0(o((3JJ0)J0(o(3)N,o)*0)(oCOCON)..~4(O0)0)4( 0101(3)0104(01'-.) "l
0 0) -`(*3(OCOO CO 4(0100 001 )(*3t0'-.J(ON)01t*3O) CO01DN)N)4(C3-'
b3( C~
-~ -` -~ N, -` X~*j N, -~ N, N, N) N) -~ 001(0
-~ -~ -~ `-1 o ~ Cl N) 01 (31 -~ -~ - 0 N, (3) (3)0
N) 01 N) `-4 N) `-3 0 (3) `-4 (.3 0) 0) 0)
0)001(001 N) 0)01 -.J N) 0)014(01 (*3(0(0 N) 01 -`N) 0101(3) (3) (#3 `-40)0)01 -~ 0) `--JON) -~ C) (#3 01030 ~301(0 CX) 4( N) 01(00 4(
-J 01 4( N) `-3 `--3 N) 0)0103~) -~ -~ -~ N) (0 (0 0101 03010 `-4 r'3 N) N) 4( N) 4( 4( N) 4( N) COO -, CO `--40 - - ~j0) -`Q)(Q(Ø(0 -` -3-'
003t0(-) 01014(0101 (J10)(00)'-JO)OlOCOO 010
0101 N) 0)01 (0 4( (-30 N) -`0101
4(0101(001COt0N)01~-'CO-J(001(3)N)-JCO0-'01010101N)0104(014(CO-'01(0010)-'--3 01010-'CO(3)--'--'
0' I C.01 0)4(4(0N)(0(0'-J'-4 0)t0(3)CO-'(0 t0(*3N)(000)(0N)N)01C.)(*3cOOlN)01OC3) 0101N)4(-'4('-4-'
4(CO0)-J01(*)(OO)014((fl CO010~01N)(.v101N)01'-JC)CO(0(0(~)o1(CO(0-'
- 4~ C)'~
N, * (310) (*3N,~N,-1 -~
(41 4~ 01 -`N, 01 -`(*303--'4( N) 0 -`01'-) 014( J -~-J(*30101 -`4(N)N) 014((0 C1-'4(N)(*) (0N)O to~-J4(J
C) (3N)010101014(N)J01N) 4(01(4010)-'-' 03 CO01N)N,('-J4(-(3. N)(4O) 01010)0101 -3~~-~(0O4(o~0
0 (0 0) ~ 4(N) -`N) (00 -`(#3(3)0) 4( -`(.3'-.) `-3'-.) N) 014(-J-'Ol CO -`(40101 CON) (#30101 (*3(0(001 (3)O-'~
0 (0010)'-JN) CON)4(0-'
0 0 003 (#3'-JCO (0(0010 4((#3(001C7(0 `-JON) (00)01 01010101J0100101030301N,CO0101C*3%4 01-'C#3 -`0)4(4(03 4((ON) 014(0001
(flN)(00 4C)01O01(401(44(01014(01014(00COD (0(#3O)'-4N)C00104(O-'U1t0N)4(01-'(#3Q1 ~(*3(0'-J01C)
0 034(010) N)N)N)01(001~JOO(O4(t0(0(4CO4(01t0'--JN)-~(4'-4-.J(004(
C)
0
PAGENO="0407"
401
Page 3
of the problems known as specific learning disabilities had convinced
the National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped to attempt a defini-
tion of these children and to provide an estimate that an additional 1-3%
of school-aged children would be affected by specific learning disabilities.
This led to the revision of the national estimate to 12%.
The steady, if relatively small, growth year by year in special education
enrollment, despite the high costs schools face in providing such services for
handicapped children, plus the reports from many sources, parents and educators,
that there still are children attending school whose disabilities have not been
appropriately identified leads us to believe these historic estimates of the
prevalence of educationally disabling conditions are still reasonable, although
there may well he variation from community to community and perhaps state to
state.
It seems important to me to take a few minutes to reflect on the accomplish-
ments which have occurred under the Act, because the complexities of the process
of assuring each child an appropriate program, and each parent an appropriate role
in the development of that program, each an historic and dramatic changes from past
practice, have necessarily led to considerable focus on what is not working perfectly.
More than four million children are receiving special education services.
Each child has an IEP. More children are receiving additional services, physical
and occupational therapy, for example, than ever before. More children are partici-
pating in physical education, in the arts, and in all facets of overall school life.
Some of the comments in your hearings provide more insight than statistics do.
A state director of special education said they "made more progress in upgrading
and developing quality education opportunities during the last four years than over
PAGENO="0408"
402
Page 4
the past forty years." A college dean reported progress in reducing
overrepresentation of minority children in special education. Teachers
and parents reported the responses of children in moving terms. The
Chairman's state of West Virginia provides a good example, with officials
there reporting growth in the number of professionals working with handicapped
children from 400 to 2,200 and the number of children served increasing from
6,600 to 30,000 over the last decade. Washington State reports 51,166 children
served in 1979-80 versus 29,262 served in 1974-75. Vermont has more than
doubled its services to handicapped children. Similar progress is the rule
rather than the exception.
Another area of important progress has been in services to pre-school children.
Although services in this area were not mandated by the Act, these services
have been supported by P.L. 94-142 funds in many states, and also from the
special incentive grant program. Chairman Williams' state, New Jersey, reports
it is now serving about 50% of the 12,000 children under five years of age
estimated to require such services-progress that would not have been possible
without 94-142 assistance. In Washington state more than 5,000 preschool children
have participated in a developu~ntal screening process supported by the law. I
think it is critical that such cost-effective and educationally beneficial pro-
grams expand.
In each major facet of the law, such as individual programming, least
restrictive environment, new services, there are reports from outside observers
indicating progress, and more importantly that is the message from parents and
children. It would be good to report that everything involved in this historic,
really revolutionary change in American educational practice was working perfectly
PAGENO="0409"
403
Page 5
from the first day. No one really expects that logically, but emotion-
ally it still is frustrating when things don't work without flaw, particularly
when emotions and hopes are as high as they are in this program which has a
major impact on children, parents and educators as well as on the public
at large. With 4 million children, even if 95% were satisfactorily served,
an exceptionally high rate of success, there could still be as many as
200,000 complaints from dissatisfied parents, teachers, etc. So some level
of concern will be inevitable.
An analysis of the testimony reveals several types of issues that
were frequently mentioned by witnesses and which must be addressed by
program administrators. These are for the most part the same issues we
identified in our annual reports to the Congress and which have been
found in other analyses of the initial years under the law. I think it
might be helpful to look at these areas where problems exist.
Table Number II presents an analysis of what various witnesses before
the subcommittee identified as problem areas. The chart indicates that
parents, teachers and support personnel tended to concentrate on problems
associated with the development of the IEP. It also indicates that local
and state level administrators tend to emphasize related services problems,
which includes difficulties in inter-agency agreements, and the administrators
also emphasized funding problems. Personnel training was frequently mentioned
by both groups. It can also be seen from the analysis that there is diversity
in what is seen as a problem among the various groups.
PAGENO="0410"
404
TABLE II
% OF INDIVIDUALS WHO INDICATED AREA WAS A PROBLEM
TRAIN- PARENT EARLY RELATED FULL
FAPE LRE TEP TN~ RTI~HTS TNTFRV SERVICES FUND
Parents (23)
22
26
26
39
22
30
13
04
Teachers (6)
17
50
50
67
17
33
17
33
Support
Personnel (5)
0
0
60
40
40
60
80
60
Administrators
LEA (6)
17
0
33
0
0
33
50
.
50
Administrators
SEA (9)
0
0
22
44
0
0
78
67
Deans (5)
0
0
0
100
20
0
0
0
Advocates (2)
0
50
0
50
0
50
50
50
Handicapped
Adult (1)
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
PAGENO="0411"
405
Page 6
Figure 1 has been developed to show the recommendations of the various
wirnesses, again by role, which have been offered during the testimony.
This figure also indicates the administrative level to which the recom-
mendation is directed. For example, tic parents ordinarily report dif-
ficulties with local school programs and their recommendations are for
actions at that level. Administrators often direct their concerns to
state or federal levels, either to the Executive branch or to Congress.
One message is that people at each level feel the people at the "next level
up" must resolve problems. In some instances people at the local level look
directly to the federal government feeling it will be more responsive than
local or state officials.
This really becomes a fundamental issue in implementing the law and in
assuring compliance. It is my feeling that the system for resolving difficul-
ties must work effectively at the local level. Fundamental responsibility
for compliance must lie with local and state officials. With even a small
percentage of problems, the number of such problems is in the tens of
thousands. There are more than 12,000 school districts, perhaps 100,000 school
buildings and millions of teachers and children involved. Clearly no massive
federal compliance force can deal problem by problem in each locale across the
nation. Our efforts must be directed to fashioning a more effective system
where most problems are quickly and satisfactorily resolved at the local level,
where states- assume a more vigorous compliance role, and where the federal
efforts involve better coordination betveen the Office of Special Education
and the Office of Civil Rights, and clearer standards for what effective com-
pliance includes. Basically, the Act provides resources for local and state educa-
tion agencies, and leaves the fundamental control of education at the local level.
PAGENO="0412"
4O6~
FIGURE I
E/~-'rWk)5 ~- ~~~1 CoNes
I Cc7t~5~9
1
*1
~EF.
Is~P
PAGENO="0413"
407
Page - 7 -
It is a local committee that decides on the IEP and so determines what
"appropriate" education is for each child. If the parents disagree, there
is a local hearing with an impartial hearing officer and then a state
education agency level appeal, and possible recourse to the courts. The
Act does not contemplate Office of Special Education officials deciding
on the specifics of a child's IEP in this appeal process. Only if there
seems to be a systematic problem in the development of IEP ` s for example,
the consistent denial of certain services even when needed, would the
Office of Special Education play a role, and here it should be through
state officials--requiring them to assure the children's rights as established
under the law. Many people do not make this same assumption--instead assuming
that the system depends on direct federal involvement case by case, complaint.
by complaint. Case by case investigation of complaints of violations of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a function of the Office of Civil Rights, but
even that office's large, regionalized staff must depend on cooperation of local
officials, and basic support of the law.
As a result of experiences with the first years of the law - see the
need to improve federal compliance activities. Despite the overwhelming success
of the Act in achieving its purpose, there are serious problem areas. The
question before us is what federal actions will be quickly effective, and still
create the local and state-based cooperative attitudes which are necessary
for the law to work.
Since the Education Department came into existence we heve made a major
effort to improve compliance through increased coordination between the Office
of Civil Rights and the Office of Special Education, and through a variety of other
PAGENO="0414"
408 -
Page - 8 -
activities. Along with Cynthia Brown, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, I
am serving as co-chair of a departrnent-wicje task force established by Secretary
Hufstedler. The final report of this task force for the Secretary is due
September 30 and will be made available to the Subcommittee.
Work is progressing in four major areas - data collection, enforcement,
policy development, and technical assistance. I would like to summarize for
the subcommittee some of the major tasks now underway.
In the area of data collection, ve have already surveyed the data
sources available throughout the I~partment which might be of assistance
in enforcing Public Law 94-142. We have also developed a mechanism for
working with the Office for Civil Rights more effectively to access informa-
tion included in complaints in connection with our compliance efforts. We
are continuing to work on developing a strategy for maintaining a more effective
system for data storage, are examining the need to collect additional data, and
are considering the possible publication of a comprehensive compilation of
available data for use by the public.
In the area of enforcement, the Office of Special Education and the Office
for Civil Rights together have identified priority issues and have determined those
areas for which data are available. Working with the Office of General Counsel,
~ have developed mechanisms for improved coordination with the Departm~nt of Justice.
The Office of Special Education and the Office for Civil Rights have also developed
a strategy for more effective sharing of information relating to compliance activities
and have recently worked together very closely and successfully in resolving com-
pliance problems in two states. We are continuing to work on development of an
effective FY 1981 plan for compliance activities which would involve coordination
of the Office of Special Education and the Office for Civil Rights activities and
perhaps joint site visits in a limited number of states. In addition, ve are currently
PAGENO="0415"
409
Page 9
evaluating staffing needs and alternatives, over the short and long run, and
are working on improved training strategies useful to both the Office of
Special Education and the Office for Civil Rights. We also plan to develop
decision rules for use of available enforcement options and to develop a
strategy for evaluating the effectiveness of our enforcement activities
and other efforts in this area.
In the area of policy development, s~ have worked very hard in the past
several months, along with the Office for Civil Rights and other agencies
within the Department, to perfect policy statements in a number of key areas
including use of insurance proceeds, psychotherapy, catheterization, and com-
ponents of IEPs. I expect definitive guidance to the States on a number
of these issues to be forthcoming in the very near future. We are also
taking steps to alert the public that the Department is developing policy
in several other areas, including placement in the least restrictive
environment and the circumstances under which services need to be provided
during an extended school year. We believe innovative steps to invoke
public comment at an early stage will be a helpful part of an improved
policy development process being developed by the Office of Special Education
in coordination with the Office for Civil Rights.
Lastly, ~ are taking steps to assure that the Department provides
technical assistance to teachers, parents, and others in the most effective
possible way. We have identified those areas in which technical assistance
is now provided, and are considering the need for targeting technical assis-
tance to particular users with regard to specific issues, and the means for
improving coordination bet~en the Office for Civil Rights and the Office of
Specizl Education efforts in this area.
PAGENO="0416"
410
Page 10
I am confident that these task force activities will allow us to provide
more effective guidance to state and local officials. We have also been work-
ing with state officials to increase compliance. In virtually every one of our
monitoring visits to states se have documented the need for increased state-level
activity in: advising local school districts as to their responsibilities under
the law, providing additional training to teachers and others; and, visiting
on a more regular basis to assure effective problem resolution. In the last
three years states have agreed to remedy hundreds of problem areas identified
during federal site visits.
Finally two areas frequently mentioned in your bearing record deserve
more specific mention, training needs and IEP's. Using discretionary funds
available to the Office of Special Education, inservice training and other
training of regular educators has become the major activity of the Department's
training program as opposed to its earlier concentration on the training of
specialists. Of the 123,000 teachers receiving training 82,200 will be in
this target group. Further through a series of grants to deans of colleges
of education se have made good progress in efforts to revise the programs
of those colleges so that future teachers will not follow programs with no
training whatsoever in special education. Almost all of today's teachers
and principals follosed courses of study which involved no work with
handicapped children. Perhaps that is as good an example as any of the
assumptions of the education system before P.L. 94-142 and an index of
how far se have come.
It is important that the states take a more active role in providing
inservice training and encourage the local districts to do the same. Although
approximately $30 million in federal discretionary funds are targeted on this
area, the states have at their disposal more than $200 million as a result of
PAGENO="0417"
411
Page 11
the 25% sat aside in the formula which the states control. While this money
is generally distributed to the locals or used to fund local service programs
which the state approves, it presents a major opportunity for states to use their
discretion to provide additional training. Although ve do not have the authority
to order the states to use the funds in this way, are putting major emphasis
on efforts to urge them to follow this approach.
I feel the Individual Education planning process is a critical element of
the law, and I feel it must be preserved and made more effective as a matter of
urgency. For many years educators, teachers, administrators, and professors
have preached about the necessity for an individual approach to educating
each child. In this law the Congress has provided the opportunity for
educators to practice what they have preached, and there are very few
people who do not think it was a very good idea, although one group raised
the possibility of endtng that requirement with the subcommittee. I
believe strongly that the education system needs to encourage parental
involvement, and to make stronger ties with parents to improve programs for
children and to provide additional support of public education.
Various reports including testimony to this committee suggest that
most parents feel very positively toward the IEP process. Where there is a
problem it is because of too little IEP involvement, not with the concept.
Further, although there definitely is a burden on teachers and some other
achool employees, I believe that the system of developing IEP's can be im-
proved to reduce the burden.
First, some school districts are relying too heavily on teachers to
develop the plan when the intention of the law, as reflected in the legisla-
tive history and hearing record, seems to have been that appraisal teams con-
duct the planning process and develop the report as a product of their work.
68-332 0 - - 27
PAGENO="0418"
412
Page 12
In our technical assistance work with the states we are encouraging the use
of the teams, rather than solely relying the teacher to develop plans. Secondly,
as the process becomes more familiar there have been a reduced number of concerns
raised in most areas of the country.
In addition, we have recently received a study of a national sample
of IEPs which provides information which can be helpful in reducing the
burden without reducing parent involvement. Figure II shows that the number
of pages found in various IEPs ranged from 1 to 47 pages. As you can see
60% of the IEPs were 4 pages in length or less, and the largest single group
was two pages in length. The study determined that length is not basically
a function of federal requirements, but instead is very directly a product of
local decisions and in some instances state decisions. However, in some
instances local people think they are doing what the federal government
requires.
As a result of this study we will initiate a coordinated effort with
state officials to provide better information to local officials about
the essential requirements of the law. At the same time we want this
training effort to emphasize the need for full participation and informed
involvement of parents.
In sunmary, I have said from time to time that special education today
is in the state described by Charles Dickens in his Tale of Two Cities in
his opening lines, "It is the best of times-it is the worst of times."
Really I believe it is the best of times, but because of our aspira-
tions in this program, that every child in the nation, bar none, have an
appropriate, free public education, and that every child, again, have an
PAGENO="0419"
PERCE)D~
FIGURE II
413
Distribution of t1~ Number of Pages in IEPs
15
10
7-10 11+
1 2 3 4 5- 6
NUMBER OF PAGES
PAGENO="0420"
414
Page 13
individual plan developed with parental involvement, our frustrations are
greater than if ~ had set more modest goals. Before 94-142 the unstated
goal of the United States was, for all practical purposes, let us do a pretty
good job for sore children within available resources. Today se have a
higher goal, a difficult one to achieve, a goal which represents a high
level of compassion and humanity on tie part of tie Congress and tie
American public. We are making good progress; there are still painful
deficiencies; and, it wiU take local, state and federal commitment to
achieve our purposes. I personally think this is a reachable goal in
the next few years. I think ~ will reach tie position soon where it
is a matter of course that handicapped children are served in the least
restrictive environment, and the public policy issues will be history.
Because of the individual focus on children and the involvement of
parents it wiU not be unreasonable to say that no aspect of American
education is working more beneficially than special education. A number
of people believe that is true now.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Dr. Martin. It is not a
pleasantry when I say that you are very articulate and your testi-
mony is helpful.
I wish to say for the record that we do have other subcommittee
and committee responsibilities. Sometimes we spread ourselves a
little thin. The Veterans' Affairs Committee, of which Senator
Stafford and I are both members, was in session this morning, and
he has been there. We often have to share responsibilities in our
subcommittee.
I have said it often, and I say it again for the record. The
cooperative spirit we have within our subcommittee is good. We
have our differences, yes, but do not have animosities. This is very
important.
I look upon the GAO as doing a very worthwhile job.
Dr. MARTIN. Yes.
Senator RANDOLPH. I cannot always agree with them.
Dr. MARTIN. No. V
Senator RANDOLPH. I think they serve a very, very commendable
purpose in the structure of government.
Dr. MARTIN. I do, too. I applaud them. It just happens that
sometimes, particularly recently, they go beyond the traditional
role of accounting and into the area of public policy. It leaves them
open, I think, to be disagreed with in a different way. When the
numbers do not add up, there is not much you can say about it.
But, when we get into deciding matters of educational benefits to
children, that is an area where I think a debate is worthwhile. I
just wanted to get my 2 cents in while I was here.
Senator RANDOLPH. I am only saying, Senator Stafford, that later
we will hear the Director of the Human Resources Division of the
PAGENO="0421"
415
General Accounting Office of the United States. We must always
recognize that they often have a key role to perform in connection
~rith a program or a new law. The very newness of it, regardless of
the commitment, causes difficulty.
Do you have any statement, Senator Stafford, at this time or
questions of Dr. Martin and his associates, who have been intro-
duced?
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
noting that until I got here I was at the Veterans' Affairs Commit-
tee meeting. The matter there under consideration was the impact
of agent orange and similar dioxins on our veterans who have
served in Vietnam.
I do have one or two questions.
Dr. Martin, do you encounter from time to time any problem in
some of our States along this sort of line; that is, a feeling on the
part of some people in the State that too many children are being
put in the handicapped education programs for insufficient rea-
sons? Do you ever encounter something like that?
Dr. MARTIN. We have not had that problem with the exception-
and a very important exception it is-that in some instances chil-
dren from minority groups may be identified as having learning
disabilities, mental retardation, and so forth. There is a concern
that there may be an overinclusion of such children, and there is
some data to suggest that. It is one of the key issues that we are
addressing with the Office of Civil Rights. In our round of monitor-
ing visits this year, we will focus particular attention on that
dimension. It is a difficult issue because the tests are not so good
that you can really sort out children on a definite basis and you
have to take into account the possibility of various factors influenc-
ing the judgments that should not be there.
Basically, with that exception-and I am not sure if you were
referring to that. If you are talking about the general question, are
our parents complaining to us that their children are being identi-
fied as handicapped, no; on the contrary, the demand is for more
services for more children almost universally.
There are some people in the community that have raised some
issues for fear that resources would be diverted away from their
children. So, they might say: I think there is too much being done
for the handicapped; or I think too many children are being viewed
as handicapped, and so forth. But we have not had any complaints
from parents saying: "Hey, we didn't want these services, and we
don't think our kids are handicapped, and schools are foisting this
off on us."
It is in part because most schools would not do that given this
exception.
We have found in very few instances-and we monitor careful-
ly-some States counting children who should not be counted. For
example, in the State of Tennessee, as we did our routine visits, we
discovered there were two classes of children who were being iden-
tified as learning disabled. One group were called learning prob-
lems, and one group were called learning disabled. The children
who were called learning problems did not have the full, compre-
hensive battery of tests required. So, we discounted and disallowed
PAGENO="0422"
416
about 20,000 children in that State who had previously been count-
ed because they did not meet the criteria set out in the regulations.
But, no, I do not think there is a complaint of too much. If
anything, the complaint is that we have not gone far enough.
Senator STAFFORD. Would it be a fair statement to say that, even
in the absence of Public Law 94-142, which the chairman and I so
strongly have supported through the years, that under the existing
court decision parents, if they wished, could go to court and compel
an equal educational opportunity be provided to them by the local
element of government in which they might reside?
Dr. MARTIN. Yes, Not only that but 49 of the States have laws
now that essentially offer the same-and this is one of the funny
public policy issues that, frankly, frustrates me a good deal. As I
mention in my prepared statement, there is no question but what
the Education of the Handicapped Act and section 504 have caught
the public's attention and have caught the attention of educators
and are playing a tremendous role. In fact, that began when the
bill was first considered in this committee in 1972. From that time
on, I think people saw the handwriting on the wall.
Furthermore, there were a variety of Federal court and State
court decisions. So, much of the growth and change began before
the effective date of the act in 1978. For example, millions of
children were added to the system during those years in anticipa-
tion of this act.
I find it frustrating when a public official, a mayor of a big city
recently, or a newspaper, says: if the Federal Government wants us
to do this, they ought to pay for it. At the same time they ignore
the fact that they have in their own State a law requiring exactly
the same thing. They have had a half dozen court orders ordering
it to be done.
I think the law is providing a positive impetus. It is also provid-
ing almost a billion dollars of assistance this year. Somehow we
have got to help people to see that the intention of Congress here is
to help them do a job which they were already committed to do
morally and, in most cases, legally.
Senator STAFFORD. I think you summarize that very well. But I
think many people overlook that particular aspect.
Dr. MARTIN. I find it incredibly frustrating. In a recent New
York Times editorial, the editor did not for some reason seem to
think it important, that there is such a law in New York and that
the State commissioner of education has ordered the city of New
York on repeated occasions to comply. Nevertheless, the Times
editorial board and the mayor keep saying the Federal Government
is making them do this..
Senator STAFFORD. Let me ask you one last question, Dr. Martin.
That is this. I think we have made tremendous strides in gaining
access to education for handicapped children. Where do you go
from here? I think that is my question. Particularly what plans
and strategies do you have to upgrade the quality of the education
for handicapped children?
Dr. MARTIN. Let me just tick off the headings without elaborat-
ing on them.
One is increasing emphasis on training personnel. I can tell you
that within the administration's priorities, the Secretary and the
PAGENO="0423"
417
President continue to be concerned about trying to provide growth
and resources in this area. The most recent example of that was
when the difficult decisions were made about programs cuts, no
programs affecting disabled people in the education department
were identified for the Congress' consideration.
Two, we are also going to improve our coordination with the
Office of Civil Rights. I mentioned that we already have a task
force at work so that we can be more effective in investigating
complaints and in doing joint compliance activities.
Three, we are going to issue a series of policy statements, the
first of which have been issued already, which should provide more
guidance to the States and to the local districts.
The tradeoffs are that the more we do to instruct, to guide, to
regulate, to specify what an LRE should be, an IEP should be, the
more, in a sense, we are open to the accusations of intrusion into
State and local affairs. On the other hand, if we do not do those
things, we are left open to accusations that we are not serious
about trying to implement the law.
What I am trying to do, frankly, and what I have been trying to
do over the last few years is to strike a balance which continues to
put the emphasis on local and State compliance, which continues to
build their capacity, which continues to avoid an adversarial rela-
tionship with the States, and at the same time increases notch by
notch our compliance monitoring efforts so that we move forward.
We are criticized on both sides. We are criticized by the adminis-
trators, for pushing too hard, and by at least some advocacy groups
for not pushing hard enough. And both are right; we are not doing
enough, and we are doing too much. But we are going to continue
to try and move in that direction.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much.
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Senator Stafford.
I have noted that Gregory Ahart came in just at the moment
that his staff or others said he would arrive. I looked at the clock,
exactly 10 minutes of 11.
I do want to say that in his absence-and I hope that he will
perhaps read that, if nothing else, in my comment-that I was
complimentary of what the GAO in general does.
I think that the study was a good idea. Actually, you initiated in
a sense, not improperly, your desire to come and testify in refer-
ence to these programs.
That brings me, Senator Stafford, to your first question here:
"Are children who are not eligible being counted for purposes of
Public Law 94-142?" I think the GAO has said that there were
about 385,000 handicapped children in fiscal year 1978 who appar-
ently had no IEP's and were counted for Public Law 94-142 by the
local school. These children generated about $60 million in fiscal
year 1979 in grant funds.
I do not know whether you would like to comment on that
situation.
Dr. MARTIN. Yes, I would. GAO was talking about the first year
of implementation of the law. As I understand their draft report,
they say that as they went out that year, 1978, they found in some
instances that the individual education plans were not in place.
PAGENO="0424"
418
The children were in special education. The children were receiv-
ing the benefits that those school districts intended for them to
receive. But schools had not caught up with the required process of
getting all the IEP's in place. A number of States, I am sure, have
told you that during the first year suddenly trying to provide JEP's
for all 3.6 million kids, was quite a task. Some of them were slow,
*and, we bore some responsibility for that by adding the require-
ments about what an IEP should be.
The fact is that was a year when some States reported on chil-
dren who were receiving special education and they had not caught
up with providing the JEP's. We found that in our own records that
year, and made such statements. It was not true in the second
year. In fact, studies since that time indicate that over 95 percent
of the children have an IEP in their file.
We considered the issue whether or not to allow States to count
those children. We have articulated clearly since that time a policy
that any child cannot be counted who did not have an IEP. But our
attorneys did advise us that it would be possible to count children
who were receiving special education at that time, provided an IEP
would be provided. So, in that first year we made that judgment.
We did not know, by the way, because school districts did not tell
us that these kids don't have IEP's. But, as we discovered this
situation, when we found the child was actually a bona fide recipi-
ent of services, with the State receiving $70 from the Federal
Government against thousands that were being spent by the local
district, we felt it was not the intent of the law to punish these
States for this behavior during that first year.
That is quite different than the situation in Tennessee where we
found counting of children who were not eligible under the law. in
this situation we made them, essentially, uncount 20,000 children.
But that is not a problem now. I do not think any children at all,
by the GAO's account or by ours, were receiving funds who were
not getting special education. The only question was, could we pay
them for that enrollment even though the IEP was not fully in
place in that first year.
Senator RANDOLPH. Dr. Martin, I know that Senator Stafford and
perhaps other subcommittee members will have questions to ask of
you by letter. You may initiate something if you want to add other
information for the record.
Dr. MARTIN. We may want to reply to testimony we have not
seen yet. We have had the good fortune to see all the other testimo-
ny. As you see, we tried to summarize it and tabulate it and speak
to it. But it may well be that we would like to be able to supply
additional comment for the record.
Senator RANDOLPH. If your associates have any comment individ-
ually, we would like to have it if you feel there is some point you
would like to stress or bring to our attention.
If not, thank you very much. We will be seeing you again in
another capacity. Is that rehabilitation?
Dr. MARTIN. Yes. We will be back working with you.
Happily, Congress takes the praise for this new program, putting
it together. I happen to think bringing together a program that I
am honored to have the opportunity to head up in its first days
that is concerned about disabled people from birth through aging is
PAGENO="0425"
419
a marvelous step forward for the U. S. Government. I hope to do
everything I can to strengthen and improve these programs during
the time I have the opportunity to serve in this role.
I think the Congress in its wisdom in creating this new assistant
secretariat has given us really a golden opportunity to integrate
these programs well, to coordinate them, to have them strengthen
each other. It has also given us the opportunity to be a focus for
the concern of disabled people in the Government that has not
previously existed. Thank you.
[Dr. Martin's response to Senator Randolph's questions follows:]
PAGENO="0426"
420
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
400 MARYLAND AVENUES SW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202
September 26, 1980
The Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman, Subcommitte on the Handicapped
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Again, I would like to thank you and express my deep appreciation to you and
the members of'the Subcommittee for the comprehensive hearings you held to
review the implementation of Public Law 94-142. They have been most valuable
to us.
I am also appreciative of the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
on September 10. In addition, you asked for responses to thirty-one questions.
The questions and answers are enclosed.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerftly,
Edwin W. Martin
Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services
PAGENO="0427"
421
1. YOU WILL RECALL THAT DURING THE HEARINGS ON YOUR NOMINATION AS ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES ON JUNE
12Th, YOU WERE ASKED TO RESPOND TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STAFFING
OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES. IT HAS
COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT DURING THE PAST 3 MONThS YOU HAVE MADE SEVERAL
NEW APPOINTMENTS, ONLY ONE OF WHOM HAS BEEN A HANDICAPPED PERSON. AS YOU
CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF SEEKING STAFF FOR THE REMAINING POSITIONS, WHAT
ARE YOU DOING TO RECRUIT QUALIFIED HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS FOR THOSE
POSITIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS ON YOUR PERSONAL
STAFF OR ON YOUR PROGRAM STAFF?
Thus far I have employed only three persons from outside the agency, and
each is an exceptionally talented person. Each of these appointments has
responded to our equal opportunity goals for disabled people, minorities
and women.
In establishing the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, thus far we have relied primarily on persons
already in government. This has been necessary since the Department is
in the process of reducing by 500 the number of positions now available.
In choosing persons from existing programs we have selected, and are in the
process of selecting several individuals with disabilities ,for the
Assistant Secretary's immediate office.
As I mentioned during my confirmation hearings, the programs for the disabled,
particularly the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, have led the
way among federal agencies on employment of disabled individuals. To
our knowledge no major unit of the government -- Congressional, Executive,
or Judicial -- has approached the percentage of employees who are disabled
(more than 13% in OSE) now employed by these programs. We continue
to seek and find qualified disabled people.
2. HOW MANY PROFESSIONAL STAFF ARE EMPLOYED IN THE AID TO THE STATES
DIVISION OF OSE? HOW MANY ARE ASSIGNED SOLELY TO COMPLIANCE AND
MONITORING?
There are currently 58 professional staff assigned to the Division
of Assistance to States (DAS). These staff are assigned to three
administrative units: Field Service (30), Compliance (18), and
Policy (10). The Field Service unit is responsible for reviewing
the Annual Program Plans, conducting Program Administrative Review
(PAR) visits, providing technical assistance to the States, and working
with the Compliance Section to insure State resolution of compliance
problems. The Compliance unit is responsible for compliance, enforce-
ment, and coordination of activity between OSE and OCR as well as
participation in PAR visits, the provision of technical assistance,
and the collection of data. The Policy unit provides interpretation
and clarification of the rules and regulations, provides technical
assistance, and processes awards to the states.
There are currently seven staff solely assigned to compliance activities.
None of the current Field Service staff is solely assigned to monitoring.
The OSE has recently approved a plan to reorganize the Division of
Assistance to States. Under the provisions of the proposed reorgani-
zation, 20 staff will be solely assigned to compliance, with 17
staff assigned, in part, to monitoring.
PAGENO="0428"
422
3. A NUMBER OF WITNESSES HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT PUBLIC LAW 94-142 BE AMENDED TO
INCLUDE HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AGE 0-3. COULD WE HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS
RECOMMENDATION?
I answered this question during the hearing. If I may quote from my
testimony, my answer is as follows:
"I know Congress felt is was not appropriate when the law was passed
to mandate such services, and so the incentive grant program was enacted.
However, all of the evidence we have, Senator, is that if we could get
our interventions to these young children in the first days of life when
their disabilities first become apparent, we can sharply reduce the mag-
nitude of disability for many children. We can increase their rate of
development, their rate of language and speech and of motor development.
Then they will be more likely to be able to go to schools that are less
intensively separating.
I think it is very, very critical that, as the Congress moves ahead in its
thinking in this area, we continue to examine ways to increase the efforts
for p re-school children."
4. RECENTLY, THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS RELEASED A POLICY
STATEMENT OUTLINING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC
LAW 94-142. THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED CLEARLY ARE SIGNIFICANT TO STATES. ARE
THEY SIGNIFICANT TO THE DEPARTMENT? WHAT STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES?
Yes, we believe the Council of Chief State School Officers' report is signifi-
cant to the Department and we have initiated discussions with the Council about
the four points the Council raised. We are currently exploring a revised plan
approval process with the Council. The OSE/OCR relationship with State agencies
is one of the topics under discussion by the Secretary's Task Force on Equal
Educational Opportunity for Handicapped Children. The question of consistency
of standards and criteria to meet the P.L. 94-142 requirements is being discussed
by representatives of OSE and the Council. Finally, the issue of supervision of
interagency responsibilities is currently being clarified through discussions
with the Council. We feel confident that greater understanding and more
efficient procedures will result from these discussions.
PAGENO="0429"
423
5. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT NOTED THAT THE GOAL STATED IN PUBLIC
LAW 94-142 THAT ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN BE RECEIVING A FREE APPROPRIATE
PUBLIC EDUCATION BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1980 WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ACHIEVED
UNTIL AT LEAST THE MID-198O's. DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS AN ACCURATE
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING THE GOAL?
Dramatic progress has been made since the enactment of P.L. 94-142 in
the provision of services to handicapped children. Child find programs
have resulted in the location of many handicapped children who were previously
unserved. Funding has been sufficient to enable State and local school programs
to enroll these children as they are found. Furthermore, States have been
increasing both the number of children served and the types of services each
year despite declining school populations and fidcal constraints.
However, the goal of providing a full free and appropriate education to
all handicapped children is an on-going process; it is difficult to determine
when the goal will be reached. We know that problems exist. For instance, a
major barrier to providing all the related services required has been lack of
sufficient numbers of qualified staff to effectively evaluate the aeeds of
children and to provide related services. We have taken steps to stimulate
statewide personnel needs assessments so that staff shortages can be identified
and appropriate college training programs developed or expanded. In addition,
the quality of services provided depends largely on the resources that are avail-
able year tu year from all sources to fund special education programs. We believe
that as of September 1, 1980 every State had made the commitment required to serve
all children, and with that full achievement of the goal is possible.
6. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STATED THAT THEY FOUND MANY POTENTIAL
VIOLATIONS OF P.L. 94-142 YET OSE DID NOT WITHHOLD FUNDS OR CONDUCT
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE. GAO ALSO NOTED THAT
OSE TOOK NO CORRECTIVE ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE VIOLATIONS.
We concurred with the GAO Report regarding weaknesses in OSE'm monitoring
and evaluation activities. The Federal compliance activities during the
first few years of the Act were drastically different from those presently
employed. Current OSE practice calls for a comprehensive visit to each
State every other year. We are currently field testing a process of
monitoring states on the basis of identified compliance problems. In
this system States are ranked using various complianca criteria
to prioritize issue areas to be emphasized during the visit. An example
of the compliance issues being used to rank states would include the
existence of waiting lists, the extent or minority misclassification,
and the number of handicapped children denied services because of the
lack of community resources, In addition, a system has been developed
to follow-up on the receipt of reports, requests for further
information, and recommendations for corrective action. This will
intrease our responsiveness in the follow-up procedures relating to each
monitoring visit.
The Office of Special Education, working with the Office of General Counsel,
has developed mechanisms for improved coordination with the Department of
Justice in the area of enforcement. The Office of Special Education and
the Office for Civil Rights have also developed a strategy for more
effective sharing of information relating to compliance activities and
have recently worked together very closely and successfully in resolving
compliance problems in two states.
PAGENO="0430"
424
7. GAO NOTED THAT OSE's POLICIES REGARDING NOTIFICATION TO STATES OF CHANGES
NEEDED IN THEIR PLANS WERE INCONSISTENT AND SOMETIMES TOO INFORMAL. IN
ADDITION, SOME COMMUNiCATIONS WERE UNCLEAR. HAS OSE DEVELOPED PROCEDURES
TO BE FOLLOWED IN OSE TO IMPROVE THIS SITUATION?
Yes. OSE has developed and isplemented new procedures which formalize
responses to all plans which are submitted by the States. These include:
(a) letters acknowledging receipt of plans, (b) letters summarizing
areas of inconsistency, and (c) detailed checklists which identify and
reference each item which is not consistent or for which further clari-
fication must be provided.
B. ACCORDING TO GAO, BEFORE 94-142 WAS ENACTED, OSE ESTIMATED THAT ABOUT
6.7 MILLION CHILDREN AGED 6 TO 19 WERE HANDICAPPED. AS OF DECEMBER OF
1978, HOWEVER, THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN REPORTED BY
THE STATES IN THE AGE RANGE OF 6 TO 17 AND 3 TO 21 WERE ABOUT 3.6 MILLION
AND 3.9 MILLION, RESPECTIVELY. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS DISCREPANCY,
PLEASE.
Based upon population statistics of the 6 to 19 age range as of the 1970
census and a prevalence estimate of 12 percent, there would be a projected
6.7 million handicapped children in the population aged 6 to 19. Since
these estimates were developed there has been steady and substantial
decline in the population of children in that age range. As of December
of 1979 States reported serving over 4 million handicapped children in
the age range of 3 through 21. This figure represents over 9.5 percent
of the children who are enrolled in school. We continue to believe that
the l2Z prevalence estimate is reasonable. Twenty States either approach
or exceed this figure. Over time we expect that the remaining States
will continue to increase. A number of factors account for belief that
the count of handicapped children will continue to increase. Services
to children in the 3 through 5 and 18 through 21 age range are not fully
developed. Twelve states mandate services starting at age 6 and another
22 states mandate service at the age of either 4 or 5.
There are reasons to believe that SEAS and LEAs may not be doing all
they can to identify handicapped children. A recent Inspector General's
report indicated that 75 percent of the school administrators and personnel
interviewed felt that there were substantial numbers of children in school
who were not identified. These data are consistent with the current draft
of the GAO report which indicates that states lack the resources to provide
free appropriate public education to all handicapped children.
In addition, we have determined through a study conducted in Region V
that 15 to 25 percent more handicapped children actually receive services
during a school year than are counted on December 1. The data reported
by States on handicapped children receiving special education and related
services includes only those receiving services on December 1 of each year.
PAGENO="0431"
425
9. GAO STATES THAT THE 94-142 REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT A CHILD'S HANDICAPPING
CONDITION MUST "ADVERSELY AFFECT" THE CHILD' S EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE
IN ORDER FOR THAT CHILD TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A 94-142 CHILD. HAS OSE DEFINED
WHAT IS MEANT BY "ADVERSELY AFFECT"?
The standard for determining whether a child fits into any of the
handicapping conditions listed under P.L. 94-142 is the determination
that the impairment "adversely affects a child's educational performance."
A definition of the term "adversely affects" in relation to the definition
of "speech impaired" appears in DAS Information Bulletin #66. The
principle established in that bulletin is that a handicap necessarily
"adversely affects educational performance" when the handicap is judged
sufficiently severe as to require the provision of special education
with any necessary related services to the child. The process for deter-
mining a child's disability and need for educational services is described
in sections l2la.530-533 of the Part B regulations which discuss evaluation
procedures.
In the evaluation process, a professional judgment is required. The
bases for that judgment are the results of various formal and/or informal
measures of the child's psychological, physical, behavioral, or perceptual
functioning and not solely the results of academic achievement testing.
10. THE GAO ALSO NOTED THAT SCHOOLS NAVE IMPROPERLY COUNTED AT LEAST
385,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN IN FISCAL YEAR 1978 WHO HAD NO IEPs.
THESE CHILDREN GENERATED ABOUT $60 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 1979 GRANT
FUNDS. WOULD YOU COMMENT, PLEASE?
In accordance with P.L. 94-142, we do not permit States to count
handicapped children for purposes of generating funds unless those
children have individualized education plans. In those instances
where we suspected that children without IEPs are counted, steps
were taken to determine if these children were actually receiving
special education and related services. In addition, procedures for
counting children in schools have been verified as being valid by
state agencies. We cannot attempt to undertake the elaborate admini-
strative remedies required to re-do counts. Studies have verified
that over 95% of the children counted during recent years do in fact
have appropriate lEPs. We feel the spirit and intent of the Act has
been followed and was better served by not stopping the flow of
funds over this technical problem which was confined to the first
year's good faith efforts to implement the IEP requirement.
PAGENO="0432"
426
11. THE GAO REPORT ALSO NOTES THAT A 1978 DRAFT PREPARED BY SRI INTERNATIONAL
ESTIMATED THAT THE RATE OF HANDICAPS AMONG CHILDREN ACED 3 TO 21 TO BE
ABOUT 7 PERCENT. WHAT IS THE POSITION OF OSE WITH REFERENCE TO THE
ACCURACY OF THIS STUDY?
States provided special education and related services in the 1979-80
school yaar to about 9.5 percent of the children enrolled in school.
In fact, 49 States now provide special education and related services
at a rate which exceeds the 7 percent figure.
The SRI study was not a study of the accuracy of the 12% prevalence
estimate but a study to determine the best estimate of the number of
handicapped children.
The 7 percent figure was, in fact, equivalent to an estimate of more
than 5 million handicapped children. This should not have been
converted to a percentage of 3 through 21 population, however, because
not all states serve or are required to serve this full age range.
Elementary and secondary enrollment is a much more accurate base
because it raflects the actual age range served by the states.
Thus, the current figure of more than 4 million is 9.5 percent of
enrollment, not 3-21 population.
13. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONE IS CARRYING OUT TO
ASSIST LEA's IN DEVELOPING IEP's.
We have recently doveloped a major policy clar~ficat~on paper on the
IEP process. The paper has been circulated in draft form and is being
used extensively by State and local agencies and contractors to orient
and train staff in IEP development. We expect formal issuance of this
paper in the near future by presentation in the Federal Register.
In addition, many of OSE's discretionary dollars are also directed
toward the provision of technical assistance to facilitate the full
implementation of P.L. 94-142, including the provisions of lEPs.
Two programs which have major IEP technical assistance components
are:
1. The 7.5 million dollar Regional Resource Center Program supports 12
regional centers which has placed a heavy emphasis during the past and
current school year on training of staff in the development of IEPs.
2. The SpecIal Education Personnel Development program provides
funds for training special and regular education teachers,
administrators and parents in meeting the requirements of P.L.
94-142. IEP development has been heavily emphasized particularly
in the inserv ice training programs. A substantial share of the
$10 ,l75 ,000 devoted to training of support personnel and
parents have been to train and inform parents and advocates
of their rights and roles in the IEP developmental process.
PAGENO="0433"
427
14. A WITNESS AT A PREVIOUS OVERSIGHT HEARING NOTED THAT OSE "IS MONITORING
PAPER, NOT PEOPLE." WHAT ACTION HAS OSE TAKEN OR WILL IT TAKE TO
ADDRESS THIS CRITICAL ISSUE?
During the first years of implementation, the monitoring activities
of the Office of Special Education concentrated on the review of emerging
State and local policies and procedures many of which could only be
verified through examination of documented plans and procedures.
The past two years however, OSE staff has visited and reviewed local
programs to determine the extent to which the documented policies
and procedures were indeed in place. Even with a limited staff, 45
States and other jurisdictions have had extensive on-sIte program
administrative reviews to determine the extent to which State and
local education agencies are actually implementing the Act.
In addition, we are training members of our staff to specialize in
the compliance and review function. Some reasaignisent of incumbents
is planned, and the resources to support the immedIate hiring of additional
senior level staff have been requested. Training of all staff involved
in compliance review and complaint investigation will begin shortly.
The staff of OSE will contInue to monitor each State at least once
every two years, and in addition select some States for more frequent
monitoring on the basis of compliance data available within the Office
of Special Education, the Office for Civil Rights and other Federal
agencies. We are projecting that 31 States will be monitored during the
1980-81 school year. The Office of Special Education will improve and
expand its efforts to collect and review compliance data.
The Office of Special Education will continue to revise its on-site
monitoring procedures to focus more intently on actual practices by
State and local officials requirIng less emphasis on paper monitoring.
These improveisents include: (a) changing the scheduling of reviews
to double the amount of time spent by the Office of Special Education
staff members in investigating activities, (b) strengthening efforts
to collect input from parents and other advocate groups before selecting
sites to review, and (c) strengthening the accountability measures
imposed on States following the review to insure that non-compliance
identified during the review is actually remediated by the SEA.
15. ANOTHER CONCERN OF MANY WITNESSES HAS BEEN THE LACK OF PREPARATION OF
REGULAR EDUCATION TEACHERS WHO NOW HAVE HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR
CLASSROOMS. WHAT ACTION IS OSE TAKING TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM?
We are targeting $l9.l25 million for special education training for
regular education teachers. Of this amount, $7.25 million iS targeted
for Regular Education Preservice Dean's Grants that are awarded to insti-
tutions of higher education to improve preservice programs for regular
education teachers. In addition, the Regular Education Inservice (REGI)
projects have targeted approximately $11.8 million for training regular
classroom teachers and administrators. Currently, more than 82,000 regular
classroom teachers as well as some 23,000 administrators and 33,000 parents
are being trained in 207 prujects.
Data from the States' Annual Program Plans submitted under P.L. 94-142
for FT 79 indicated that 263,810 regular class teachers are being trained
in the development of IEP5, 222,988 in concepts pertinent to the least
restrictive environment, and 183,250 in instructional procedures. States
also project that substantial numbers of parents, administrators, and
special class teachers will be trained in these same three subject areas.
Some State education agencies are requiring that a percentage of the
flow-through funds to local education agencies be earmarked for training
of regular classroom teachers. Illinois, for example, requires a 10%
set-aside for this training. Generally, the States are beginning to
require that local school systems develop such programs.
68-332 0 - 81 - 28
PAGENO="0434"
428
16. IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE
DUE PROCESS MECHANISM AS A CHILD ADVOCATE. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THIS
SUGGESTION?
The implementing regulations for P.L. 94-142 do not extend to
teachers the right to initiate due processprocedures as a child
advocate. Section 121a 506(a) states that "a parent or a public
educational agency may initiate a hearing.. .". It is only as a
representative of the local education agency that a teacher may be
involved in the initiation or proceedings of an administrative due
process hearing.
As a person involved in the education of a handicapped child, a
teacher could be presented with a conflict of interest. The teacher's
responsibility to the LEA could interfere with the obligation to repre-
sent the best interest of the handicapped child, potentially in opposition
to the LEA.
17. WHEN ALBERT SHANKER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED,
HE STATED "WE MAINTAIN, MOREOVER, THAT THE ONLY WAY PUBLIC 94-142 WILL EVER
WORK IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS WITH A MASSIVE INFUSION OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL
FUNDS TOTALING SEVERAL BILLIONS OF DOLLARS." COULD WE HAVE YOUR
COMMENTS ON THAT STATEMENT.
P.L. 94-142 was enacted by the Congress in recognition of the need to
proclaim an overall national policy reflective of prevailing State
laws and court orders regarding the right of handicapped children
to a free and appropriate public education. The program proposed and
implemented is one designed to assist States in meeting the costs of
fulfilling their responsibilities to these children. Federal support
for this programs has been unwavering.
Implementation of the full array of desirable and required social policy
in our American system, especially in times of fiscal constraint, does
and has set up competing priorities and makes for difficult choices.
We continue to maintain that, while in general the costs of educating
handicapped children are considerable when compared to those of educating
non-handicapped children, they need not be massive. The costs to our
society -- both philosophically and economically -- would be massive
if we were to deny the rights of this population.
PAGENO="0435"
429
18. HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO
THE IMPLENENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142?
In the early 1970s, the basic goal of the Federal effort was to improve
the education of the handicapped and to provide for equity and equality
of education. The Federal government's commitment was to ensure that
all handicapped children had available special education services which
would enable them to develop to their fullest potential and thereby
reduce their dependency on society. The Federal program was based on
two concepts: that education for the handicapped is not a charity but
a fundamental right to which each child and his family are entitled and
that it is cost-beneficial to society to help each handicapped person
become as independent and productive as possible.
The achievement of this goal was to be accomplished primarily through the
Handicapped State Grant program. This program acted as a catalyst to
effect a multiplication of services for handicapped children using State
and local resources. Through an active program of technical assistance
the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped entered into a partnership
with the States to stimulate and support efforts to educate handicapped
children.
With the passage of P.L. 94-142, the role of our office became that of
assisting the States in meeting the mandates of the law through distri-
buting funds, assisting in the development of State plans, clarifying
policy issues, monitoring progress in implementation, and assisting the
public to obtain needed services. In the comIng years, in order to ensure
full and effective implementation of the law, the Office of Special Education
will place increasing emphasis on compliance activities, while continuing
to support associated technical assistance activities and discretionary
programs. As it expands Its assertive enforcement role, the Office will
require that a similar assertive role be taken by the States in ensuring
the compliance of local education agencies.
The Office's compliance role will rely on a positive, nonadversartal approach
designed to help States develop the resources needed to comply with the law.
Punitive action may become necessary if a State consistently fails to meet
the law's requirements, but in all enforcement activities, the primary
objective of the Office is to assure that all handicapped children are
adequately served and that their rights are protected.
The Office will provide technical assistance as one means of aiding the
States in implementing P.L. 94-142. The purposes of the Office's technical
assistance will be to (1) provide assistance In the correction of problems
or instances of noncompliance identified through monitoring; (2) provIde
assistance in the improvement of the quality of educational services
provided; (3) interpret the law, program regulations, Federal policies,
and administrative directives, and (4) provide assistance in identifying
and disseminating quality educational programs and nanagement practices.
As a result of the Office's expanded compliance role, the discretionary
programs will be more clearly directed toward assisting in the implementa-
tion of the various components of the law and will place particular emphasis
on those areas of need made evident through the monitoring activities of
the Office. Within each program's legislative and regulatory authority,
program activities will be directed in a manner which will help insure
that the States fulfull their responsibilities for providing full educational
opportunity for all handicapped children.
PAGENO="0436"
430
19. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ARE BEING KEPT
WAITING INDEFINITELY FOR SERVICES WHEN REFERRED FOR EVALUATION
SINCE NO TIMELINES ARE ESTABLISHED WITH RESPECT TO THE MAXIMUM LENGTH
OF TIME ALLOWABLE BETWEEN TIME OF REFERRAL FOR EVALUATION AND EVALUATION.
WHAT ACTION HAS OSE TAKEN TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
Although there are no specific Federal guidelines regarding the maximum
time allowed between referral and evaluation, most States and local
agencies have adopted their own standards to insure that evaluations
occur within a reasonable tine after referral. Typically, time
periods are thirty or sixty days. A number of States have set guide-
lines through legislation: West Virginia (60 days), Louisiana (50 days),
New Jersey (60 days), California (35 days), Washington (30 school
days), and Maryland (45 days). Where there are no set timelines, we
have in instances encouraged States and provided technical assistance
to local agencies to develop reasonable policIes. In addition,
during our monitoring visits we examine referral lists to determine
whether children are required to wait unreasonable lengths of time.
20. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SOME STATES
BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE AM APPROVABLE STATE
PLAN. WHAT PROCEDURE IS THE OSE TARING TO IMPROVE THIS SITUATION?
We have proposed a series of steps to expedite the approval of State
plans. The proposed procedure consists of five stages which should
allow for the approval of an appropriate plan within 75 days from
formal submission. The first stage consists of formal notification
to the State by OSE that the plan has been received. Following
thIs, informal negotiations take place and technical assistance is
provided by OSE if necessary. Stage 3 consists of the internal plan
approval/disapproval process which will result in either approval or
a notice of intent to disapprove the plan. If a letter of intent to
disapprove is issued, stage 4 is initiated which consists of clearly
specifyIng steps to remediate the problems responsible for disapproval.
If the Secretary disapproves the plan, stage 5 results in the appeal
process whIch is outlined in the regulations. This process should
be in place for FY 81 applications. Such a procedure, coupled with
the recently instituted three year applications, should expodite the
State plan approval process.
PAGENO="0437"
431
21. HAS PUBLIC LAW 94-142 MADE ANY CHANGES IN THE QUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL
SERVtCES PROVIDED TO HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, AND IF SO, WHAT ARE
THE CHANGES?
The effects of P.L. 94-142 on the quality of special education are
evident in virtually every school district in the nation. Changes which
have occurred since the passage of the law are widespread, affecting not
only the immediate classroom environment but also the service delivery
system as a whole. ~ecific changes which have occurred as a result of
P.L. 94-142. include increased communication between school districts and
other human resource agencies for the provfsion of related services,
- more training of regular and classroom teachers in the needs of handi-
capped students, inservice training of special education staff and
administrators concerning the rights of handicapped children, and
inaervice training of special education staff to increase technical
competence. In addition, there has been a marked increase in
special education services available in rural and isolated school
districts. Related services and placement options have expanded, as
has the involvement of parents in the placement decision.
We have recently contracted with the Rand Corporation to study the effects
of the law on the quality of special education, More complete information
on the effects of P.L. 94-142 will be available upon completion this
study.
22. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY PROBLEMS WiTH RESPECT TO THE COMPATIBILITY
OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 94-142 AND THOSE UNDER
SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973?
We a'~e implementing procedures to facilitate coordination between
the two Federal agencies which have responsibility for administering
P.L. 94-142 and Section 504.
The new Department of Education has helped alleviate difficulties pertaining
to enforcement problems that previously existed in the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Because both the Office for Civil Rights and the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services are in the Department
of Education, we can deal more directly with probleas concerning P.L. 94-142
and Section 504. To further assist in coordination, Secretary Hufstedler
has established a Task Force on Equal Educational Opportunities for Handi-
capped Children. Through this task force the two responsible enforcement
agencies have been developing coordinated systems of enforcement for the
1980-81 school year.
During this year the following joint activities will facilitate compatible
enforcement of the two mandates by the Federal government:
A system has been developed for information sharing regarding
compliance reviews conducted by ORE and OCR.
Data which have been collected specifically by
OCR will be utilized by OSE in helping to determine
potential areas of non-compliance with the statute.
In addition, future joint data collection activities
have been discussed.
OSE and OCR have arrived at a common agreement on
fourteen priority compliance areas under both P.L.
94-142 and Section 504 which should be the focus of
compliance reviews during the coming school year.
OSE and OCR have an agreement which defines their roles
and provides for joint reviews of P.L. 94-142 and Section
504 by the Spring of 1982.
A system has been developed for referral of mattere to the U.S.
Department of Justice under the various enforcement options
available to OCR and ORE under current statutes.
PAGENO="0438"
432
23. WHAT HAVE BEEN THE THREE MAJOR AREAS OF PROGRESS, AND THE THREE MAJOR
PROBLEM AREAS, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142?
There have been a number of accomplishments under the Act. Three of these
areas of progress which have been most striking are: the increases in
the number of children served, the increases in the quality of services
provided, and the initiation of services to preschool children.
In the area of service increases, more than one million children have
been added to the special education count since the inception of P.L.
94-142, even in the face of declining school enrollment. Second, all of
these children have an IEP and many are receiving additional related
services. Still others are now participating in physical education, the
arts, and numerous extracurricula activies. As aptly stated by a State
Director of special education, his State had "made more progress in
upgrading and developing quality education opportunities during the last
four years than over the past forty years." Finally, in the area of
preschool education, although not mandated by the Act, many states are
supporting services with Part B funds as well as with funds provided by
Section 619.
The three major problem areas are: the need to improve federal compliance
activities, training needs, and the need to increase the effectiveness
of the IEP process. In terms of compliance activities, the OSE is working
to improve four basic components: data collection, enforcement, policy
development, and technical assistance. Second, training -- particularly
training for regular educators -- remains a critical problem. Training
difficulties are compounded because of the complex cooperation needed at
the local, State, and Federal level in order to provide the information
and skill necessary to better integrate handicapped children within the
public schools. And finally, the IEP process must be made more effective
with greater emphasis placed on parental involvement and participation.
Again, cooperation and imagination are required within the local, State
and Federal activities in order to effectively implement these procedures
at the local level.
PAGENO="0439"
433
24. SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE INDICATED THAT BECAUSE OF WIDESPREAD MISUNDER-
STANDING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH SEAs AND LEAs
ARE REQUIREO TO PROVIDE SERVICES UNDER 94-142, EDUCATION DOLLARS ARE
BEING STRETCHED TO PAY FOR SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY OTHER HUMAN
SERVICE AGENCIES. WHAT SPECIFIC STEPS IS THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TAKING TO INSURE THAT THIS MISUNDERSTANDING WILL NOT CONTINUE?
We agree that there has been some misunderstanding of the extent to which
SEAs and LEAs are required to provide services under P.L. 94-142. Under
the law, States must assure that they will make available a free appropriate
public education to all handicapped children. States have overall accounta-
bility for the education of these children. However, this responsibility
does not limit public educational agencies to their own funds in order to
pay for services that must be made available to handicapped children. It
was assumed by the Congress that other available sources of support would
continue to be tapped. The regulations governing Part B clearly mandate
that each State use whatever State, local, private, and Federal sources of
support are available in the State to pay for services required.
We currently have under consideration policy clarifications in the area of
mental health services and catheterization services to handicapped
children. These clarifications will help to insure that some of the
misunderstanding of the extent to which SEAs and LEAs are required
to provide services under P.L. 94-142 will not continue. It is our
intention to provide opportunities for public comment into the process
of such policy development where appropriate, so that the concerns of all
will be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, we are taking steps to insure that education dollars will not
have to pay for services normally provided by other public agencies. These
steps include:
-development and dissemination of Federal interagency agreements
assuring continuation of serv ices traditionally provided by agencies
that receive funding through Titles XIX and XX of the Social Security
Act and the Mental Health Services Act.
-development and promotion of models for State and local interagency
collaboration.
In addition, we believe that it might be necessary for the Congress to give
additional statutory direction to other agencies concerning their responsibi-
lities for providing related services.
PAGENO="0440"
434
25. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE SUBMOMMITTEE'S ATTENTION THAT
SOME INSURANCE CARRIERS ARE DENYING PAYMENTS FOR CLAIMS BECAUSE
THEIR POSITION IS THAT PUBLIC LAW 94-142 M~NDATES THAT CERTAIN
SERVICES BE PAID FOR BY THE STATE. NAY WE HAVE YOUR COMMENTS
ON THIS SITUATION?
We too are aware of this situation. Recent letters from parents informed
us that insurers have refused to pay claims for related services and have
directed these parents to seek payment for such services from the schools.
Most major insurers who write group coverage include so-called "government
exclusion" clauses as standard policy language which generally preclude
payment for expenses incurred for services or benefits provided under any
law of a government. A number of major insurers have taken the position,
based on these exclusion clauses, that payments for related services are
not covered since school districts are required to provide or pay for such
services under P.L. 94-142. This is a complex issue which is currently
under review. We expect that a policy statement will be published in
the near future regarding the extent to which private insurance proceeds
may be used to cover costs incurred in providing a free appropriate
public education.
While we have no authority to preclude insurance companies from negotiating
expreso provisions in insurance contracts, we have relied upon provisions
in our regulations in the past to support the position that P.L. 94-142
does not modify insurers' oblIgations. Our regulations make clear that
a State's obligation is to ensure that services are provided (not
necessarily to shoulder the full cost of providing services itself) and
specificially disclaim any intent to displace insurance coverage. We have
assIsted school systems by indicating that P.L. 94-142 specifically allows
States to use a variety of sources of support including private sources
to meet their obligations under the law. We have assisted parents by
clearly maintaining in letters to parents that where insurance carriers
do not provide payment for services required by a handicapped child as
part of his/her appropriate public education, a State education agency
ic still responsible for insuring that a free, appropriate public education
is made available to the child.
26. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE' S ATTENTIOR THAT
THERE IS CONTUSION ABOUT WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED A RELATED SERVICE
AND WHAT NAY BE CONSIDERED A "MEDICAL SERVICE". WHAT PROGRESS IS
OSF MAKING TO RESOLVE THESE POLICY ISSUES?
The regulations define special education as "specially designed
instruction" and related services as "supportive services required to
assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education." Related
services would, therefore, be largely non-instructional and include some
services that have been traditionally thought of as medical or health
services. We recognize that there is a need for clarifIcation and a
Secretarial Task Force is working on this matter.
"Medical services" is defined in the P.L. 94-142 regulations as those
"services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically
related handicapping condition which results in a child's need for special
education and related services." When the tern "medical service" is
used outside of this regulatory definition, then it can often refer
to a broad array of services, including some of the health related
services which are specifically listed in P,L. 94-142 as "related
services." Thus, because there is no specific listir.g of non-diagnostic
medical serv ices or health-related serv ices which could not be "day elopaeatal,
corrective, or supportive" in assisting a handicapped child to benefit
from special education, there may sometimes be questions as to whether
or not a health-related service is a "related servIce" under P.L.
94-142. This too is being deliberated by the Task Force. Two recent
examples of progress specifically in the medical sari ices area are
polIcy interpretations with regard to psychotherapy and catheterization which
we expect to be issued shortly.
We believe that this procecs will assure deliberate progress in achieving
essential clarifications in each of these matters.
PAGENO="0441"
435
27. DURING THE 1979 HEARINGS ON THE RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD ACT, WITNESSES
COMMENTED ON THE LACK OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF FOR THE RANDOLPH-SHEPPAIt])
PROGRAM. HOW MANY PROFESSIONAL STAFF ARE WORKING FULL TIME ON THIS
PROGRAM? PART TIME? WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR INCREASING THE RANDOLPH-
SHEPPARD STAFF?
There are four full-time professionals in the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) who work full time on this program.
At leaat 13 professional staff members work part-time on this
program and the time devoted to this effort is equivalent to 4.95
full time positions.
We plan to fully provide for the staff needed to administer the
program when the overall RSA reorganization plan is completed. We
anticipate that this plan will be submitted to the Secretary for approval
by December 1, 1980.
28. WITNESSES HAVE ALSO MENTIONED THE CRITICAL LACK OF PROGRAMMING FOR
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AT THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL. WHAT ACTIVITIES IS
OSE PLANNING TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION?
The Office of Special Education is involved in numerous activities designed
to provide a continuum of services to secondary school-age handicapped
children as they leave school and enter our coamunities as adults. Our
major emphases have been in encouraging collaboration among provider agencies,
providing technical assistance to advocacy and consumer groups, sod
funding demonstration projects through our discretionary programs.
Our collaborative efforts have included national level meetings,
dissemination projects, development of model inter-agency agreements, and
joint policy clarifications of State education agencies and rehabilitation
agencies. We have developed joint working agreements with the Office of
Vocational and Adult Education. Our staff is also cooperating with
OCR in developing and implementing monitoring procedures for vocational
education programs charged with serving handicapped individuals.
Our technical assistance activities nonsist of publications for use by
servIce providers and consumers, as well as involvement ~n action-oriented
groups. For example, an OSE spor.sored publication entitled Federal
Assistance Guide for Vocational and Career Education for the Handicapped
contains descriptive abstracts of all Federal assistance in this area,
and provides specific recommendations to individuals regarding proposal
development. Another technical assistance manual provides guidance in
establishing interagencty cooperation at the State level.
Finally, We have provIded approximately $4 million in discretionary funds
for projects aimed st improving services to secondary-aged handicapped
youth. Of this amount, $ 2.7 million of addressed personnel needs and
$1.3 million supported research activities.
Our efforts in this area will expand. Assisting handicapped students
make the transition from school programs to meaningful careers is
one of our major priorities.
PAGENO="0442"
436
29. DOES BIA HAVE AN APPROVED FY 81 STATE PLAN? COULD YOU GIVE US A
STATUS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF P .L. 94-142 WITH REFERENCE
TO DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO HANDICAPPED INDIAN CHILDREN?
To date BIA has not submitted a State Plan for FY 1981. The FY 1980
State Plan required reiisions which were recently delivered to OSE. Although
the plan provides additional clarification and information requested, we are
still working with BIA to ensure the assurance of all necessary guarantees
of P.L. 94-142.
We hare found the BIA to hove serious implementation problems.
We hove visited selected area offices of BIA and hove found an absence
of appropriate special education and related services ovailable for handi-
capped American Indian children. Many children remain unserved or under-
served. In the program administrative reviews of the BIA programs, we
hove directed BIA to effect certain corrective actions. These corrective
actions are related to the findings of the administrative reviews. In
the area of child identification and right to education policy, for example,
BIA has been directed to increase child find efforts and shorten waiting
lists for placement. Timelines hove been exceeded in documenting these
corrective actions.
We hope that the recent modifications in the 1980 BIA State plan evidence
an effort by BIA to correct past difficulties. We intend to work closely
with BIA to ensure that further actions are taken, as necessary, to comply
with all aspects of P.L. 94-142.
30. AS YOU KNOW, PARENTS FROM PUERTO RICO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE
IN OCTOBER OF 1979 AND EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF SERVICES
FOR THEIR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN. HAS THIS SITUATION IMPROVED? HOW IS
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142 PROGRESSING IN OTHER TERRITORIES?
We feel that the situation in Puerto Rico has improved since October
of 1979, but we are continuing to work with Secretary Lacot and
other Puerto Rican officals to ensure that EHA-B is effectively
implemented.
The recent adoption of new policies and procedures by Puerto Rico
and the recent action by the Governor's office to make an additional
$10 million available to the Commonwealth's special education program
annually are seen as very positive moves by Puerto Rico to alleviate
the implementation problems, but we continue to hove difficulty in
obtaining documentation that the procedures hove been fully implemented.
We hov e scheduled an on-site v isit to San Juan on Nov ember 10-14,
1980 in order to verify the completion of outstanding corrective
actions to be taken by the SEA to insure the ovailability of a free,
appropriate education to Puerto Rico's handicapped children.
In the Pacific Basin area, only Guam has made significant progress in
the full implementation of the requirements of P.L. 94-142. American
Samoa has developed some good programs for the education of handicapped
children, but there are still handicapped children not in school
there. The Commonwealth of the Northern Nariana Islands and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific both hove unidentified and unserved
children. With the exception of Guam, all of the Pacific areas
need trained special education personnel of all types.
PAGENO="0443"
437
31. WITNESSES ALSO STATED THAT PARENT KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC
LAW 94-142 IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN TERMS OF THEIR HANDICAPPED CHILD
RECEIVING A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION. WHAT ACTIVITIES HAS OSE
INITIATED TO INCREASE PARENT AWARENESS OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142?
Through Closer Look, a national information center for parents of
handicapped children, OSE has for the past five years sponsored national
television advertisements" informing parents of the law and of their
rights. These announcements represent about $20 million in free public
service air time every year. Closer Look also responds to parent
inquiries from throughout the country, conducts workshops on the law,
and publishes a newsletter which reaches approximately 300,000 parents
and professionals.
OSE's training program supports projects involving 10 parent coalition
groups made up primarily of parents of handicapped children. These
groups dispense information on the law and directly train other parents
to understand their rights and to use the law effectively. It is expected
that approximately 8,000 parents will be trained by these coalitions
during 1980. In addition to the coalition project, approximately 33,000
parents have been trained in conjunction with regular classroom teachers
in 39 Regular Education Inservice (REGI) projects.
OSE's Direction Service program sponsored 12 demonstration projects in
urban and rural areas that help parents get action on the needs of
individual handicapped children through the various services available
in the community. Parents are informed of their rights under P.L.
94-142 and how best to go about obtaining them.
The requirement of P.L. 94-142 that all handicapped children be identi-
fied was a significant factor alerting parents to the law and its iinpli-
cations. OSE's Regional Resource Centers worked directly with the
State education agencies to help them initiate and refine these "child
find" efforts. This year, 12 such resource centers will be operating
throughout the country and will develop spheres of expertise in various
aspects of the law. Areas of particular attention that will directly
benefit parents will be:
- Identification, screening, and appraisal -- to find handicapped
children, appraise their needs and place them in appropriate
settings.
- Procedural safeguards -- to help parents become familiar with
their rights under the law and with the due process procedures.
- ~ecial populations -- to safeguard the right of special popula-
tions of handicapped children to appropriate education programs.
We are also gathering information on notification procedures and hope
that the results of this study will provide information on improved
methods for local education agencies to communicate to parents their
rights under P.L. 94-142.
PAGENO="0444"
438
Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Mr. Ahart, please identify yourself and your colleagues at the
witness table.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY J. AHART, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RE-
SOURCES DIVISION, U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, AC-
COMPANIED BY JOE E. TO'I1~EN AND ALVIN S. FINEGOLD
Mr. AHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With me today is Mr. Joe Totten from my staff and Mr. Alvin
Finegold from our Seattle regional office, who participated heavily
in our work in the handicapped area.
I have a fairly lengthy statement, Mr. Chairman. With your
permission, I would like to summarize it.
Senator RANDOLPH. If you would summarize your statement it
would help us. It is not that we do not in fact wish to he here over
a long period of time, but I of necessity am going to have to be
absent. I think Senator Stafford can stay a reasonable amount of
time. So, please address those points which are highlighted in your
testimony. All of it will be included as if given.
Mr. AHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are pleased to have
this opportunity to comment on the Public Law 94-142 program.
As you know, we have reviewed this program. We do expect to
issue a final report to Congress within a matter of weeks.
Senator RANDOLPH. Please identify your colleagues.
Mr. AHART. Yes. Mr. Joe Totten is on my right. He is in the
Human Resources Division. Mr. Alvin Finegold, on my left, is from
our Seattle regional office.
The act generally requires that a free appropriate public educa-
tion be available for all handicapped children age 3 through 18 by
September 1, 1978, and age 3 through 21 by September 1, 1980. It
also requires schools to evaluate a child's special needs and deter-
mine the most appropriate educational environment, develop an
individualized education program tailored to the needs of the child,
involve fully the child's parents in the educational decision process,
and, finally, educate a handicapped child along with nonhandi-
capped children to the extent that it is in the handicapped child's
best interests.
We made our review in 1978 and 1979 at the Department of
Education here in Washington and at State educational agencies,
local districts, and local schools in 10 States. Mostly, we were at
the school districts during 1978.
Before Public Law 94-142 was enacted, BEH estimated that
about 12 percent of the school-age population were handicapped
and needed special education services. The 12 percent estimate
currently translates to about 6.2 million children.
As of December 1978, however, after several years of searching,
the States reported counting about 3.9 million handicapped chil-
dren. The difference, about 2.3 million, are children who, if the
bureau's estimate is correct, are handicapped but have either not
been identified or accounted for under the program.
This difference has generated controversy. The bureau, in de-
fense of its 12 percent estimate, asserts that the States' childfind
efforts have not been adequate. State officials, researchers, and
PAGENO="0445"
439
others contend that the bureau's estimate is significantly over-
stated.
In our opinion, the bureau's estimate was questionable when
provided to the Congress. It still has not been validated. A number
of reports prepared for the Federal Government before 1975 clearly
pointed out the incompleteness, noncomparability, and other reli-
ability limitations of the handicap prevalence estimates available
at that time.
Although the bureau's estimate was based on data of question-
able validity, the bureau continues to use it. In a January 1979
report to the Congress, the bureau concluded that over 2.3 million
handicapped children remained to be served. When it prepared this
report, the bureau had a draft study which, using more up-to-date
information, estimated that about 7 percent rather than 12 percent
of children ages 3 to 21 were handicapped.
Actual State counts for the fiscal years 1977 through 1979 aver-
aged about 7.5 percent of the school population.
States and local education agencies readily acknowledge that
some handicapped children have yet to be identified. However,
they believe that the number remaining unidentified is relatively
small and is far less than the bureau's estimate, given in 1979, of
2.3 million.
In September 1978, the bureau launched a major new initiative
to reduce the discrepancy between the number of handicapped
children counted and its 12 percent estimate by trying to get the
States to increase the count under Public Law 94-142.
However, available documents indicate that the bureau had not
pointed out or cautioned the States about the need to maintain
balance; that is, to carefully evaluate and classify children so that
those not eligible are not labeled as handicapped.
Overcounting children can have at least two adverse conse-
quences. First, State counts would be inflated and the appropri-
ation and distribution of Federal funds could be affected. Second,
children would be erroneously labeled as handicapped, which could
have a stigmatizing effect which could be very difficult for the
children to overcome.
Our second point concerns eligibility of certain children.
Information obtained in our review raised questions about the
eligibility of children with minor impairments who may not re-
quire special education as that term is defined in the law. These
eligibility questions are especially applicable to children who re-
quire only speech therapy, which account for about 1.2 million of
the 3.7 million counted for funding as of December 1978.
The Education of the Handicapped Act requires that a child have
one of nine impairments requiring special education and related
services to be counted for Federal funding as handicapped.
Special education is instruction that is specially designed to meet
needs that cannot be met in a regular classroom program. Related
services are those that may be needed to correct, treat, or reduce
the impact of the child's impairment and thus improve the child's
ability to benefit from special education. The law explicitly lists
speech pathology or therapy as a related service.
PAGENO="0446"
440
It is not entirely clear whether, in the absence of special educa-
tion, children receiving only speech therapy or the other related
services were to be considered eligible under the act.
Program regulations attempt to clarify the eligibility question by
stating that, ordinarily, children who are receiving only related
services are not eligible for the program. However, a service specifi-
cally listed in the act as a related service may be considered as
special education if the service meets the act's general definition of
special education and is considered special education rather than a
related service under State standards. In a key provision, the regu-
lations require that to be considered as handicapped a child must
have an impairment which is severe enough to adversely affect the
child's educational performance. However, the bureau had not es-
tablished criteria for applying the adverse effect requirement, nor
did its regulations require the States to establish their own
criteria.
Bureau officials told us that they had not issued any guidance to
the States on the nature and the meaning of the adverse effect
requirement, since no State or local agency had specifically sought
an interpretation of the requirement.
According to officials in 18 of 28 local education agencies where
we discussed the issue, the local agency policy or practice did not
require that a child's speech impairment adversely affect his or her
educational performance to count the child for funding. Officials
also stated that the effect that a child's speech impairment has on
educational performance is not readily apparent and, in many
cases, it would be difficult or time consuming to prove adverse
effect.
Four States we visited specifically allowed local agencies to count
speech-impaired children for funding purposes even if the impair-
ment did not adversely affect their educational performance. Two
other States specifically instructed their local agencies to count
such children.
Most children classified as speech impaired spend significantly
less time receiving services outside the regular classroom than do
other handicapped children and rarely, if ever, is the speech-im-
paired child's regular classroom program modified.
Accordingly, there are questions on whether most of these chil-
dren would have met the eligibility requirement in program regu-
lations had it been applied.
Also, some local agency officials told us that the individualized
* education program process was not appropriate for children who
receive only speech therapy. They complained, among other things,
that the IEP process forces a school district to label children as
handicapped who are really not handicapped, that preparing and
processing the IEP often takes almost as much time and effort as
remedying the child's speech defect, and that in the past some local
agencies stopped providing speech services altogether for several
days or weeks to prepare and process IEP's.
We do not know exactly how many of the children classified as
speech impaired might not have met the adverse effect test. Offi-
cials at 10 of the local agencies told us that, if they applied the
adverse effect test, their count of speech-impaired children would
be substantially reduced by anywhere from 33 to 75 percent.
PAGENO="0447"
441
Mr. Chairman, we are not questioning whether certain children
need speech therapy. What we are questioning is whether the
Congress intended that all children receiving speech therapy be
served under the Public Law 94-142 program as handicapped chil-
dren and be counted for purposes of fund allocation.
I will turn now to the IEP requirements.
The law requires that local agencies establish an individualized
education program for each handicapped child.
Because of some confusing actions by the Office of Education
during the writing of the regulations, some local agencies were led
to believe that an IEP need include only those special education
and related services that were currently available in the local
agency. Although the bureau later clarified this matter, many local
education agencies continued to limit the services listed in the
IEP's.
Local agency officials in 15 of the 28 agencies where we discussed
this matter claimed that their individualized education programs
described all services needed regardless of current availability.
However, we found that that programs omitted needed services
shown on other child records.
Officials in the other 13 local agencies candidly admitted that a
child's IEP would not show needed special education or related
services that the local agency did not or could not provide.
Local agencies had considerable difficulty preparing individual-
ized education programs that met the law's requirements. In mid-
1978 we reviewed 456 such programs prepared by 23 local agencies
in six States. Overall, 78 percent of the individualized education
programs did not meet the act's content requirements. Sixty-five
percent lacked information on one or more elements, and another
13 percent had vague or general statements.
In addition to the newness of the individualized education pro-
gram requirements, one reason the local agencies did not meet the
requirements was the lack of guidance and instructions from the
bureau.
I will turn now to the important objective of the act, which is to
make free appropriate public education available to every handi-
capped child.
Officials in 16 of 21 local agencies where we discussed program
goals candidly admitted that they did not expect to be able to
provide an appropriate education to their handicapped children age
3 to 18 for at least 3 to 6 years beyond the September 1, 1978,
deadline.
Inadequate funding was by far the most common reason cited.
The officials were often relying on increased Federal funds to
finance the cost of increased services. Few expected State and local
funds to increase sufficiently to cover all costs in the near future.
At the time of our fieldwork, many State agencies had not ade-
quately fulfilled their responsibilities for insuring the proper imple-
mentation of the law. Technical assistance by State agencies was
often late and ineffective. State agencies had done little monitor-
ing.
Many State agencies recognized the increased responsibilities
and the need for additional special education staff to administer
PAGENO="0448"
442
the program. However, few requests for additional State-funded
positions had been approved at the time of our fieldwork.
Since each State participating in the program must submit an
annual program plan containing assurances that the State will
carry out the provisions of the act, a vehicle exists that would
enable the Department to assess, at least in part, the adequacy and
capability of the State agency to fulfill its responsibilities.
In our opinion, some of the problems in implementing the pro-
gram might have been avoided or reduced had the bureau ade-
quately or promptly carried out its management responsibilities.
For example, the legislation required that regulations be pub-
lished by January 1977. Proposed regulations were published in
December 1976, but final regulations were not published until
August of 1977, only 39 days before the October 1, 1977, date that
States and local agencies were to be in full compliance with most of
the act's procedural requirements.
The act also requires the Department to provide States with
technical assistance and training, to approve State program plans,
and to monitor State and local agency program activities for com-
pliance with the law and regulations. Our review indicated that
the bureau had problems performing these activities, thus contrib-
uting to the startup problems.
Mr. Chairman, our draft report on the implementation of the
program contained a number of proposals which, we believe, if
properly implemented, should help to improve the program. The
Department has provided to us written comments on all of our
proposals.
One proposal was to the Congress to clarify whether and under
what conditions children who are receiving only speech therapy or
other services currently cited in the law as related services are
eligible for coverage under the program. In resolving this matter,
the Congress should consider whether current regulations repre-
sent a reasonable interpretation of the congressional intent.
The Department did not concur with this proposal. It believed it
is already clear that children who receive only speech therapy
services are eligible.
Although it may be clear to the education community, as the
Department asserts, in our opinion it is not clear in the law or in
its legislative history.
We are also proposing that the Congress consider the conflict
between the statutory purpose and timetable for providing each
handicapped child with free appropriate public education and the
problems States and local agencies are having in meeting these
objectives. If considerable additional delays in reaching the goals
are not acceptable, the Congress may wish to consider providing
incentives to stimulate increased State and local funding or per-
haps increased Federal funding for this program. If the Congress
finds that existing goals and deadlines are too stringent or too
optimistic, it may wish to consider modifying the act's timetables
or scope of coverage.
The Department stated that it believed that the Congress has
undertaken an extensive examination of both the statutory purpose
and the problems encountered by the States and local agencies in
meeting the purposes and timetables of the act.
PAGENO="0449"
443
We certainly are aware of extensive congressional hearings that
have been held, although we believe that additional perspective
and direction should be provided by the Congress to all levels of
the educational community, particularly since both the 1978 and
1980 deadlines for compliance with the act have now passed.
In our draft report we also included a number of proposals to the
Secretary of Education. These proposals I have included as an
attachment to my statement.
Regarding the controversy on the estimated number of handi-
capped children, the Department agreed with our proposals to fully
evaluate the effectiveness of local education agency programs and
processes for identifying, evaluating, and serving all handicapped
children needing services; to assist States and local agencies to
eliminate deficiencies; and to reconsider the validity of the 12-
percent prevalence estimate. However, the Department did not
agree that it should discontinue, at least temporarily, the use of
the 12-percent rate as a basis for encouraging States to increase
the number of children counted and served.
The Department stated that it recognizes that the 12-percent
estimate was not definitive, but to date there is no compelling data
that would justify revising the estimate.
Regarding the need to resolve questions on eligibility criteria for
children receiving only speech therapy, the Department agreed
with our proposals to define the terms adverse effect and educa-
tional performance as they relate to children's eligibility and moni-
tor and enforce the adverse effect on educational performance re-
quirement. It also agreed with our proposals to improve the indi-
vidualized education program process.
Regarding the need for improved State management of the pro-
gram, the Department did not concur that States should be re-
quired to document in their annual program plans that they are
able to meet the commitments in their plans and carry out their
responsibilities under the law. The Department did agree, however,
that Federal administration of the program needed strengthening.
That concludes the summary of my statement, Mr. Chairman.
We will be happy to respond to any questions you have.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ahart, for your
very helpful testimony.
At the conclusion of any questions we may direct to you now, I
am going to place in the record a letter to me from Representative
Susan Auld, who is a member of the Vermont General Assembly.
That letter is dated August 28, 1980, and bears on the general
problem we are examining today.
[The letter referred to follows:]
68-332 0 - 81 - 29
PAGENO="0450"
444
STATE OF VERMONT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONTPELIER
05602
August 28, 1980
Sen. Robert Stafford
Room 5219
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
I am writing in order to leave you with some written impressions of my
principal concerns about special education. I appreciate the opportunity
to meet with you, and hope that this letter will help clarify any points
that I am not able to make clearly to you in person.
My concern is with the impact of the federal laws commonly called "94-142"
and "Section 504". I am principally concerned both about the lack of pro-
mised funding to implement these laws and also with the manner in which they
are being administered from Washington.
When public law 94-142 was passed, there were promises in its text of a
gradually increasing federal sharing of the costs incurred by special edu-
tion. Since then, not only has the federal government failda to keep up
with its promised payments, but the states now appear forced by the legally
parallel "Section 504" to-provide these kinds of services whether or not
they elect to participate in the funding offered by the supposedly voluntary
program under "94-142".
unfortunately this federal funding failure has not been accompanied by any
meaningful limitations on the ambitions of the program. School districts
are still required by federal law to provide services that many believe
ought to be discretionary under these circumstances. In fact, the law seems
so broadly stated that in many cases the services which a handicapped child
can claim seem limited only by the imagination of the child's advocate. /
Even at the promised funding level, I doubt that this situation could long
endure, but under present funding, it is quickly becoming intolerable.
PAGENO="0451"
445
Sen. Robert Stafford August 28, 1980
Washington, D.C. Page 2
I suggest that the Congress ought to reexamine public law 94-142 in light
of its failure to fulfill its financialpromises. I think such a reexami-
nation ought to consider placing limits on the present requirements, per-
haps by making some optional, and by eliminating others entirely.
My second principal concern is the manfier of federal administration of the
law. On at least four occasions in r~cent years I am aware of incidents
where policy guidance has come from Washington that I believe to be incon-
sistent with the intent of Congress.
In 1977, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare adopted regulations
concerning the identification of children with a particular group of handicaps
called "specific learning disabilities". The Congressional record clearly
indicates that Congress feared that the imprecise definition for this cate-
gory of handicap could lead to abuse. Congress imposed a one-sixth "cap"
on these children, saying that no more than one handicapped child in six in
any state could be classified as learning disabled. However, Congress also
provided that this "cap" would be repealed from the law when the Secretary
of H.E.W. adopted regulations which "establish specific criteria for deter-
mining whether a particular disorder or condition may be considered a spe-
cific learning disability" and which also described "specific diagnostic
procedures" which are capable of diagnosing these conditions. Furthermore,
the regulations were supposed to develop a method of ensuring that local
and state agencies were adhering to these guidelines.
The regulations actually adopted fell far short of these goals. Rather
than contain a list of recognized disabilities, or "specific criteria" for
their evaluation, the regulations merely repeated the statutory definition.
Rather than explaining specific diagnostic procedures, the regulations
grandly authorized classification of all children who have "severe discre-
pancies between achievement and intellectual ability" in any..of a number of
academic performance areas. This broad authorization failed to mention any
of the original limiting factors in the statutory definition such as that
"learning disability" was not intended to make up for past environmental or
social disadvantages. The procedures for ensuring compliance with these sub-
stantive standards amounted merely to a requirement that local records be
kept. Nothing apparently required the state to periodically audit these
records and certify that the prescribed standards were indeed being followed.
This looseness in the regulations has created a great latitude for local
school officials in determining whether or not a child has a learning dis-
ability. I believe that in many cases the term "learning disabled" has be-
come virtually synonymous with the older term "slow learner". As a result,
the original one-sixth "cap" has been greatly exceeded. Vermont now has
36 percent of its handicapped students classified as learning disabled, and
a review of the 1979-80 school year data shows that of the 50 states only
New York has not violated the original limitation. The national average is
now 31.7 percent, nearly double theoriginal upper limit.
PAGENO="0452"
446
Sen. Robert Stafford August 28, 1980
Washington, D.C. Page 3
More recently, the Department of H.E.W. approved a "child count" procedure
in Vermont that permitted the state Department of Education to create child
count data right here in Montpelier, and based upon only the most indirect
kind of evidence submitted by local school districts. The school districts
themselves never reported directly on how many children they had found in
each particular category of handicap,, and as a result, I believe our state
statistics concerning the frequency of various kinds of handicap are highly
unreliable. I think this effectively emasculates the Congressional require-
meat for periodic statistical reports. Yes, the reports are filed, but the
data on then in some instances seem of questionable value.
At about the same time, I understand that H.E.W. approved a Vermont policy
that allowed children to be classified as "handicapped" even though they
did not fall into any of the nine statutorily listed categories of handicap.
At present, a Vermont child who is substantially behind his peers in one or
more subject areas can be classified as handicapped on that basis alone, and
without any reference to whether he or she belongs to any of the nine federal
categories. The Director of our Special Education Division has virtually
said that she hopes she never has to limit special education enrollments to
these categories, and it appears that H.E.W. (now the U.S. Department of
Education) is the last place that such an impetus will likely come from.
If further proof of this point is needed, federal law requires that federal
money erroneously' spent on non-handicapped children ought to be repaid to
the Treasury. I understand that Vermont has never repaid a dollar, and you
might be interested in investigating whether any other states have done so.
Most recently, the Special Education Division orally advised our state De-
partment of Education that when a parent desires to have an independent
evaluation performed at public expense, the school district must give the
parent a list of "more than one" possible site for the evaluation. This
advice was repeated to the Vermont Legislative Council staffS. Yet when
asked for written confirmation of this statement, H.E.W. took over three
months with the request, and intercession from your office was finally
necessary to get a reply. The reply finally retracted the earlier asserted
oral policy.
These four incidents demonstrate to me that the people in the U.S. Educa-
tion Department have repeatedly attempted to maximize their influence and
the enrollment of pupils in their programs, regardless of Congressional
intent. As a result, I believe our special education program in Vermont to
be in very serious trouble, and trouble that could have been avoided. My
only hope is that some of these problems can be worked out amicably without
creating the risk of overreaction. If they cannot be worked out, I am afraid
that the whole structure may topple. In that event, all of the needed ser-
vices which we are finally providing at long last to the truly handicapped
would be swept away with the chaff from the rest of the program. I hope that
I can enlist you in my attempt to find a method of providing a fair level of
service to the truly needy without also unduly burdening the system.
Very truly yours,
Rep. Susan Auld
Washington-i
SA/cm
PAGENO="0453"
447
Senator STAFFORD. I am advised, Mr. Ahart, that our questions to
you will be in writing. We would appreciate if they could be re-
sponded to at a reasonably early hour so that we can make them a
part of this committee record.
If you were here in time, you probably heard Dr. Martin reserve
the right to comment further on testimony. He may wish to com-
ment on some aspects of what you told us here this morning.
For the committee, I can express our appreciation to you for
being here and helping in our efforts to improve Public Law 94-
142, and when the next Congress gets here we can try to get that
done.
Mr. AHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator STAFFORD. The next meeting of the Subcommittee on the
Handicapped of the Labor and Human Resources Committee will
be at the call of the chair.
Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Stafford and I join in expressing
appreciation for your willingness to help us to assess the progress
of the implementation of this program for which we have high
hopes.
There are, of course, mistakes being made along the way that we
can correct.
I think it would be the desire of Senator Stafford and all mem-
bers of the subcommittee that you, Mr. Ahart, at a later date
comment on Dr. Martin's testimony. Although you have seen the
statement, there were colloquys today. If you would do that in
writing, then I would ask Dr. Martin also, if he desires to comment,
to do so in writing to the subcommittee on the testimony that you
have given. Would that be agreeable?
Mr. AHART. That would be perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahart, GAO's response to Sena-
tor Randolph's questions, and additional material supplied for the
record follow:]
PAGENO="0454"
448
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
EXPECTED AT 9:30 A.M., EDT
SEPTEMBER 101 1980
STATEMENT OF
GREGORY J. AHA.RT, DIRECTOR
HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HANDICAPPED
OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
ON
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975
- Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. We are pleased
to have this opportunity to comment on the results of our review
of the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, commonly referred to as the Public Law 94-142 program.
Until Hay 1980, when responsibility for the program was transferred
to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in
the new Department of Education, the 94-142 program was adminis-
tered by the Office of Educations Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped (BEH). A draft of our report was sent to the Secretary
of Education in June 1980 and the Departments written comments
have been received. We expect to issue the final report to the
Congress in several weeks.
PAGENO="0455"
449
THE PUBLIC LAW 94-142 PROGRAM
Public Law 94-142, dated November 29, 1975, amended the
Education of the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) to
improve educational services in local public schools for
children with mental, physical, emotional, and learning
handicaps.
The act generally requires that a "free appropriate public
education' be available for all handicapped children age 3 to
18 by September 1, 1978, and age 3 to 21 by September 1, 1980.
The act also requires schools to (1) evaluate a child's special
needs and determine the most appropriate educational environ-
ment, (2) develop an individualized education program (referred
to as an IEP) tailored to the needs of the child, (3) involve
fully the child's parents in the educational decision process,
and (4) educate a handicapped child along with nonhandicapped
children to the extent it is in the handicapped child's best
interests.
From fiscal year 1977 through fiscal year 1980 the amount
appropriated for the program increased from $315 million to $874
million. For fiscal year 1981, $922 million was requested. Over
that same 5-year period the average grant per handicapped child
increased from $72 to $239.
As of December 1, 1979--the most recent count--the number
of handicapped children served was about 4 million. Eighty-three
percent of these children fell into three categories--speech
impaired, learning disabled, and mentally retarded.
2
PAGENO="0456"
450
SCOPE OF REVIEW
We made our review in 1978 and 1979 at Department of Education
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at State education agencies,
local school districts, and schools in 10 States--California, Florida,
Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas,
and Washington. In fiscal year 1979 these States reported a combined
total of about 1.1 million handicapped children, or nearly 30 per-
cent of the national 94-142 childcount of about 3.7 million. We
visited a total of 55 State, local, and other activities, includ-
ing 38 local school districts with reported enrollments ranging
from 13 handicapped students to about 15,000 handicapped students.
CONTROVERSY ON ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
Controversy exists over HEM's estimate of the number of school-age
handicapped children needing "special education' services--about
6.2 million--compared to 3.9 million children actually identified
and reported by the States, as of December 1, 1978. Consequently,
BEH is attempting to get States to increase the number of children
identified and reported. We believe that BEE's efforts to increase
the number of children counted and served have not been tempered
sufficiently to avoid identifying and serving, as handicapped,
children who do not warrant such treatment.
BEE estimates far exceed actual
number of handicapped children
reported by States
Before Public Law 94-142 was enacted, BEE estimated that
about 6.7 million children, or about 12 percent of the school-age
population, were handicapped and needed special education services.
3
PAGENO="0457"
451
Because of declines in school enrollments since the early 1970s
and differences in the age ranges. used to define `school age,"
the 12-percent estimate currently translates to about 6.2 million
children. As of December 1978, however, after several years of
searching, the States reported counting about 3.9 million handi-
capped children. The difference between this actual count and
the BEH estimate amounts to about 2.3 million children who, if
the BEH estimate is correct, are handicapped but have either
not been identified or accounted for under the 94-142 program.
This difference has generated serious controversy among BEH,
State officials, researchers, and others. BEH, in defense of its
12-percent estimate, asserts that the States' childfind efforts
have not been adequate. However, State officials, researchers,
and others contend that BEH's estimate is significantly over-
stated.
BEH gave the Congress statistics that were discussed in
hearings in 1975, indicating that more than 8 million handicapped
children up to age 21 (including 6.7 million age 6 to 19) required
special education and related services, of which:
--About 3.9 million children (3.7 million age 6 to 19)
were receiving an appropriate education.
--About 4.25 million children (3.1 million age 6 to 19)
were receiving an inappropriate education or no educa-
tiori at all. Of these, about 1.75 million were said
to be excluded entirely fran schooling.
4
PAGENO="0458"
452
The Congress relied on the BEH estimate and also used the
12-percent estimate to develop a major control element in 94-142's
entitlement formula. Under the law each State's childcount may
be no greater than 12 percent of its total school-age population,
age 5 to 17. This provision was included to assure that States
would not overcount and mislabel children as handicapped.
In our opinion, the BEH estimate was questionable when pro-
vided to the Congress. The estimate still has not been validated.
A number of reports prepared for the Federal Government before
1975, and used by BEH to develop its estimate, clearly pointed
out the incompleteness, noncomparability, and other reliability
limitations of the handicap prevalence estimates available at that
time.
In addition to various studies, BEH had "counts" of the
numbers of handicapped children in each State reported by State
education agencies (SEAs) in the late l960s. However, a 1970
BEH-funded study stated that in 39 States the counts were not
counts at all, but projections based on national prevalence
figures developed by a researcher in the l950s.
Although its estimate was based on data of questionable
reliability, BEH continues to use it. In a January 1979 report
to the Congress, BEH concluded that since only 3.8 million handi-
capped children were being served by the States, over 2.3 million
handicapped children remained to be served. When it prepared this
report, BEH had a July 1978 draft study of prevalences of handi-
capping conditions prepared by SRI International which, using more
5
PAGENO="0459"
453
up-to-date information, estimated that about 7 percent of children
age 3 to 21 were handicapped. Also, the report concluded that
BEH's 12-percent estimate was too high.
Actual State counts for fiscal years 1977, 1978, and 1979
averaged about 7.5 percent of the school population. Not only
were the national averages well below BEH's estimate, but the
counts of 57 of the 58 States and other grantees were also lower.
Although no reliable estimate of the number of unserved handi-
capped children exists, States and local education agencies (LEA5)
readily acknowledge that some handicapped children have yet to
to be identified. However, they believe that the number remain-
ing unidentified is relatively small and is far less than BEH's
estimate of 2.3 million.
BEH shows little concern for possible
mislabeling and overcounting of children
In September 1978, BEH launched a major `new initiative" to
reduce the discrepancy between the number of handicapped children
counted and its 12-percent estimate by trying to get States to
increase the 94-142 count. -
BEH officials contacted at least 50 States and territories
which counted less than 10 percent to "strongly urge" them to
accept BEH technical assistance on increasing the childcount.
BEH plans also called for asking States to set specific numerical
targets for increasing their childcounts, and following this up
with monitoring and assessment activities, including "careful
review" of States' annual program plans before awarding grants,
and "special site visits" to key States.
6
PAGENO="0460"
454
Furthermore, under the new initiative all BEE discretionary
programs, which provide grants for such activities as technical
assistance through Regional Resource Centers, model demonstration
projects, and research and development projects, were to. be refo-
cused to emphasize finding and serving more handicapped children.
BEE officials also contacted advocate groups, urging them to
become more involved in finding and serving handicapped children.
BEE has placed special national emphasis on increasing the count
of speech-impaired children, a category which, as we discuss in
the next section, already includes many children whose eligibility
is unclear.
However, available documents indicate that BEE had not pointed
out or cautioned States about the need to maintain balance--that
is, to carefully evaluate and classify children so that those not
eligible are not labeled as handicapped.
Overcounting children or improperly labeling then as handi-
capped can have at least two major adverse consequences. First,
State counts would be inflated and the appropriation and distri-
bution of Federal funds could be affected. Second, and even more
important, children would be erroneously labeled as handicapped
and this could have a stigmatizing effect that could be very
difficult for the children to overcome.
QUESTIONS ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
NEED TO BE RESOLVED
Data obtained in our review raised questions about the eli-
gibility of children with minor inpairnents who may not require
7
PAGENO="0461"
455
special education," as that term is defined in the law. Although
these eligibility questions affect children with various types of
impairments, they are especially applicable to children with ninor
impairments who .require only speech therapy. Of the 3.7 million
children counted for funding and served under the 94-142 program
as of December 1, 1978, the largest group, about 1.2 million, were
classified as `speech impaired' and were receiving only speech
therapy. States were expected to receive about $253 million
in fiscal year 1980 Federal grant funds for these children. These
children included many who were receiving therapy for such impair-
ments as lisping, stuttering, and word pronunciation problems
(e.g., they said "wabbit" instead `rabbit," "pasketti" instead of
"spaghetti," or "bud" for "bird"), as well as many children whose
voice tones were low, high, nasal, harsh, or hoarse.
The law, its legislative history, and implementing regula-
tions are unclear on whether all of these speech-impaired chil-
dren should have been counted as handicapped for Federal funding.
Unclear definitions in the
law and legislative history
The Education of the Handicapped Act, as amended, requires
that a child have one of nine impairments for which he or she needs
"special education and related services" to be counted for Federal
funding as "handicapped."
According to the definitions from the act, "special education"
is instruction that is specially designed to meet a handicapped
child's unique education needs--needs which cannot be met through
8
PAGENO="0462"
456
a regular classroom program and therefore require different or
added instructional procedures. `Related services" are those
supplementary services that may be needed to correct, treat, or
reduce the impact of the child's impairment and thus improve the
child's ability to benefit from "special education." The law
explicitly lists speech pathology (often used interchangeably with
the term speech therapy) as a "related service."
However, it is not entirely clear whether, in the absence of
"special education," children receiving only speech therapy or the
other services specifically listed in the act as `related services"
were to be considered eligible under the act. House and Senate
committee and conference reports on the bill that became Public
Law 94-142 did not conclusively address the question, although
the reports implied that the Congress may not have intended or
designed the act to include children who have minor impairments
developed fran poor habits, their home environment, or slow
development. Committee reports indicated also that the principal
objective was to serve the more severely handicapped children and
implied that children with mild handicaps, or those receiving only
"related services," may not have been intended to be eligible.
However, because of the absence of definitive guidance in the legis-
lative history, we were unable to conclusively determine whether
the Congress intended children with mild handicaps, or those
requiring only "related services," to be covered under the act.
Although the eligibility of children receiving only "related
services" is not specifically authorized in the act, program regu-
lations provide that, under certain conditions, "related services"
9
PAGENO="0463"
457
such as speech therapy, can be considered as "special education"
and thus make a child eligible even though he or she is not
receiving any other services.
Insufficient guidance
in program regulations
Program regulations attempt to clarify the eligibility ques-
tion by stating that, ordinarily, children who are receiving only
"related services" are not eligible for the program. The regula-
tions provide, however, that a service specifically listed in the
act as a "related service" may be considered as "special education"
if (1) the service meets the act's general definition of "special
education" and (2) is considered "special education" rather than a
"related service" under State standards. In a key provision, the
regulations require that to be considered as "handicapped," a
child must have an impairment which is severe enough to adversely
affect the child's educational performance. However, BEE had not
established criteria for applying the adverse effect requirement,
nor did its regulations require the States to establish their own
criteria.
During our fieldwork BEE officials told us that they had not
issued any guidance to the States on the nature and the meaning of
the adverse effect requirement, since no State or LEA had spe-
cifically sought an interpretation of the requirement.
LEA5 are not applying
an adverse effect test
According to officials in 18 of 28 LEAs where we discussed
the issue, LEA policy or practice did not require that a child's
10
PAGENO="0464"
458
speech impairment adversely affect his or her educational
performance to count the child for 94~l42 funding. It appeared
that most children whose speech attracted attention in any way,
or caused a social or behavioral problen, were receiving speech
therapy and were being counted for 94-142 funding. LEA officials
also stated that the effect that a child's speech impairnent
has on educational performance is not readily apparent and, in
many cases, it would be difficult or time consuming to prove
adverse effect.
In contrast to Federal program regulations, the regulations
of at least four States we visited specifically allowed LEAs to
classify children as speech impaired for State funding purposes
even if the impairment did not adversely affect their performance
in the classroom. Two other States specifically instructed their
LEAs to count all children receiving speech therapy in the 94-142
childcount.
Thus, some LEAs were providing speech therapy to children
under State or LEA eligibility criteria that did not call for a
test of adverse effect on educational performance, as do the
Federal regulations.
Most speech-impaired children might
not meet an adverse effect test
In addition to finding that most States we visited did not
apply the required adverse effect test, we found significant dif-
ferences between the nature and extent of services provided to
11
PAGENO="0465"
459
speech-impaired children and the services provided to all other
handicapped children.
For example, nost children counted as speech impaired spend
little tine with their therapists compared with
the tine other handicapped children spend with their special
education teachers. According to a January 1979 BES report
to the Congress, the average speech therapist in the Nation served
44 children--three times as many as teachers of all other handi-
capped children.
Also, officials in 28 of 30 LEA5 we reviewed told us that
most of their children receive an average of 1 to 1-1/2 years of
speech therapy, usually in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3. Sev-
eral of these officials stated that speech defects are usually
corrected quickly. This is not generally. true for children who
have other handicapping disabilities.
Finally, most children classified as speech impaired spend
significantly less tine receiving special services outside the
regular classroom than do other handicapped children and rarely,
if ever, is the speech-impaired child's regular classroom program
modified.
These factors, along with comments by LEA officials, raise
questions on whether the speech impairments of most of these
children adversely affected their educational performance and
whether they would have met the eligibility requirement in pro-
gram regulations if it had been applied.
12
68-332 0 - 81 - 30
PAGENO="0466"
460
94-142 program not designed for
children receiving speech therapy only
Some LEAs were experiencing problems applying 94-142 require-
nents, especially the IEP requirement, to children classified as
speech impaired.
Some LEA officials told us that the IEP process was not
appropriate for children who receive only speech therapy. They
complained, anong other things, that the IEP process forces a
school district to label children as handicapped who are really
not handicapped, that preparing and processing the IEP often takes
almost as much time and effort as remedying the child's speech
defect, and that in the past, some LEAs stopped providing speech
services altogether for several days or weeks to prepare and
process IEPs.
Effect on childcounts by failing
to apply an adverse effect test
As discussed previously, many of the children whom States
and LEAs classified as speech impaired might not have net an
adverse effect test and therefore might not have been eligible
to be counted for 94-142 funding. We do not know exactly how many
of these children have been counted. Officials at 10 of the LEAs
told us that, if they applied an "adverse effect on educational
performance" requirement, their count of speech-impaired children
would be reduced substantially (by 33 to 75 percent.) Also,
school districts in one State we visited--flew Hampshire--were
13
PAGENO="0467"
461
counting children as handicapped for Federal funding only when
their progress in the regular classroom was significantly impeded
by their impairment. State and local officials in New Hampshire
stated that many children were receiving speech therapy for minor
speech defects, mainly articulation problems, but they were not
counted as handicapped for 94-142 funds.
Mr. Chairman, we are not questioning whether certain children
need speech therapy. That is an educational decision. What we
are questioning is whether the Congress intended that all children
receiving speech therapy be served under the 94-142 program as
handicapped children.
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS NOT MET
Public Law 94-142 requires LEA5 to establish am IEP for
each handicapped child. Each IEP is to contain information on
the present levels of educational performance; annual goals,
including short-term instructional objectives; specific educa-
tional services to be provided; the projected date for initiation
and anticipated duration of such services; and appropriate crite-
ria and evaluation procedures for determining whether instruc-
tional objectives are being achieved. The IEP is to be developed
at a meeting attended by the child's parents, the child's teacher,
and am LEA representative. In its implementing regulations, the
Office of Education required that IEPs be in effect on October 1,
1977, and at the beginning of each school year thereafter, for
14
PAGENO="0468"
462
every handicapped child, before special education and related
services" are provided.
Because of some confusing actions by the Office of Education
during the writing of regulations, some LEAS were led to believe
that an IEP need include only those special education and related
services that were currently available in the LEA. Although BEE
later notified the States that IEPs nust include all services a
child needs for an appropriate education, regardless of their cur-
rent availability, many LEAs continued to limit the services listed
in IEPs.
LEA officials in 15 of 28 LEA5 where we discussed this issue,
after the notification from BEE, claimed that their IEP5 described
all services needed by a child regardless of current availability.
In most of these LEAs, however, we found IEPs that omitted needed
services shown on the child's other records.
LEA officials in the other 13 LEAs candidly admitted that a
child's IEP would not show needed special education or related
services that the LEA does not or cannot provide. Some officials
expressed the fear that an LEA that lists unavailable services
in an IEP might be sued or forced to provide services it cannot
afford or cannot provide for some other reason. Other officials
stated that they do not want to hurt parent-school relations by
telling parents, through an IEP, that their child needs a service
which the LEA is unable to provide.
15
PAGENO="0469"
463
LEAs had considerable difficulty preparing IEP5 that met
94-142 requirenents. In mid-1978 we reviewed 456 IEPs prepared
by 23 LEA5 in six States. Overall, 78 percent of the IEPs did
not meet the acts content requirements--65 percent lacked infor-
mation on one or more elements and another 13 percent had vague
or general statements.
Also, 52 percent of the 456 IEPs lacked evidence that all
required participants attended the IEP meeting. The member of
the IEP team missing most often was the LEA representative. None-
theless, officials in 13 LEAs told us that they believed the IEP
process has improved parent-school relations or has increased
parents' understanding of their children's education.
LEA5 had great difficulty meeting the October 1, 1977,
deadline. Only 10 of the 30 LEA5 cane reasonably close to
meeting the date. We examined 350 IEPs that should have been
completed by October 1, 1977, and found that at least 46 percent
were late.
Program regulations forbid counting handicapped children for
94-142 funding who do not have a completed IEP on the day of the
count. However, most LEA5 we visited improperly counted handi-
capped children who had no IEPs and those whose IEP5 did not meet
the act's requirements.
In addition to the newness of the IEP requirenents, one reason
that LEAs did not meet the requirements was the lack of guidance
and instructions from BEH.
16
PAGENO="0470"
464
FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION
NOT YET AVAILABLE TO ALL HANDICAPPED
CHILDREN
The paranount goal of Public Law 94-142 was to make free
appropriate public education available to every handicapped
child.
However, officials in 16 of 21 LEAs where we discussed pro-
gram goals, candidly admitted that they did not expect to be able
to provide an appropriate education to their handicapped children
age 3 to 18 far at least 3 to 6 years beyond the September 1, 1978,
deadline.
Although some LEAs were unable to find needed special educa-
tion personnel, inadequate funding was by far the most common
reason cited by LEA officials for not providing an appropriate
education to all their handicapped children. LEA officials were
often relying on increased 94-142 funds to finance the cost of
increased services needed to adequately serve all handicapped chil-
dren. Few officials expected State and local funds to increase
sufficiently to cover all costs in the near future.
LEA5 in many States visited had encountered or were
expecting to encounter problems raising local education funds.
Passage of Proposition 13 in California, and similar measures
as well as levy failures in other States, were expected to
further hamper local funding for special education.
Most State special education funding was also not increasing
rapidly enough to enable LEA5 to fully serve all handicapped chil-
dren in the near future. For example, California was moving to a
17
PAGENO="0471"
465
new funding program, called Master Plan, that a State special
education official said would not provide adequate funding of
special education until at least the 1981-82 school year.
Further, the growth of Federal funds has not kept pace with
anounts authorized in the act. For fiscal years 1979 and 1980,
the President's combined budget requests for 94-142 were nearly
$1.9 billion below the act's full funding authorization levels.
In congressional testinony, States, LEA5, and handicapped
children's advocate groups have consistently pointed out their
belief that reducing Federal funding so far below authorization
levels means that the Federal Government is failing to live up
to its commitment. In response, Federal education officials have
pointed out that education is a fundamental State responsibility,
that the increase in Federal support of special education over
the past 5 years has been dramatic, and that the amounts requested
are all that the Federal budget can support at this time.
STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
Our review showed that many of the difficulties in adequately
and promptly implementing the act's requirements occurred because
of State and Federal management problems.
States need to improve their capability
to carry out Public Law 94-142
At the time of our fieldwork, many SEAs had not adequately
fulfilled their responsibilities for ensuring the proper implemen-
tation of Public Law 94-142. Technical assistance provided by
18
PAGENO="0472"
466
SEAs was often late and ineffective and SEAs had done little moni-
toring.
Officials in about half the locations we visited had problems
obtaining technical assistance fran their SEAs. In some instances,
SEAs did not disseminate regulations, sent suggested procedures too
late to be useful, or provided incorrect guidance.
Problems in monitoring LEAs also occurred and as a result,
LEAS in several States did not benefit fran the assistance and
direction that earlier SEA monitoring visits could have provided
then.
Many SEAs recognized the increased responsibilities placed
on them by Public Law 94-142 and the need for additional special
education staff to administer the program. Because the act did
not provide additional Federal funds to hire more staff, many SEA
special education officials tried to obtain State funding to supply
the staff needed. However, few requests for additional State-funded
positions had been approved at the time of our fieldwork.
Since each State participating in the 94-142 program must
submit an annual program plan containing assurances that the
State will carry out the provisions of the act, and since the
Secretary of Education must evaluate and approve the State's plan
before grant funds are released, a vehicle exists that would enable
the Department to assess, at least in part, the adequacy and capa-
bility of the SEA to fulfill its responsibilities.
19
PAGENO="0473"
467
Initial Federal administration of the
program was inadequate
In our opinion, some of the problems in implementing the
94-142 program might have been avoided or reduced had BEH ade-
quately or pronptly carried out its management responsibilities.
For example, the 94-142 legislation required that program
regulations be published by January 1, 1977. Proposed regula-
tions were published on December 30, 1976, only 2 days before
the statutory deadline. However, States and LEA5 were under no
obligation to comply with these draft requirements. Final regu-
lations were not published until August 23, 1977, only 39 days
before October 1, 1977, the date that States and LEA5 were
to be in full compliance with most of the act's procedural require-
ments.
The act also requires the Department to provide States with
technical assistance and training, to approve State program plans,
and to monitor State and LEA program activities for compliance
with the law and regulations. Our review, which included dis-
cussions with BEH, State, and LEA officials, indicated that BEE
had problems performing these activities, thus contributing to the
startup problems.
For example, BEE did not provide promised guidance and
instructions, leaving SEAs and LEA5 to design and develop their
own procedures, manuals, and forms. Also, BEE took am average of
10 months to approve State plans for the 10 States we visited,
although it had led States to believe that the process would be
completed in 30 to 45 days. Finally, BEE did not make the required
20
PAGENO="0474"
468
comprehensive evaluations of States' compliance with the free
appropriate public education requirement of Public Law 94-142.
While we believe that BEE has improved in some of these areas,
increased emphasis by BEE at the beginning of the program could
have enabled SEAs and LEA5 to implement the new law more effec-
tively and with less confusion.
GAO PROPOSALS FOR
IMPROVING 94-l42~
Our draft report on the implementation of the 94-142 program
contained a number of proposals which, if properly imple-
mented, should help to improve the program. Two were addressed
to the Congress; the remainder were addressed to the Secretary of
Education. The Department has provided written comments on all of
our proposals.
Proposals to the Congress
Our draft report contains a proposal that the Congress
clarify whether, and under what conditions, children who are receiv-
ing only speech therapy or other services currently cited in the
law as "related services" are eligible for coverage under the
94-142 program. Our draft report states that in resolving this
matter, the Congress should consider whether current departmental
regulations, which provide that children are eligible only if their
impairments adversely affect their educational performance, repre-
sent a reasonable interpretation of congressional intent.
The Department did not concur with our proposal and
stated that it believed it is already clear that handicapped chil-
dren who receive only speech therapy services are eligible for
21
PAGENO="0475"
469
coverage under Public Law 94-142. The Department pointed out that
the term "speech impaired" has been included in the definition of
handicapped children since the inception of the State grant program
in 1966, and that throughout the 14-year history of the program
speech therapy has been recognized in the special education com-
munity as a basic "special education" service.
We agree that the term "speech impaired" is included
in the law. Although it may be clear to the education community,
as the Department asserts, in our opinion it is not clear in the
law or its legislative history whether children receiving only
minor amounts of speech therapy services are to be considered as
handicapped and eligible for Federal funding under the 94-142 pro-
gram. Based on (1) our review of the legislation and legislative
history (2) the increased number of children being provided speech
therapy services today compared with 14 years ago, and (3) the manner
in which LEAs are classifying children as speech impaired, we believe
the Congress should clarify whether, and under what conditions, children
who are receiving only speech therapy or other related services are
eligible for coverage under Public Law 94-142.
We are also proposing that the Congress consider the conflict
between (1) the statutory purpose and timetable for providing
each handicapped child with free appropriate public education
and (2) the problems States and LEA5 are having, and will probably
continue to have, in meeting those objectives. Our draft report
states that if considerable additional delays in reaching the goals
22
PAGENO="0476"
470
are not acceptable, the Congress may wish to consider providing
(1) incentives to stimulate increased State and local funding
or (2) increased Federal funding for the progran. On the other
hand, if the Congress finds that existing goals and deadlines
are too stringent, considering potential fund and staff availa-
bility, it may wish to consider modifying the act's timetables
or scope of coverage.
Our draft report also proposes that, in the event the
Congress examines the need for and availability of additional
resources, it consider the related question of the eligibil-
ity of children who need only small amounts of speech therapy.
Because of the large number of children.and sizable amount of
Federal funds involved, any decision to exempt portions of these
children from coverage under the act, and to use Federal funds
only for handicapped children whose impairments can be shown to
adversely affect their educational performance, could significantly
increase the chances of meeting Public Law 94-142's goals sooner--
if funding levels are not reduced.
The Department stated that it believed that the Congress has
undertaken, through oversight hearings, an extensive examination
of both the statutory purpose and the problems encountered by the
States and LEAs in meeting the purposes and timetables of the act.
We are aware that the 94-142 program has been the subject of
extensive congressional hearings. However, the Congress has not
yet acted to resolve a basic problem--the inability of the States
to provide free appropriate public education to all handicapped
children within the deadlines established in the act. We believe
23
PAGENO="0477"
471
that additional perspective and direction should be provided by
the Congress to all levels of the education community, particularly
since both the 1978 and 1980 deadlines for compliance with the
act have passed. Hence, we are providing the Congress addi-
tional information for its consideration in resolving the issues
regarding program goals, deadlines for implementation, and funding.
Proposals to the
Secretary of E~ücation
Our draft report also includes a number of proposals to
the Secretary of Education. These proposals are included as an
attachment to this statement.
Regarding the controversy on the estimated number of handi-
capped children, the Department agreed with our proposals (1) to
fully evaluate the effectiveness of LEA programs and processes for
identifying, evaluating, and serving all handicapped children
needing services, (2) to assist States and LEAs to eliminate
deficiencies, and (3) to reconsider the validity of the 12-percent
prevalence estimate. However, the Department did not agree
that it should discontinue, at least temporarily, the use of the
12-percent rate as a basis for encouraging States to increase the
number of children counted and served.
The Department stated that while it recognizes that the
12-percent estimate was not definitive, to date there is no com-
pelling data that would justify revising the estimate. In fact,
the Department believes there are strong indications that the
12-percent prevalence estimate is reasonable, pointing to 4 States
having counts over 10 percent. Also, the Department stated that
24
PAGENO="0478"
472
SEAs and LEAs nay not be doing all they can to identify handicapped
children and it believes that the 12-percent figure is useful as a
general guide in determining whether all handiáapped children are
served. Finally, the Department stated that it places equivalent
enphasis on States procedural safeguards to prevent misclassifica-
tions.
The main thrust of our draft report is not to resolve the
controversy on the number of handicapped children needing services,
or to show that BEEs 12-percent estimate is overstated. Rather,
the report points out that BEE's efforts to get States to raise
their child counts to the 12-percent level were not being tempered
with enough caution to minimize the possibility of misclassifying
children as handicapped. Even though the Department acknowledges
that the 12-percent estimate is not definitive, our review showed
that BEE was using the estimate in its management and enforcement
as if it were.
The Department cited four States as a "strong indication"
that the 12-percent estimate is reasonable. Our draft report
points out, however, that 54 other States and jurisdictions
had counts under 10 percent. Also, our report points out that
even if the States have not identified all handicapped children,
State and LEA officials believe that the number of unidentified
children is far below BEE's estimate.
Finally, the Department stated that in its program oversight
activities it reviews a State's procedures for preventing mis-
identification and cited one instance where a large number of
children were removed from the childcount. In our opinion, this
25
PAGENO="0479"
473
after-the-fact review at the State level is not sufficient to
overcome the thrust of BEH's efforts, under its `new initiative,"
to get States to increase their count of handicapped children.
We believe that a more effective approach would be for the Depart-
ment to discontinue, at least temporarily, its reliance on the
12-percent estimate as the basis for encouraging States to serve
more handicap children, and focus instead on updating the national
prevalence rate and working to eliminate the barriers to full
identification and service.
Regarding the need to resolve questions on eligibility crite-
ria for children receiving only speech therapy, the Department
agreed with our proposals to (1) define the terms "adverse
effect" and "educational performance" as they relate to children's
eligibility and (2) monitor and enforce the "adverse effect on
educational performance" requirement. The Department also agreed
with our proposals to improve the IEP process.
Regarding the need for improved State management of the pro-
gram, the Department did not concur that States should be required
to document in their annual program plans, and demonstrate to the
Secretary's satisfaction, that they are able to meet the commit-
ments in their plans and carry out their responsibilities under
the law. The Department agreed, however, that Federal administra-
ion of the program needed (1) strengthening through better evalua-
tions of States' compliance with the free appropriate public
education requirements of the act and (2) better, more timely,
Federal administrative and management actions.
This concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman. We will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
26
PAGENO="0480"
474
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT
Page 1
U~S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
PROPOSALS TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
CONCERNING THE
EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975
CONTROVERSY ON ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
We propose that the Secretary:
--Stop using, at least temporarily, the 12-percent
handicap prevalence estimate as the basis for
encouraging States to increase the number of
children counted and served.
--Fully evaluate, either directly or through the
States' program monitoring efforts, the effective-
ness of LEA programs and processes for accurately
identifying, evaluating, and serving all handi-
capped children needing services under the act.
--Reconsider the validity of the 12-percent handicap
prevalence estimate based on the evaluation results.
--Assist States and LEA5 to eliminate deficiencies in
their programs and processes for identifying, evalu-
ating, and serving handicapped children.
QUESTIONS ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
NEED TO BE RESOLVED
Pending action on our proposal to the Congress, we propose
that the Secretary either modify the regulations to define the
terms "adverse effect' and "educational performance" and provide
guidance to States and LEAs on applying the requirement or provide
guidelines under which States must establish their own criteria
for applying the requirement.
We also propose that the Secretary monitor and enforce the
"adverse effect on educational performance' requirement in the
Department of Education's program oversight activities, and notify
SEA and LEA officials that handicapped children, including children
who receive only speech therapy or other related services, are
not eligible to be counted unless the adverse effect test has been
demonstrated and documented.
28
PAGENO="0481"
475
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT
Page 2
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS NOT MET
Since IEPs must be prepared each year for all handicapped
children, we propose that the Secretary increase the distribu-
tion to all States of instructions, guidance, and models relating
to IEP5. The instructions should clearly provide that the States
and LEA5 cannot count handicapped children for 94-142 funding until
LEAS have prepared IEPs according to all statutory and regulatory
requirements.
We propose also that the Secretary:
--Revise the program regulations to state clearly that
IEPs must include all special education and related
services needed to provide a free appropriate public
education.
--Require that Federal and State efforts to oversee the
administration of Public Law 94-142 give special
attention to enforcing IEP requirements.
STATES NEED TO IMPROVE THEIR CAPABILITY
TO CARRY OUT PUBLIC LAW 94-142
We propose that the Secretary require States to document in
their State program plans, and demonstrate to the Secretary's satis-
faction, that they are able to meet the commitments in their plans
and carry out their responsibilities under Public Law 94-142.
INITIAL FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
OF THE PROGRAM WAS INADEQUATE
We propose that the Secretary evaluate States' compliance
with the free appropriate public education requirement of Public
Law 94-142, and use the evaluations to determine what additional
actions, including withholding funds as provided for in the act,
need to be taken to assure that States are effectively implementing
the act.
In addition, since the Federal Government's role in helping
State and local grantees to revise or start new Federal programs
can be of critical importance if the programs are to be implemented
quickly and effectively and congressional mandates are to be met,
we propose that the Secretary emphasize the importance of (1) timely
issuance of regulations, (2) providing technical assistance,
(3) reviewing State plans, and (4) making monitoring visits.
29
68-332 0 - 81 - 31
PAGENO="0482"
476
OCT1 ~
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
September 30, 1980
HUMAN RSSOURCES
DIVISION
HRO-232
The Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman, Subcommittee on Handicapped
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your September 11, 1980, letter transmitted questions from
the Subcommittee concerning our September 10 testimony on the
implementation of Public Law 94-142. You also reiterated your
invitation to us to comment on the testimony by the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ANSWERS --
Each of the Subcommittees questions is quoted below and is
followed by our answer.
Question
You mentioned that sometimes teachers did not refer handi-
capped children for evaluation for a number of reasons, one of
which was that the teachers did not want to do the paperwork that
the referral process requires. In the course of your investiga-
tions, did the additional paperwork required by 94-142 appear to
be a major concern of school personnel and was the additional
paperwork a function of Federal regulations, State regulations
or local practices?"
Answer
In the latter part of 1977 and early in 1978, when the act's
procedural requirements were going into effect, paperwork was a
major concern to school officials, particularly individualized
education programs (IEP5). The reasons, we believe, were the new-
ness of the program, the lateness of Federal regulations, and the
lack of Federal and State guidance to help local agencies under-
stand the program requirements. Most of the local agencies we
visited had to design their own procedures and forms. The refer-
ral document itself was not a major problem, because most of the
local agencies used a simple form for teachers to complete. The
major concern was the perceived paperwork burden after referral.
PAGENO="0483"
477
As we continued to track the progress of implementation through
1978, the complaints of school personnel over the paperwork began
to lessen, possibly because of greater familiarity with the paper-
work process or because of greater concern over other issues.
Concerning the question of whether Federal, State, or local
requirements were considered the major source of the paperwork pro-
blem, the answer in most of the locations we visited was clearly
the Federal requirements. Most States did not have significant
paperwork requirements related to identifying, evaluating, and
serving handicapped children through IEPs before Public Law 94-142
went into effect. We found few instances where the State or local
agencies added any paperwork requirements beyond those imposed by
the Federal law and regulations.
Question
You note that 59 percent of all SEA special education per-
sonnel were federally funded. Do you have any data on the per-
centage of Federal support of noninstructional special education
personnel at the local level?
Answer
Data available in seven States at the time of our fieldwork
showed that an average of 59 percent of all SEA special education
personnel were federally funded. In three States--Mississippi,
New Hampshire, and Washington--Federal support was 80 percent or
greater. However, we did not obtain data on the sources of funding
for personnel at the local level.
Question
"You note in your report that you did not routinely talk with
parents and children during your investigations. However, when you
did discuss the law with parents and children, how would you assess
their position on the law and on the implementation of the law?~'
Answer
We did not visit parents at home or have prearranged meetings
with them. However, on a few occasions we talked with parents who
happened to be visiting local agency offices and schools when we
were there. We also attended, as observers, several IEP meetings.
Our overall impression from these contacts was that parents were
pleased with and grateful for the special education assistance
their children were receiving and with the attention that parents
were getting. Few, if any, negative concerns were expressed by
the parents with whom we talked. However, because the parents we
contacted at the schools either were working at the schools as
volunteers or were introduced to us by school personnel, their
views may not be representative of all parents affected by the
program.
2
PAGENO="0484"
478
Question
According to your report, the greatest staff needs exist with
reference to noninstructional staff (speech therapists, psycholo-
gists, etc.) rather than teaching staff. However, witnesses at
previous hearings have indicated that there is a shortage of both
special education teachers and regular education teachers trained
to meet the needs of handicapped children. In your investigations,
did LEA officials comment on the need for inservice training of
existing personnel?'
Answer
In 1977 about 40 States and territories submitted data which
indicated that their LEAs were expected to need an average of 30
percent more staff in fiscal year 1979 than they had in fiscal year
1977. This consisted of an estimated 56 percent increase in non-
instructional staff and a 12 percent increase in teaching staff.
During our fieldwork, many local education agency officials
commented to us on the need for both additional staff and training
of existing personnel, especially regular classroom teachers. With
more and more handicapped children being mainstreamed into regular
classrooms for much of their education, local agencies were finding
that many regular classroom teachers were not prepared to handle
their responsibilities. This recognition was also coming from State
and local education associations (teacher unions) and from the
teachers themselves. Therefore, most school districts we visited
had begun or were developing inservice training programs, partic-
ularly for non-special education staff.
COMMENTS ON THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S TESTIMONY
We offer the following comments on the Assistant Secretary's
discussion (beginning on page 2 of his prepared statement) of the
percentage of children being served as handicapped. The Assistant
Secretary said that the growth year by year in special education
enrollment, plus reports that there still are school children whose
disabilities have not been appropriately identified, leads the agency
to believe that its historic estimates of the prevalence of educa-
tionally disabling conditions are still~ reasonable.
As discussed in our testimony, controversy has been created
because State counts of children being served have fallen substan-
tially short of the original estimate that 12 percent of the Nation's
school-age population is handicapped. State counts have averaged
about 7.5 percent of the school-age population for the past several
years and stood at 7.9 percent in December 1978. Computerized data
obtained from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services dated July 21, 1980, showed that the most recent State
counts of handicapped children (December 1979) averaged 8.25
percent of school-age population.
3
PAGENO="0485"
479
In his testimony, the Assistant Secretai~y presented data
showing the percentage of handicapped children in school enroll
ment, as opposed to total school-age population. Therefore, the
percentage cited by the Assistant Secretary--9.5 percent--was
higher than the 8.25 percent computed by relating the number of
handicapped children to total school-age population.
We are not aware of any previous instance in which the Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services used enrollment
data as the base for calculating the percentage of handicapped
children. In all past calculations that we are aware of, including
the historic 12 percent estimate and data presented in the agency's
annual report to the Congress in January 1979, school-age popula-
tion was the base figure. Even in past calculations, the percent-
ages were inflated because the childcounts, which included children
in ages 3 to 21, were related to the school-age population (age 5
to 17).
In commenting on the draft report on our review, the Depart-
ment of Education defended its use of the 12-percent estimate by
pointing out that some States had counts of over 10 percent. The
enrollment-based data in the table presented in the Assistant
Secretary's testimony shows that 20 States and jurisdictions had
counts of over 10 percent. However, relating the Assistant
Secretary's figures on children served to school-age population
instead of enrollment results in nine States with counts of over
10 percent (see enclosure).
One final note: If enrollment data are considered to be better
than school-age population data for calculating the percentage of
handicapped children, and if such percentages are to be related to
the historic estimate, the historic estimate should be adjusted.
The 12-percent estimate was based on school-age population. If it
had been based on enrollment data, it would have been about 14
percentS
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these matters and
trust that the information is responsive to your needs.
Sincerely yours,
G~'J~'(At'rt
Direct r
Enclosure
4
PAGENO="0486"
480
ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE
COMPARISON_OF PROPORTIO F CHILDREN
SERVED AS H1~NDICAPPED BASED ON PERCENT OF
ENROLLMENT VS. PERCENT OF SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION
Percent of
Children Percent of school-age
served enrollment population
State (note a) (note a) (note b)
Alabama 72,378 9.43 8.44
Alaska 10,242 11.56 9.85
Arizona 48,303 9.49 9.10
Arkansas 45,027 9.94 9.31
California 355,533 8.78 7.60
Colorado 47,228 8.58 8.11
Connecticut 62,551 10.90 9.35
Delaware 14,434 13.87 11.09
District of
Columbia 5,217 4.91 3.85
Florida 136,963 9.10 8.24
Georgia 101,847 9.46 8.62
Hawaii 11,382 6. 75 5.69
Idaho 18,066 8.91 c/8.91
Illinois 250,463 12.82 10.00
Indiana 98,818 9.12 8.03
Iowa 58,969 10.75 9.17
Kansas 38,733 9.16 7.89
Kentucky 67,087 9.91 8.55
Louisiana 85,640 10.59 8.84
Maine 24,307 10.67 9.82
Maryland 93,763 12.06 10.07
Massachusetts 141,869 13.53 11.42
Michigan 155,365 8.35 7.22
Minnesota 82,346 10.58 9.03
Mississippi 42,430 8.80 7.11
Missouri 98,134 11.24 9.42
Montana 12,781 7.91 7.15
Nebraska 30,386 10.58 8.86
Nevada 11,207 7.59 7.56
New Hampshire 12,627 7.38 6.40
New Jersey 149,578 11.61 9.32
New Mexico 20,479 7.43 6.88
New York 218,587 7.41 5.76
North Carolina 114,894 9.99 9.24
North Dakota 9,776 8.. 26. 6.60
Ohio 201,352 9.94 8.33
Oklahoma 60,997 10.45 10.02
PAGENO="0487"
481
ENCLOS URE ENCLOS URE
Percent of
Children Percent of school-age
served enrollment population
State (note a) (note a) (note b)
Oregon 44,145 9.45 8.64
Pennsylvania 190,244 9.66 7.68
Rhode Island 16,071 10.43 7.97
South Carolina 71,466 11.44 10.43
South Dakota 9,850 7.42 6.33
Tennessee 93,004 10.74 9.72
Texas 267,612 9.31 9.00
Utah 36,127 10.85 c/11.l9
Vermont 12,424 12.45 11.14
Virginia 91,051 8.83 8.09
Washington 54,049 7.07 6.62
West Virginia 33,964 8.74 8.46
Wisconsin 65,611 7.65 6.17
Wyoming 9,873 10.34 c/1O.48
Territory
Puerto Rico 21,035 2.87 c/3.05
American Samoa 167 2.09 - 1.19
Guam 1,790 5.49 4.59
Northern Marianas 58 - 1.12
Trust Territories 1,742 - 4.37
Virgin Islands 1,318 5.20 5.15
Bureau of Indian
Affairs 4,839 11.05
U.S. and
territories 4,036,219 9.54 8.25
a/Source of data for these two columns--Table I of Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services' Testimony
before the Subcommittee on Handicapped, Senate Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, September 10, 1980.
b/Source of data for this column--Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services' Computer printout dated July 21,
1980, entitled "Report of Handicapped Children Receiving
Special Education and Related Services as Reported by State
Agencies Under P.L. 94-142 and P.L. 89-313, School Year
1979-1980."
c/We did not obtain and analyze the school-age population and
enrollment data used as the bases for the percentages and
do not know why enrollments in these four jurisdictions
were equal to or greater than school-age population.
2
PAGENO="0488"
482
5CH0
~Ei0
~ ~) Cs September 4, 1980
OSEPHM.CRONIN UN
The Honoraole Jennings Randolph Chairman
~ Subcommittee on the Handicapped -
United States Senate .. -
WILSON C RILES Washington 0. C. 20510 -~s
C,I~ ~
THOMASC SCHMIDT Dear Senator Randolph:
In March 1980, Thomas C. Schmidt, then Rhode Island Commissioner
RALPH D.TIJRLINGTON of Education, testified before your subcommittee on behalf of the
~ Council of Chief State School Officers regarding implementation of
P. L. 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. At
that time the Council a Board of Directors had authorized the
~IP~bI~ ~ appointment of a 15-state task force to discuss P. L. 94-142 admin-
istrative implementation issues and make recoumendations. Those
WILLIAMF.PIERCE issues are: the state plan approval process; OSE (Office of Special
Education)/OCR (Office of Civil Rights) relationship to state educ-
ation agencies; consistency of standards and criteria to meet P. L.
94-142 requirements; and; supervision of interagency responsibilities.
Commissioner Schmidt agreed to inform the Subcommittee about the
results of the task force activity. Enclosed is the final policy
statement as approved by the Council's Board of Directors on August 22,
1980. We would appreciate your including this statement in the hearing
record of September 10, 1980.
The Council looks forward to working with the Department of Educ-
ation and with the Congress in the months ahead to resolve these
questions so that handicapped youngsters can be served efficiently
and effectively. If you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
ohn F Martin
Director
Federal-State Relations
JFM:jlh
Enclosure
COUNCIL. OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFiCERS
379 HaIl of he Stales. 450 North Capitol Street. NW.. Washington, D.C. 2RCOO ~ 2R21R24-7702
PAGENO="0489"
483
Polky Statenaent
Implementing RL.94 -142
State-Federal Administrative Questions
regarding
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
Council of Chief
5tate fjchool Off icer~j
PAGENO="0490"
484
Introduction
In November 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act became law. The basic guarantee of that law, that every
handicapped child has a fundamental right to receive a free appropriate
public education, was hailed throughout the nation as a milestone in the
development of programs for handicaDped Americans. At that time, state and
local school administrators, board members, teachers, and parents joined
together in the efforts to fulfill the promise of P. L. 94~142. That
commitment to full service remains as strong today as it was in 1975.
Members of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the
organization representing the superintendents and commissioners of educ-
ation in the fifty states and six extra-state jurisdictions, remain united
in their support for P. L. 94-142. Since passage of this law, state educ-
ation officials have been in the forefront of efforts to eliminate educ-
ational discrimination against handicapped children and to provide those
children with quality special education programs.
Chief state school officers are responsible for the administration of
education programs serving the needs of all children and youth in their
states. Special education is an integral part of our commitment to develop
and improve public education programs for all children. State education
officials agree that despite difficulties which have arisen during the first
few years of implementation, P. L. 94-142 has led to an increased commitment
of our schools to serving handicapped children.
The goal of this position statement is to seek clarity in the adniin-
istration and implementation of P. L. 94-142 mandates in order to meet the
PAGENO="0491"
485
needs of handicapped children more effectively. Accordingly, the recom-
mendations are aimed at identifying desired policy outcomes. While several
alternatives, including legislation, for achieving each of these outcomes is
possible, the Council believes administrative solutions can be developed
for most of the problems we have identified. We have identified those areas
in which legislative change may need to be made.
This position statement, as well as the activities of members of the
Council on special education issues, reflects a desire to create and continue
a balanced partnership and dialogue between the federal government and the
states in the interpretation and the procedures for implementing P. L. 94-142.
If states and local education agencies are to do their job of insuring a free
appropriate public education for all handicapped children, the federal
government must be consistent in providing leadership and assistance
across states.
The recommendations presented in this paper focus on four broad admin-
istrative issues affecting state-level implementation of P. L. 94-142.
Differences in interpretation exist in: the state plan anproval process;
OSE (Office of Special Education)/OCR (Office of civil Rights) relationship
to state education agencies; consistency of standards and criteria to meet
P. L. 94-142 requirements; and, supervision of interagency responsibilities.
Background
On February 8, 1980, representatives of several states with concerns
about the implementation of P. L. 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped
Children Act, and CCSSO staff met in Dallas, Texas. The purpose of the
meeting was to determine whether common problems existed among states, and
PAGENO="0492"
486
-3-
to develop a strategy for resolving any such problems. The four broad issue
areas listed above emerged in the discussion as topics needing specific
attention. As a result of the discussions in Dallas, the Council's Board
of Directors asked President Anne Campbell, Nebraska Commissioner of Educ-
ation, to appoint a task force which would develop a position paper and
make specific recommendations for solving these P. L. 94-142 administrative
problems.
Representatives from 15 states (Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Idaho,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado) met with Council
staff and invited participants from the Education Commission of the States,
the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (now the Office of Special
Education (OSE)) and the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education in Chicago on April 28, 29 and 30. The task force, chaired by
California, discussed specific problems within each of the four issue areas
previously identified and developed recommendations in each area.
I. PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
The Program Plan each state is required to submit under P. L. 94-142
is central to the successful administration of the law. The approved plan
includes the policies and procedures that each state will use in providing
special education and related services to its handicapped children. States
have experienced two major problems regarding the state plan: 1) an un-
certainty as to the purpose of the plan, and 2) the need for an established
and timely process for approval. The absence of clarity on these two points
has hindered the effective and efficient delivery of services to handicapped
PAGENO="0493"
487
-4-
children in the various states.
A. State Plan Not Local Compliance Document
The primary issue regarding the plan is the need to define more clearly
its purpose. It is the Council's position that a state plan is a statement
of commitment to provide education to all handicapped children as well as
an assurance of compliance with the provisions of P. L. 94-142. It is a
statement of processes and procedures to be used in accomplishing those
goals. The state plan should not be viewed as a vehicle for substantiating
current year compliance. Neither should a new plan be held by OSE pending
resolution of local district complaints.
States are committed to resolve complaints in a timely manner, and to
comply with P. L. 94-142. However, a separate and distinct process should
exist to resolve local district complaints. Separate processes would avoid
delays in plan approval for subsequent fiscal years because of a current year
unresolved complaint.
Therefore, the Council advocates that approval of the program plan be
limited to P. L. 94-142 state-level compliance. Local district complaints
should be resolved through procedures outlined in the state plan as approved
by OSE. Approval of future plans should not be subject to the resolution
of pending investigations. Furthermore, OSE should demonstrate that a com-
pliance issue is statewide before withholding any state's allocation.
B. Need for a Timely Plan Approva1~
The second major issue identified regarding the state plan is the need
for a clearly established and timely process for approval. States have
PAGENO="0494"
488
-5-
experienced a variety of problems with the plan approval process. The
reasons for problems and delays include:
1) the need for a clear process and procedures for approval of
state plans;
2) the need for criteria for approval; these criteria should not
be changed or revised during the approval process;
3) the need for consistency in technical assistance from state
plan officers and other OSE staff both within a state and
among states; and,
4) the need for a specified period within which OSE must either
approve or disapprove a state plan.
Members of the Council agree that problems existing between federal
and state levels parallel the problems existing between the state and local
levels. States recognize and expect differences in the plans submitted by
their local education agencies. Similarly, OSE should expect differences
from state to state. In the plan approval process there is a need for
flexibility in the product, but there must be consistency in the process.
The plan, which assures the delivery of services to handicapped children,
must be negotiated and approved in an orderly, public and timely manner
if states are to guarantee these services.
C. Recommendations
Therefore, the Council recommends that:
* OSE establish and disseminate a plan approval process which clearly
identifies the various stages of approval and what role, if any, various
groups and other agencies have in that process:
1. Prior to formal submission of a state plan, the state and OSE
should continue to carry out the technical assistance/negotiation process
as long as necessary;
PAGENO="0495"
489
-6-
2. OSE should formally notify each state that its plan has been
received. The formal submission date for a state plan is indicated by a
letter of intent from the state to OSE accompanying the plan.
3. Within 60 calendar days of formal submission of a state plan,
the Secretary must either approve or disapprove the plan. If the Secretary
does not act within 60 days, the plan will be assumed to be approved. A
state should be notified of an intent to disapprove its plan within a
reasonable time period prior to the end of the 60 day period.
4. Should an SEA submit major changes in its plan prior to
approval and within the 60 days, then either the state or OSE may begin
another 60 day period.
5. At the end of the 60 days, if both the SEA and OSE agree, a
30 day extension may be added to the 60 day period.
6. If a state appeals disapproval by the Secretary of its plan,
the Secretary must review the appeal and make her. decision within 30 days.
* Approval of future plans should not be subject to the resolution
of pending complaint investigations.
* The plan approval process established by OSE should apply to
amendments to the 1980 Three Year Plan.
* OSE should address the need for consistency of information and
technical assistance received from state plan officers and other 058 staff
members.
II. OSE/OCR RELATIONSHIP TO STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES
The issue of the OSE/OCR (Office of Civil Rights) relationship .to
state agencies arises from overlapping responsibilities among the various
PAGENO="0496"
490
-7-
federal agencies in complaint investigation and resolution, policy and
procedure setting, and enforcement of P. L. 94-142 and Section 504 of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Duplication of effort between OCR and OSE
has resulted in confusion for children and parents, and excessive amounts
of time being taken to resolve complaints; such situations may seriously
impair a child's educational program. Chief state school officers are
committed to the speedy and fair resolution of complaints. The Council
believes that there should be a single process which affords a complaint
resolution in a timely manner and which clearly delineates the roles,
responsibilities and procedures of both federal and state agencies as they
monitor and enforce the requirements of P. L. 94-142 and Section 504.
This issue can be divided into three major problem areas: 1) OSE/OCR in-
consistencies with respect to a single issue; 2) Section 504/P. L. 94-142
inconsistencies; and 3) complaint investigation inefficiencies.
A. OCR/OSE Inconsistencies
First, several states have received inconsistent interpretations of the
P. L. 94-142 and Section 504 mandates from OSE and OCR, especially with
respect to questions concerning the provision of related services. OSE and
OCR conflict in their definition of related vs. medical services as required
under P. L. 94-142 or Section 504, as well as the responsibility of the
local education agency (LEA) to provide those services.
B. P. L. 94-142 Plans Meet Section 504 Requirements
Second, although the regulations implementing Section 504 indicate
that meeting the requirements of P. L. 94-142 is one way to comply with the
education portion of the Section 504 mandate, several states have been
PAGENO="0497"
491
-8-
required by OCR to alter procedures or services which have been previously
approved by OSE in the state's P. L. 94-142 plan. Policy interpretations
which are developed by OSE should be accepted by OCR, as stated in Section
504 regulations. States and local education agencies only can develop and
implement programs of special education services when the responsible federal
agencies agree on the acceptability of these programs. OCR should adhere
to its guidelines by acknowledging in practice that compliance with the
provisions of P. L. 94-142 is adequate to meet the more general Section 504
mandate.
C. Complaint Investigation and Resolution
A third problem area, complaint investigation and resolution, falls
into two categories: 1) simultaneous investigation of a complaint by one
or more federal agencies and/or the SEA, and 2) the interruption of a state's
complaint resolution process and, more seriously,, the reversal by OCR of a
state fair hearing decision regarding a complaint which has been investigated
by the state using its approved process and procedures.
Simultaneous investigations may occur as the result of a complaint
filed under Section 504 with OCR, and with the state education agency under
P. L. .94-142. The Council recoguizes that by law OCR's jurisdiction does
not rest upon prior exhaustion of state remedies; it is a complaint system
to which a parent of a child can turn without regard to state procedures.
However, we believe that state remedies should be exhausted first to avoid
confusion and duplication of effort. In the event that simultaneous inves-
tigations are carried out, OCR should notify the SEA of its activities and
provide specific information to the SEA regarding the complaint. For
68-332 0 - 81 - 32
PAGENO="0498"
492
-9-
example, in several states OCR has gone directly to the LEA in a complaint
investigation without notifying the state that an investigation has been
initiated.
Similarly, federal agencies may duplicate one another's investigations,
as when both OSE and OCR investigate the same complaint. In one state, OSE
and OCR are both investigating the move of one of the residential schools
from one site to another. That state, as a result, has had to provide
excessive hours of staff time and two separate sets of documentation to the
federal agencies, with no assurance that each agency will reach the same
conclusion. This duplication of effort has caused uncertainty in the place-
ment of the children and has proved burdensome for both parents and local
education agencies.
A second category of complaint confusion which has created problems
for states involves the interruption of a state's complaint resolution
process and/or the reversal of fair hearing decisions by a federal agency.
Some states report that OCR regional offices have overruled state decisions
without conducting hearings of their own or reviewing appropriate documents.
States are responsible, under the approved plan, for the investigation and
resolution of complaints filed under P. L. 94-142. Under the law, approved
state plans provide for procedures, including local hearings and other
mechanisms, for complaint resolution. Procedures are also provided for un-
resolved complaints to be appealed first to the state superintendent or
commissioner, and eventually to the courts. If OCR or OSE interrupts or
reverses any part of this process, problems inevitably arise. The Council
believes that the occurance of a series of administrative remedies as a
result of the reversal of a state fair hearing decision at the local, state
and federal levels is counterproductive and delays implementation of an
PAGENO="0499"
493
-10-
appropriate program for the child. For example, P. L. 94-142 provides
that if a parent or parent surrogate appeals to the courts on an un-
resolved state-level decision, the child remains in the current placement.
However, if the parent or surrogate files a complaint with OCR and does
not also appeal to the court, there is a question regarding the child's
appropriate placement. The role of federal agencies should be to ensure
that local and state education agencies are affording individuals the
rights to which they are entitled and that the procedures outlined in the
state plan are being carried out.
The Council is encouraged by the success of the pilot projects conducted
in at least two states to address this problem. One person in the Education
Department regional office negotiates with OCR on all complaints. Other
states have met directly with OCR and have negotiated a process which channels
all OCR complaints through the SEA. These two procedures are working well
and the states involved have experienced few problems with duplication of
the investigation process. However, there should be a consistent process
for all states.
D. Recommendations
The problems described in this section are natural outgrowths of the
complicated relationship between OCR and OSE and their responsibilities to
monitor the implementation of their respective mandates. Section 504 and
P. L. 94-142 are aimed at ensuring the rights of the same population.
While the Council encourages OCR and OSE to cooperate and coordinate their
activities to avoid duplication of effort, our members believe that a
clearer delineation of the roles and authority of these two agencies must
PAGENO="0500"
494
-11-.
be achieved. The Council proposes a series of recommendations, which
taken as a whole, will address the issue of agency responsibility and alleviate
the problems associated with this issue.
Therefore, the Council recommends that:
* Responsibilities and boundaries be clearly defined for OSE and
OCR as they relate to the enforcement of P. L. 94-142 and Section 504 in
the following areas:
-- complaint investigation and resolution
-- policy and procedure setting
-- compliance monitoring activities
* Responsibility for investigating complaints as they relate to
P. L. 94-142 be assigned to a single agency in order to eliminate dupli-
cation in the investigation process. The Council suggests that OSE be
responsible for the development of policies and procedures for P. L. 94-142,
and that OCR be limited to the investigation of individual complaints.
* The standards against which a complaint is investigated be the
state plan as approved by OSE.
* OCR should not be able to overturn a P. L. 94-142 state fair
hearing decision; doing so would provide a second administrative remedy
for the same complaint, when the courts should be the forum for resolution.
Further, OCR should not be able to interrupt state complaint resolution
processes.
* OCR establish a systematic process for complaint investigation and
PAGENO="0501"
495
-12-
disseminate that process to the states. The process should include
official notification to states upon the initiation of a complaint in-
vestigation by OCR, and procedures for ensuring non-duplication of
investigation.
* If OSE finds a state to be in compliance with the law, either by
virtue of an approved state policy or procedure in the state plan or through
formal complaint investigation, OCR should not be able to overturn that
decision.
* There be established in OSE and OCR, or in the Undersecretary's
office, one cross-cutting unit held accountable for coordinated efforts.
III. CONSISTENCY OF STANDARDS AND CRITERIA TO MEET P. L. 94-142 REQUIREMENTS
A. Need for Consistent Policy Interpretations
The development of consistent policy relating to P. L. 94-142 can
eliminate much of the confusion which now exists concerning state and local
responsibilities. States have experienced conflicting policy interpretations
from OSE regarding standards and criteria for implementing specific require-
ments of P. L. 94-142, including related services, due process procedures,
and other issues. The inconsistencies have surfaced via the plan approval
process and program administrative review (PAR) visits. States have reported
that policies and procedures which have been approved by OSE in one year's
state plan are questioned in the next year's plan. In addition, the issues
raised by OSE regarding policies and procedures in the state plan are fre-
quently different from the issues examined during the PAR visit. Finally,
it has been noted that the lack of a standard policy interpretation procedure
has, in some instances, given the appearance of less than a fair, open and
PAGENO="0502"
496
-13--
timely process. The issue of timeliness is especially important; policy
decisions must reach final resolution within a reasonable period of time.
B. Need to Respect Individual Character of States
In endeavoring to establish a policy process, the federal government
must recognize that there are differences among states, and that the
specific ways in which states implement P. L. 94-142 will vary. States
and federal officials agree on the goal of providing a free appropriate
public education of every handicapped child. Broad policy questions about
implementing P. L. 94-142 should be addressed at the Federal level; the means
and the methods states use to implement these policies should be determined
by each state and must be allowed to be different. Education is a
state responsibility and each state has established an educational system
which responds to its unique needs. Differences in policies and procedures
for implementing P. L. 94-142 are to be expected. Therefore, when policy
interpretations are made by OSE regarding state policies and procedures, the
diversity among states must be respected. In addition, the federal government
cannot make policy decisions without considering and understanding the
responsibilities of local education agencies. While responsibility for
education rests with the state, the principal functional responsibility
for the quality and content of education, in most states, has been delegated
to local school boards. Just as states must respect local control and
maintain state intervention at the minimum, so must the federal government
be careful not to encroach on both state and local responsibilities in its
implementation of P. L. 94-142. This is particularly critical in policy
interpretation.
PAGENO="0503"
497
-14-
C. Types of Policy Questions
The Council is suggesting that the initial step for OSE when responding
to a request for policy interpretation should be to determine the scope and
nature of the specific issue. At least four types of policy issues can be
recognized; the characteristics of these types follow:
1. Policy Questions of National Scope
National policy interpretations are those which relate to policies
which have a similar and extensive impact upon all states; for example, most
policies concerning child identification requirements. The recognizable
characteristics of such national policy questions include:
--that they are broad, universal, necessary for all states;
--that the policy and the way it is applied must be the same
across states.
2. Interpretations Which Apply to Specific State Situations
Situation specific policy interpretations differ from national
interpretations in that they are framed in response to the particular cir-
cumstances of a state or one of its educational units. For example, the
funding system in one state may be fundamentally different from the funding
system in another; therefore, a response to a policy question regarding
what is allowed under P. L. 94-142 might be different for each state because
the funding system is different. Further, the standards set in each state's
plan as approved by OSE may differ. Since each state is evaluated against
the standards established in the state plan, each policy decision based on
this plan will be state-specific and not of national impact. The require-
ments of particular state plans, legal frameworks of individual states, and
PAGENO="0504"
498
-15-
other factors must all be taken into account. Such policy interpre-
tations would apply only to a specific context.
Certain interpretations might be written to be effective for
designated time periods. For example, a state might propose a three-year,
good faith solution to a problem requiring extensive staff training in
that state.
The critical distinction between a national policy interpretation
and a situation specific policy is that the latter does not set a national
precedent.
3. Policy Questions Which Must be Decided by State
Some policy questions, even if they have reached USE through
complaints, the media, or other means should be decided by the state. An
example of a policy interpretation that should be left to the states to
formulate would be the certification requirements for special education
personnel. The characteristics by which such questions may be recognized
include:
--statute and regulations charge the state with implementing
the issue in question
--situation is unique to one state and interpretation by
USE would interfere with state responsibility
4. Policy Questions Which Cannot Readily be Resolved
Finally, there are policy issues or questions which USE cannot
address. This may be the case when the intent of a specific statute or
regulation is ambiguous, or when the law or regulations are silent. In
such cases, amendment of the statute may be recommended by USE because
PAGENO="0505"
499
-16-
there is no basis for a policy decision. This situation also arises when
the law prohibits an interpretation which is desired by special education
experts. For example, OSE and the states may agree that the "diagnostic-
placement process' is a good educational practice, but the law explicitly
prohibits such a process. The recognizable characteristics of these
include:
--statute or regulations are ambiguous and therefore, prevent
policy interpretations
--a specific interpretation is desired but cannot be made
because regulations or law prohibit such interpretation.
D. Recommendations
Presently, OSE needs a mechanism for policy decision-siaking. Also
needed is a system to define policy questions in terms of scope and nature.
The overall procedure needs to be timely and include administrative due
process steps such as informal negotiation, public debate, and impartial
appeal. The Council suggests that the first step in the process be notif-
ication to all states that a policy interpretation is being considered on a
specific issue. Then, OSE should decide into which of the four categories
the policy decision belongs. States should be invited to participate fully
in the policy interpretation process. Prompt distribution of responses to
all states should be ensured. This ongoing dissemination could be in the
foris of updates to a standard policy manual.
The Council recommends that:
. OSE develop a process and procedures to be used for policy
resolution, using the four types of situations into which issues needing
interpretation must fall. The process should include a standard time line
PAGENO="0506"
500
-17-
for state implementation of such policies, and administrative due process.
. A plan for policy resolution and dissemination should be in place
18 months prior to the due date of the 1983 plan.
IV. SUPERVISION OF INTERAGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
A. SEA Supervisory Responsibilities Are Difficult to Implement
Section 612 (6) of P. L. 94-142 states:
"The State education agency shall be responsible for assuring
that the requirements of this part are carried out and that all
educational programs for handicapped children within the State
including all such programs administered by any other State or local
agency, will be under the general supervision of the persons respons-
ible for educational programs for handicapped children in the State
education agency and shall meet education standards of the State
educational agency."
The provision requires that programs serving handicapped children administered
by other state agencies be under the supervision of the SEA, meet state
educational standards, and be monitored by the SEA to insure compliance
with P. L. 94-142. In addition, state agencies providing related services
as specified in the IEP are to be supervised by the SEA.
The Council supports the intent of this provision, which is to ensure
that the rights of handicapped children are protected by assigning the
responsibility of overseeing the delivery of special education and
related services as specified in the childs' individual program to one
state agency. Discharging this responsibility has been difficult for SEAs
because, for the most part, they have no authority in state or federal law
to carry out the mandate or to meet the intent.
The vehicle which is most widely used for complying with these pro-
visions is an interagency agreement. It is jointly developed between
respective state agencies concerning state education agency standards and
PAGENO="0507"
501
-18-
delineates responsibilities for each of the agencies in the delivery of
services to handicapped children. The goal of interagency agreements is
to provide a coordinated system of services to handicapped children among all
service providers.
The major reasons for difficulty in implementing these provisions are
the fragmentation of state and federal laws, inconsistent interpretation
of existing law and regulations, unclear definition of single agency respons-
ibility and the lack of incentives and shared commitment. These constraints
severely affect the coordination of existing services for handicapped children
and the degree of SEA control over the delivery of appropriate education
and related services provided by public agencies within a state.
B. State and Federal Laws are Fragmented
The problem or conflict of fragmented state and federal legislation
exists on two levels. First, some states have a statutory or constitutional
prohibition against development of interagency agreements. The second level,
however, concerns inconsistencies in the federal statutes governing the
delivery of services to handicapped children. For example, under Medicaid,
parents are required to pay a proportionate amount for services based on
their income, while P. L. 94-142 mandates that a free and appropriate public
education be provided at no charge to the parent. In addition, services for
children are being included in the IEP which normally are the responsibility
of other state agencies, as provided in the various human services laws.
When these services are included in the IEP however, they ultimately become
the responsibility of the SEA under P. L. 94-142. The issue is whose dollar
is spent first and which agency is responsible for providing the services.
Other federal laws and regulations affecting the delivery of services to
PAGENO="0508"
502
-19-
handicapped children by other state agencies must be examined to determine
if those laws, regulations, and policies are consistent with P. L. 94-142.
If P. L. 94-142 is to be implemented effectively and the SEA is to co-
ordinate services for handicapped children, then federal laws and regulations
governing the delivery of those services cannot conflict with one another.
C. Existing Laws and Regulations are Interpreted Inconsistently
The problem of inconsistent interpretations of existing laws and
regulations is related to the problem of conflicting federal statutes. The
major interpretation issue, again, is in the area of related services and
whether or not an SEA should, or can be responsible for the delivery of those
services. For instance, the difference between medical services and
educational services is not clear. The question is, are the services necessary
for a child to benefit from special education? For example, one state has
reported that a child having a cleft palate was unable to take advantage of
speech therapy as included in his IEP until corrective surgery was performed.
A OSE official informed the SEA that P. L. 94-142 funds must pay for that
surgery because it was necessary for the child to benefit from special educ-
ation. Chief state school officers agree that services must be provided and
that the SEA should coordinate educational services for handicapped children.
Experience dictates however, that SEAs cannot deliver services for which
other agencies are normally responsible. The Council believes that the
delivery of services to handicapped children is a state responsibility,
and not the sole responsibility of the SEA. Therefore, responsibility must
be assigned to agencies which have the knowledge and expertise in providing
those services. Federal legislation governing other human service agencies
must be expanded beyond the requirements, such as income eligibility, which
limit the scope of services.
PAGENO="0509"
503
-20-
D. Other State Agencies Lack Incentives to Cooperate
Other limitations experienced by SEAs include the lack of incentives
for other state agencies to enter into and honor interagency agreements.
Federal dollars to those agencies continue to flow regardless of their
commitment to an interagency agreement of their compliance with P. L. 94-142.
Without incentives and no mandate for responsibility, there is no shared
commitment by other agencies toward a coordinated system of services for
handicapped children.
E. Recommendations 1
The delineation of interagency responsibilities is perhaps the most
complex of the four areas addressed. State education agencies need continued
and stronger support from the federal government in establishing and defining
responsibilities among agencies providing services to handicapped children.
Such support will assist SEAs in their efforts to carry out the mandates of
P. L. 94-142.
Therefore, the Council recommends that:
* The Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services sort out
the responsibilities of the various Federal agencies and provide a mechanism
which holds those agencies accountable for the provision and maintenance of
those services for which they have normally been responsible. Federal
interagency agreements among all agencies funding state level programs
serving handicapped children should be developed, publicized and made
clear to all states. This federal interagency agreement should be initiated
and monitored by the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Re-
häbilitative Services. These agreements would state that all federal funds
earmarked for the education of handicapped children and related services
PAGENO="0510"
504
-21-
not be released to any state agency until the SEA assures that either:
1) it has the statutory authority to supervise these programs, or,
2) a state levé1~ interagency agreement exists authorizing the SEA
to supervise these programs.
For instance, if this recommendation were adopted, handicapped children in
institutions under the jurisdiction of a state agency other than the SEA
would recieve educational services which had been supervised and approved
by the SEA. Federal funds would not be released to the institution unless
the SEA were given the authority to monitor the delivery of these services.
* OSE, in cooperation with states, develop and promote model inter-
agency agreements.
* The Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services require
the Governor's office to monitor the provision of human services as provided
by other state agencies. The SEA will continue to identify and coordinate
all related services; however, the monitoring of other agencies by the SEA
creates dysfunctional conflicts among state agencies.
* The Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services examine
other human services legislation such as Titles IX and XX of the Social
Security Act, Section 504 the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, and the medicaid
legislation to determine whether those laws, regulations and policies are
consistent with P. L. 94-142, and ensure that they are made to be consistent.
In addition, legislation may need to be developed which would define more
clearly habilitation, treatment, maintenance, etc., and which would assign
specific related services, such as physical and occupational therapy,
residential treatment, and mental health, to specific agencies.
PAGENO="0511"
505
-22-
V. CONCLUSION
The Council of Chief State School Officers has attempted to identify
some of the P. L. 94-142 administrative problems which are common to most
states. We have discovered that many of the concerns are the result of
confusion or misunderstanding a~ut the role and responsibilities of federal,
state and local governments in the national effort to guarantee equal educ-
ational opportunity to handicapped children. Much of this confusion can be
eliminated by the development of clear and consistent procedures for admin-
istering P. L. 94-142 at the federal level.
In each of the four broad issue areas addressed -- state plan approval
process, OSE/OCR relationship to SEAs, consistency of standards and criteria
to meet P. L. 94-142 requirements, and supervision of interagency respons-
ibilities -- the Council has concentrated on recommending a uniform process
to resolve problems across all states. A uniform and consistent process for
administering P. L. 94-142 will ensure that differences in policy interper-
tations or product among states are the result of flexibility and accom-
modation rather than substantive alteration of goals.
We believe, however, that these problems must be resolved through what-
ever means necessary: administrative procedures, regulation, policy state-
ment or legislative changes in both P. L. 94-142 and other human services
and education legislation. Our enthusiasm and support for the goals of
P. L. 94-142 remains strong. We have made excellent progress over the past
five years in increasing the availability and improving the quality of
special education services. We recognize, however, that, because the system
is imperfect, much work remains to be done. Therefore, chief state school
officers are eager to cooperate with the Secretary of Education in developing
solutions to these P. L. 94-142 implementation problems. We are confident
that the expectations of handicapped youngsters and their parents can be
realized if we work together to develop efficient and effective adminis-
trative procedures at the federal level for this program.
PAGENO="0512"
506
It. )O$C~~% P rg'\QA45
$01 ~ ~% ~ (2021 529 3515
SEP 2 5 ~
September 5, 1980
The Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman Subcommittee on the Handicapped
lOB Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
Oversight Hearinga: P.L. 94-142
I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of the
institute's philosophical and pragmatic concerns regarding the implemen-
tation of P.L. 94-142. The Kennedy Institute has been serving children
and adults with developmental disabilities for over 20 years. Our concerns
reflect ongoing problems experienced by staff, parents, and students in
the tn-state area we serve.
First, the interpretation of the term "least restrictive environment"
continues to present difficulties in all aspects of program development
and student placement. The least restrictive environment is consistently
defined as the regular classroom, a facility-oriented, rather than student-
centered, definition, which seems to grow out of fiscal, rather than service,
concerns.
We feel strongly that the least restrictive environment should be
defined as that setting which best supports the total educational needs
of the individual. The evaluation criteria should be, first, the instruc-
tional needs of the student, and, second, the environmental tolerance of
the child. Always, the goal is education in the maximally normative setting
which best enhances the potential of the child with handicapping conditions.
Secondly, comprehensive development of state plans at least in the
District of Columbia, does not include sufficient participation from the
private sector. The state advisory council is under-utilized and other
forums for exchange are basically nonexistent. As a result, there is
sporadic program development instead of a well-planned continuum of services.
Moreover, the relationship between the State Education Agency and Local
Education Agency, and the private providers, is strained by the lack of
cooperative service planning.
Thirdly, although program monitoring processes have improved consid-
erably, the abIlity of the evaluations to effect change in service delivery
differs greatly between the public and private sectors. The private schools'
dependency on tuition grant funding motivates them to maintain quality levels
of instruction and to correct deficiencies. Unfortunately, there doesn't
seem to be a similarly effective device to insure the.compliance of public
school local and state programs. While parent groups continue to be the
PAGENO="0513"
507
primary force behind programmatic and policy improvement in the public
sector, their effectiveness varies according to the political and economic
receptivity of the school boards. Financially strapped school systems
continually explain inadequate and inappropriate programs as the result
of fiscal constraints-even in the face of repeated litigative efforts.
Although our overriding concern is fpr the quality of services available
to the child with handicapping conditions, a contingent concern is for the
future of the many successful private programs in the community. It is
imperative that the states and local education agencies develop free mmcl
appropriate options for children with special needs; but it is likewise
important that the service continuum developed reflect the varied environ-
mental and instructional needs of the students. The private program can
often be the most economical and least restrictive setting for a child,
and should therefore be an integral part of the planning process and the
service delivery system.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you mm4
your Committee.
~chelaPerronHD!
Executive Dire tor
68-332 0 - 81 - 33
PAGENO="0514"
508
SUPERVISORY IJNIO _____
~-02~ii39S273 09/29/RI ICS IP)~.HT!Z CS? WSHB
B02228~771 l~H TDMT LUDLOW VT 166 oq.2R 0117? EST
C
SENATOR ROBFRT T STAFFORD
WASHINGTON DC 20510
0
0
O REFERENCE PUBLIC LAW 9~1iJ2
PLEASE CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS FOR A LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT WHEN IT COMES TO IMPLEMENTING THIS LAW OVER THE NEXT ~P!W.
(- YEARS, WE HAVE AND APPRECIATE THE MANDATE AND HAVE EXHIBITED A ST!0N5
LOCAL COMMITMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SAME, STILL,, FUNDING IS A
CRITICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS
C STATED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT WE THINK THAT A `MAINTENANCE O!'!FFO~7~'.
PROVISION RATHER THAN THE CURRENT NON.SUPPLANTING OF PARTICULAR~C0$?S
PROVISION WOULD INSURE THAT FEDERAL FUNDS ARE NOT USEDTO RE~L,ACE
C. LOCAL AND STATE EFFORT. FURTHER, THE PRESENT UNCERTAINTY AND
IRREGULAR FUNDING PATTERNS ARE ALSO VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE LOCAL,
SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE IN BOTH THE BUDGET SENSE AND ALSO. THE :FACT
c THAT IT MAKES SERIOUS INCURSIONS INTO THE FISCAL RESOURCES OFYHE,
COMMUNITY, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR THOUGHTFUL UNDERSTANDING OF
OUR DILEMMA.
C RUTLAND WINDSOR SUPERVISORY UNION HOUGHTON D PEARL SUpERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS
1146 MAIN ST
( LUDLOW VT o51~9
13116 EST
C
- MGMCOMP MGM
C.
C
C
)
C
- 68-332 i?28
TO REPLY BY MAILORAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNIONS TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
PAGENO="0515"
509
WINDHAM CENTRAL SUPERVISORY UNION
BROOKLINE * DOVER * JAMAICA * MARLBORO * LELAND & CRAY V.1-IS. #34
NEWFANE * STRATTON * TOWNSHEND * WARDSBORO * WINDHAM * WINHALL
P. 0. Box 186
NEWFANE, VERMONT 05345
Phone: 802-365-7651
SUPERINTENDENT ASST SUPERINTENDENT
THOMAS E. LEWIS CHARLES P. MEMOE
25 September 1980
Senator Robert Stafford
Dirkson Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, *D. `C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
I am writing in regards to P.L. 94-142 and its ramifications
on the small rural towns which `comprise the Windham Central Super-
visory Union in Southeast Vermont.
There is no question that P.L. 94-142 was a very needed piece
of legislation and certainly a milestone in public education. All
of my School Board Members (total 42) are very supportive of the
cause/effects of the legislation and I feel' have done an outstand-
ing job in supporting the ideals and intentions included in D.L.
94-142.
There' is concern. on my part and also various local School
Board Members that State and Federal financial assistance will not
continue so that local school districts can meet the~mandates of
the law. The financial burden could be so great that the intent
of P.L. 94-142 could be lost within the financial problems.
It seems that local districts will be expected to carry more
and more of the costs which could become a lion's part of their
school budget. Because of the rural nature of this area, trans-
portation of special needs students attending special classes has
become extremely expensive and one that the local district must
shoulder (all or part).
The purpose of this letter is to express a concern that the -
Congress appropriate sufficient funds through the State Departments
of Education to help the small school districts meet all the
demands and expectations.
Thomas~E. Lewis
Superintendent
PAGENO="0516"
510
MONTPELIER PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
58 East State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Office of
Superintendentol Schoots
September 24, 1980
Senator Robert T. Stafford
Dirkson Senate Office Building
Room 5219 .
Washington, D.C. 20510 . .
Re: P.L. .94-142
Dear Senator `Stafford:
* May I first commend you on your diligent work in recent years. on.
behalf of all Handicapped (lildren. The `statutes, . plus the related regulations,
have certainly caused a greater. realization on the part of the. public in
general that equality of opportunity never really existed in our public
educational system.
Now that we are well .on our way to making some real progress,
I would like to point out two areas that as a field practitioner I feel should
be addressed:
#1. The_issue of `!Non-supplanting" of funds should be looked
*at very carefully. In ou~ -experience with Title I programs
we have .found the "Maintenance of Effort" requirement much
more realistic in practice. For instance, when funding
adjustments are made `at the `State level, a given local program
aimed `at assisting the handicapped is subject to revision or
reduction under .the "non-supplanting" regulation, as flow.
through funds cannot be used in place of these lost, funds
due to possible past funding practices on the local level.
On the other hand, if )`Maintenance of Effbrt" regulations
are utilized to keep afunding base under these programs
more flexibility is given the local school district in terms
of meeting the financial requirements no matter. what adjust-
ments are made .along the line~ Also, and probably more
important, we are beginning to hear legislative noises
regarding the fact that if Federal .94-142 funds are -
increased State support can be -reduced by a like amount.
Why riot place a State "Maintenance of Effort" regulation. -
in the law to prevent state legislators from~ even cOntemplating
the possibility of reducing State support below, a `previous
year's level?
This, plus .the same yearly effort .requirement on. the local level
would certainly go a long way in attempting to stabilize the
funding packages.
And #2. Federal Funding. I have been a party. to a couple of `State
level meetings. of late dealing with P .L. 94-142 implementation
along with Sec. 504. The same `story grinds on the Feds make
PAGENO="0517"
511
Senator Robert T. *Stafford -2- September24, 1980
the rules, then under-fund the implementation. The State can't.
exceed `its allotted funds but must enforce the rules - so who
gets `it in the neck but the local district which also has a
limited budget.
This particular Superintendent of Schools would certainly like to
implement all phases of the laws regarding the.Handicapped as
I believe they are right and jUst but Until such time as Congress
keeps `its word on funding from the Federal level there is a practical
limit to what we can possibly do with State and Local resources.
We are still a long way. from the 40%. of a nationwide average per
pupil cost as Federal support. When~
C rlesB. Jo on
Superintenden )of Schools
CBJ/mbg
cc. Dr. Marc Hull - State Department of Education
PAGENO="0518"
512
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
ADDISON NORTHEAST BRISTOL -MONKTON
SUPERViSORY UNION DISTRICT NEW HAVEN - LINCOLN
BRISTOL. VERMONT 0N443
Senteirber 23, 1980
Honorable Robert T. Stafford
The Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford,
Would you please enter the following reiasrks regarding special education
P .L. 94-142 into the Congressional Record.
P.L. 94-142 is a noble effort for a noble cause but it, like oust federal
legislation, has created discord arrong educators and heap upon heap of paper-
s~ork as well as regulation uoon regulation that confuse not clarify. We
not only have those problems to contend with but we have the hypocrisy of
the U.S. Governmant and the failure to fund even to the levels promised
which is ireager indeed. I will elaborate on each of the problems.
1. My special education coordinator, my secretary, her secretary, nimerous
special educators and I have spent the better part of a week gathering infor-
mation, writing verifying staterrents, checking locks on files and recording
the information on a four page cbcrxrent. in preparation for a federal audit
visit on ~iday of this week. We have previously provided the information
to federal offices in Boston, Washington, D.C. and state offices in
l43ntpelier. What is fascinating is that there is no question or query in
the docurent about service delivered to students.
2. The non-supplanting clause requires us to hiie personnel we do not need
in order to keep the funds provided to us. I suggest funds be given
to the local governrrents to spend on special education as they see fit.
3. The federal goverrount has exempted itself from the provision of this
law in their own scheols. Federal and state legislators both vote
whatever funds they care to, no matter how short it may be from their
obligations. Federal regulations call for service at the expense of the
local goverrrrrents with rio provision for deviation.
In sisrmary, may I use this story that illustrates my frustrations when deal-
ing with the federal government.
PAGENO="0519"
513
Senator Robert T. Stafford
Septeither 23, 1980
Page 2
"A few years ago a little boy wrote a letter to God. Eventually it
found its way to the post office, and the postal authorities brought
it to the attention of the Postmaster General, Edsard Day. The letter
said that since his father died his nother was having a hard tima making
ends unet and ~iouldn' t the Lord see fit to send his nother one hundred
thllars to help out? The Postmaster General and his staff was so iroved
that together they got up fifty dollars and mailed it to the little boy's
nDther. ~ veeks later another letter arrived from the little boy.
t~ar Cod, thank you so much for all you have done, but wa need another
one hundred dollars. If you don't mind, when you send it to ~iarna, please
don' t route it through Washington because the last tima they deducted
50 percent..
Yours truly,
Keith L. Hall
Superintendent of Schools
KLH/m
cc: Senator Jennings Randolph
file
PAGENO="0520"
514
BARRE TOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT
Superintendent's Office
RD. No.2, BARRE, VERMONT 05641
802-476-7422
RAYMOND .1. PROULX
Septembet 25, 1980
The Honorable Robert T. Stafford
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Sir:
The following expressed concertis are ~n regard to P.L. 94'-l42 Bhd ate respect-
fully submitted to you for congressional record as submitted by the Barre Town,
Vermont School District.
Public Law 94-142 has been a landmatk piece Of legislatiOn causing long over-
needed appropriate education for youth with special needs. AlthoUgh Bäny ~Ohool
districts have Special Education programs, Public LBw 94-142 has created a well~
planned and methodical process whereby local districts improved upOn or created
appropriate curriculum for the special education youth. When 94-142 was first
enacted, it carried with it a promise from the federal government that the neces-
sary appropriations would be coming forth to adequately assist local muniBipalitieB
in paying for these expensive educational programs. Local school districts such as
Barre Town made very definite financial plans based On the escalating sequence as
indicated by the federal government. Much to Our disBay, these funds have not come
through as originally indicated and have thus created a financial butden at the
local level. In addition to the financial burden, the fact that the federBi apprO-
priations have not come forth as promised has creBted a tremendous credibility gap
between the local school officials, general citizenry and the federal government;
It appears to us that the federal appropriations must come to the local districts
as promised in order to resolve the financial burden of the local property tax-
payers and to regain the confidence needed by and between local, state ahd federal
government.
The Barre Town School District also feels that the nonsupplanting concept of
94-142 `is unequitable to local school districts especially for those who are already
providing advanced Special Education services to its youth. It would appear that
local school districts such as Barre Town would continue to provide appropriate edu-
cation to the special needs' youngsters and would have greater flexibility in ful-
filling these obligations if a maintenance of effort clause were to take the place
of the concept of nonsupplanting.
The Barre Town School District respectfully requests that the members of the
United States Congress cause the necessary appropriations to fulfill the Original
promises and to make the necessary changes to incorporate the maintenance of effort
clause rather than the nonsupplanting.
Thank you for your time and continued representation.
Sin rely,
Raymond J. Proulx
Superintendent of Schools
RJP/mvb
PAGENO="0521"
515
~BURY IAYSTON MORETOWN UNION H. S. DISTRICT 19 WAITSFIELD WARREN WATERBURY
WASHINGTON WEST SUPERVISORY UNION
MORETOWN, VERMONT 05660
WILLIAM A. LINCOLN 8S2/244-H77 802/495-2272 WALTER BARBER
September 22, 1980
Senator Robert T. Stafford
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
I would appreciate it if some of my thoughts on PL 94-142
could be entered in the Congressional Record.
1. The intent of the law, in my opinion, is laudable. The
impact it will have on students with learning handicaps
should change the quality of many lives and, in the long
run, save on welfare costs.
2. The legislation, as written, seems to include between
12% and 15% of the population and the regulations
would support that range of percentages.
3. The funds we were assured (40% of the average cost
per pupil for each child served) have not been forth-
coming. In fact, the funding level is stalled at 12%.
4. Despite the commendable nature of the legislation,
we will not be able to serve the 12% to 15% of the
population unless and until the Congress accepts res-
ponsibility for providing funds at the 40% level.
5. It would seem that Congress has bitten off more than
we, out here in the field, can chew and more than
Congress itself is willing to chew.
~liam~L~ncoln
Superintendent of Schools
Washington West Supervisory Union
WAL/k
PAGENO="0522"
516
ADDISON - RUTLAND SUPERVISORY UNION
FAIR HAVEN, VERMONT 05743
Off HA PEe,.: 265-4905
STANLEY C. FAVYN:ARZ A~.CsHA: 802 BENSON
p HUBBAHOTON
SpANA EdeAe,Ce,AAHe WEST HAVEN
September 22, 1980
Honorable Robert T. Stafford
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
I am taking this opportunity to express concerns about Public Law 94-142.
Three points are particularly worth noting.
First, school districts had hoped that funds for the handicapped would be
much greater than they have actually been to date, although I realize 94-142 was
basically a civil rights law.
Secondly, such funding should stress state/local "maintenance of effort", and
not the issue of "supplanting". That is, districts should be able to fund items
formerly funded with State/local monies as long as the total amount of State/local
monies spent on the handicapped is not diminished!
Lastly, if Congress could make one change that would lead to greater efficiency
in the administration of FL 94-142, 1 submit that the change should be to require
only annual or bi-annual "request for fund" repoi?ts. The requirement for quarterly
reports for all Federal grants (EHA-B, Title I, Title IV, etc.) is a gross waste of
taxpayers' funds and school districts' time!
I ask that my remarks be entered in the Congressional Record.
Sincerely, /
- 4.
Raymond J. Pentkowski
Assistant Superin6endent
RJP: dw
PAGENO="0523"
517
~EP29 I~Ij
ORA~*~G~ SOUTHWPST SUP2RVISORY
0 DCI PIt V RVO T
-~
tcT1~tt~2 ~
The ~
21~ September 1980
Senator Jennings Randolph
Jlrksen Senate Cffice Rids.
Room 5219
WashIngton, D.C. 20510
Oear Senator Randolph:
I received a ~ to5a~ om Dr. Marc Hull of the Vermont
Special Education Department I dicating that we may express
concerns about P L. 9L~~i~2 and have then entered into the
Consreesionai Re crd.
I have parsons l~- mrofesslonally been involved in
the field of speclal education for over fourteen years. I
feel that we have made great mrogress for our special children
and that overall parents are very pleased. I support the
federal law and feel that most of it is very appropriate and
heirs the states and local school dlstricts incarrytng out
the intent and spirit of the law. However, I feel strongly
that the federal governnent has not made the financial
commitment that was ortsinaliy proposed. I understand that
the funding level this fiscal year is around l2~ compared to
the proposed 30~ In excess costs. We are receiving around
3170 per child this veer which doesn't go very far.
The other area of commItment both financially and
throush the spirit cf the resulations has to be regarding
cr~chool special reeds children and students with emotlonal
Innairments. In three stotes that I have served remardins
sp~cIa1 educetion, more finencial commitment needs to be
In these two areas. I am. new to Vermont; however, I can see
the need to pick up special reeds children early and we have
very little locally both in monIes and in programming in order
to meet these needs, We seen to have less when it comes to
students with severe emotionally needs.
Overall, and in closing, I feel that all of us are
committed to these students and only hope that as the years
unfold we continue to meet the challenge.
Sincerely,
Stephen N. Kinney
SPED Coordinator
cc Dr. Hull
Mr. Twiss
PAGENO="0524"
Orleans-Essex North Supervisory Union
Adminsfratiue Office
DerbyConrer, Vermont 05829
September 29, 1980
Robert T. Stafford
Dirkson Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford,
I would like to have the following corrments entered
into the Congressional Record with regards to FL 94-142.
PL 94-142 makes the school responsible for many
areas which have not been traditionally school
responsibilities, ie: providing family counselling
services, providing health services, providing some
kinds of psychological services, providing physical
and occupational therapy. With the passage of the
law those agencies that were responsible in the past
have withdrawn their services as they interpret the
law to be that the school has the responsibility.
If this was the intent of Congress, then it is very
disturbing that they have not provided funding that
would adequately provide for the services. It is
impossible for local school districts to absorb the
cost of all of these services. It could be as
much as $25,000.00 for one student.
If the school is to provide social services for
everyone, then legislation must be passed enabling
the school to direct present agencies to provide
certain services. It would further seem appropriate
that there must be some way of determining parent,
guardian or state responsibility for the child.
~
NRN/pr
518
Telephone:
7662251
766-2252
334-8090
- Jebr Bñgl~e
Eliob,th C. Boc~d
Sepoirt,cdert: Beord C. Feb,oh
Beth Ceesy Uci~~ Hi5h Sdool
S~poioerdot: WOod S. MoBid,
5~peoi,eo Coly B. Hykes
isBIt
Nosyt City
we,ytietd
cc: Norman Lewis
PAGENO="0525"
519
WINDHAM SOUTHEAST SUPERVISORY UNION
SPECIAL SERVICES CENTER
96 Green Street
w Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
s 802-254-9661
Special Education
E Learning Disabilities
S Speech/Language
U Title 1
September 29, 1980
Senator Robert T. Stafford
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 5219
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oversight Hearing
P.L. 94-142
Dear Senator Stafford:
I would like the following comments to be entered in the
Congressional Record.
I wish to express concern about two issues regarding the ongoing
implementation of P.L. 94-142. The first issue applies to the Related
Service section; 121a 13; specifically Item #2, Counseling Services.
If the government interpretation of such services continues, it will
force the public schools to intensify these services and the L.E.A.
will find itself in one of the following situations:
a) competing with local mental health agencies and/or private
mental health professionals;
b) needing a considerable increase of federal and state monies;
c) being allowed to receive third party payment for these services.
A similar situation applies to the related service of #5, Occupational
Therapy, and #7, Physical Therapy.
The second issue is concerned with the regulation of `non-supplant-
ing. Although this is dealt with more at a state level, the financial
ramifications resulting in loss of vital services to handicapped students
are felt keenly at the local educational agency level. It appears to
be caused by the lack of flexibility which arises from the procedures
of non-supplanting. This is particularly difficult for us to accept as
the state and local effort is being maintained and generally increasing.
It has been suggested that "maintenance of effort" wOuld be a fairer
provision.
Thank you for seeking information about our concerns and this school
district would urge your careful consideration of these important
aspects of P.L. 94-142.
Sincerely,
arbara Rocray
Dir. of Special Services
BR:pb
cc - James Cusick, Supt.
Marc Hull, Ph.D., Vermont Dept.
of Education
PAGENO="0526"
520
NATIONAL ASSOCiATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, INC.
1425 H St., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-6800
Testimony of
Helen Tyler, ACSW
:: ~ ~
!nr'~flfl~
hu ~ on behalf of
NASW COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WORK SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS
before the
Senate Subcommittee on Education for the Handicapped
on the subject of
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(P.L. 94-142)
United States Senate
PAGENO="0527"
521
SENATE OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON P.L. 94-142
I am writing on behalf of the 82,000 professional members of the
National Associatibn of Social Workers to put on record our statement
of continuing support .of and continuing concern about implementation
of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
The challenge of P.L. 94-142 lies in its attempt to bring together
four service systems on behalf of handicapped children in this country.
Currently, public education represents this country's only mandated
univarsal service system, under which education must be provided at
no cost to the family. But, in addition, P.L. 94-142 mandates pro-
vision of related services. This is a significant statement in that
it recognizes that the cognitive growth of children cannot be isolated
from their social and emotional growth., nor can health needs be
ignored.
Specifically, NASH recommends the following:
1. That P.L. 94-142 be reathorized substantially intact.
At a time when the law is to be amended; we recommend
that social work services, which are identified and
defined under the regulations, be added to the text
of the law itself.
2. We recommend that the Congress make every effort to
close the gap between appropriation and authorization
levels for the law.
PAGENO="0528"
522
-2-
3. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Services should require state and local education
agencies to employ personnel skilled in facilitating
collaboration between schools, families, and community
agencies.
Current thinking in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-
tion Services is placing heavy emphasis on the writing and implementation
of interagency agreements as the best method for facilitating delivery
of related services as specified in 94-142. As professional social
workers, whose practice is based on the interaction of the individual
with his/her environment, we are keenly aware of the professional skill,
that needs to be exercised at all levels, of government, in order to
promote meaningful implementation of such written agreements. As a
professional association whose members are employed in education, health,
mental health, and social service settings, we are in a unique position
to offer our knowledge and skill in the writing of interagency agreements
and in facilitating delivery of special education and related services
to children.
NASW's Standards for Social Work Services in Schools (copy
attached) state that the goals, objectives, and tasks of a school
social work program shall be clearly and directly related to the pur-
poses of the school, the educational process, and the use of Educational
opportunities by pupils. An identified task of school social workers
based in the schools, is that of consultation, collaboration, and
planning with community representatives to provide a full range of
services to children.
PAGENO="0529"
523
-3-
As a way of sharing with you the complexity of the interrelation-
ship not only of education, health, mental health, and social services
but of the challenge of communication and coordination needed to deliver
appropriate social services to children in a given setting, I am in-
corporating a portion of a report1 prepared by representatives of the
public schools and a ~ariety of community based services in Minneapolis
_These include county court services child protection services and
child ~elfare services They concluded that there was little or no
..:duplication of social services between school and community, that in fact
the school based services, in having access to the total range of
children in the community were in a position to facilitate the work
of the community based service. I quote from their report.
An Ad Hoc School-Agency Committee could serve this purpose (of
legislative intent that networking occur), coming together upon
invitation by the School District as needed to review previous
positions and/or to consider new issues.
The metro area social service community is vast and complex.
The Committee endorsed the current representation of the
Ad Hoc School-Agency Committee as being essential to discuss
the issues raised, but did recommend the inclusion of repre-
sentatives from mental health centers for future efforts.
A data collection system should be implemented that could
document the magnitude of community social services being
delivered to students and their families. Data collected
should include not only documentation of direct service but
parent education groups, classroom projects, community educa-
tion programs, and the like. Data currently collected by
the School Social Work Program reveals only a small amount
of the service that is actually being delivered by community
agencies.
The increase of mandated educational programs that draw for
implementation on the services of the school social worker
dramatically increases the necessity for schools to utilize
community social services whenever and wherever they are
available. The school social workers' role as a referral
agency may be significantly highlighted in the 80's.
68-332 0 - 81 - 3~
PAGENO="0530"
524
School social workers have a responsibility to educate
legislators, congressmen, and the public on the differences
between school social work and social services offered by
community resources. The public needs to understand that
these two services supplement and compliment one another
and do not nor should not duplicate one another.
As a professional association, we believe that the public
schools must assume a part of the responsibility for provision of
related services under P.L. 94-142. To assign this total responsibility
to other community agencies is to deny the complexity of intersystem
interaction in this country.
1School/Community Agency Position Statement, Minneapolis
Public Schools, School Social Work Program, 1979.
HT:MF:db
9/17/80
PAGENO="0531"
525
600 9th Ave. # 601
Seattle, Wn. 98104
November 12, 1980
Senator Jennings Randolph
United States ~nate
Subcommittee on the Handicapped
4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Randolph:
TESTIMONY FOR THE HEARING RECORD ON PL 94~l42
We feel strongly there is a need for the establishment of special programs
for our 12-16 year old children who are deaf; programs designed to establish
and maintain a feeling of self worth. These programs to be included in the
school curriculum and extended throughout the summer months when school is
not in session.
Research and subsequent reports have shown that between the ages of 12-16,
our deaf children are rejecting their hearing aids, not wanting us to sign
to them in public, wanting to be with their deaf peers ~ and are trying
desperately to achieve some feeling of self importance, and awareness of
their individuality. /
It is further documented that the residential schools for the deaf offer
our chidren an opportunity to interact with their peers in an after school
setting and are therefore better adjusted sociologically. The public school
system offer no programs in this area in special education and the residential
State School for the Deaf in Vancouver Washington offers no summer programs
at all.
Special programs for our 12-16 year old children who are deaf, need to
be considered and therefore we feel should be included as a subject for
testimony on the upcoming hearings on PL 94-142.
Your inclusion of these concerns in terms of testimony for the hearings on
PL 94-142 would be gratefully appreciated and warmly received,
Ms. Nozelle Sims
V.I.P.S.-Vancouver Involved Parents Group/Seattle
PAGENO="0532"
526
* COLCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT
~OLCHESTER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MALLETTS BAY AVENUE
* COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446
TEL. 802/655.1772 Francis V. Murphy
September 29, 1980 Director Special Education
Senator Robert T. Stafford
Dirksen Senate Office Building Date i~-~--~ -~
Room 5219 ~
Washington, D. 0. 20510 "~~"- CI~
The ~ic~ica~ncd
Dear Senator Stafford:
First, let me express'my gratitude to you for the oppor-
tunity to voice my concerns regarding P.1. 94-l~2. In every
way possible I support the philosophical and, I believe, con-
stitutional statement which P.L. 9~-1k2 makes. Incumbent with
this must be the understanding that the more equal our society
becomes, the less freedom to a point is enjoyed. This is clearly
seen in the restrictiveness of the paperwork necessitated by P.L.
94-1k2. Nuch of what you will doubtless hear concerning P.L.
9~-l?+2 is that it is restrictive. As an administrator, I can
attest to this readily. However, were I given the choice be-
tween the State of Art which existed prior to P.L. 94-1k2 and
the present, I would easily choose the latter. I have little
patience with those who moan and groan just because there is
more paperwork or because it is necessary for LEA'S to allo-
cate funds for children they previously ignored. In the past,
special education at the local level was offered with an arro-
gant charitableness. Parents were made to accept what was
given.
Now the tide has turned; perhaps too much so, but it is
the Educational System by its lack of awareness, ignorance and
refusal to face certain facts boldly which planted the seed
which blossomed as P.L. 9k-l42.
As in any period of change, there is always a pendulum
effect, beginning with an over-reaction to the left but
eventually settling on a point of moderation. From an evolu-
tionary standpoint, P.L. 9k_l14.2 is now in a position of the
extreme.
Every responsibility conceivable is being abdicated by
parents, public agencies, insurance companies, etc. and is
being placed firmly on the school. This state of the art
must be changed. The direction, both 50k, but specifically
P.L. 94-lk2, has placed the school in is one of even esOala-.
* ting responsibility. The Dakota Letters sent out by the
PAGENO="0533"
527
September 29, 1980
Page two
Prudential Insurance Company which previously paid for physio
therapy and counseling, informed parents that coverage for
such services was now the responsibility of the LEA'S. While
P.L. 94-142 does not preclude third party payments, it does
not mandate the continuation of such payments by companies
currently providing it
The abrogation of responsibility does not end here.
Social Services Agencies also are beginning to develop policy
changes which place `responsibility for a child's attendance
in school" on the school .~ I submit to you that such policies.
are extreme, impossible to fully implement and not in the
best interest of the child.
It is my judgement that guidelines for Public Agencies
impacting on P.L. 94-142 should be as carefully constructed
as they are in regards to the LEA. The continuum of services
to which P.L. 94-142 speaks is a very limited radius, i.e.
school.. The regulations should be extended to involve all
necessary service deliverers.
Another point I wish to comment upon is the categorical
nature of the law. First of all, this is a contradiction of
current Educational Philosophy. In addition, it is a cumber-
some and inarticulate method for designation of service. It
is far easier to sight a student's educational needs than it
is to label him L.D. or M.R. Nental retardation, for example,
is a serious designation and proper identification is contin-
gent upon numerous variables; 1. adaptable behavior, 2. per-
formance, 3. educational assessment, and 4. thorough psycho-
logical testing.
This is a long and arduous process involving many man
hours and considerable expense. While I can concur with the
process; if placement within a clasa for the mentally retarded
is indicated, I cannot if the student can be mainstreamed with
part-time assistance in a Resource Room. It just isn't neces-
sary. All that is necessary in a mainstreamed situation isto
meet the student's needs. The sane argument is operative in
regard to S.L.D. Again, P.L. 94-142 is requiring labeling
for the sake of labeling. S.L.D. is a category of tremendous
variance again requiring extensive evaluation procedures.
This seems needless when regardless of whether the label
fits or not the child still requires help. In short, the
categorical nature of the law should be dropped and substi-
tuted with an emphasis on degree of difficulty.
PAGENO="0534"
528
September 29, 1980
Page two
The preceeding discussion contains my most profound
concerns. I hope my comments have been useful and will
assist you in your efforts.
Sincerely,
y~h~
Francis V. Nurphy ~
PAGENO="0535"
529
94-142 Report
TESTIMONY TO THE SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED,
OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Stanley Salett
The Result of a National Survey
On Parents' Experiences in Participating
In Individual Educational Plan Provisions of
PL 94-142
National Committee for Citizens in Education
410 Wilde Lake Village Green
Columbia, Maryland 21044
596-5300
October 1980
PAGENO="0536"
530
94-142 Report
TESTIMONY TO THE SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED,
OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Stanley Salett, Senior Associate of the National Committee for
Citizens in Education. -
The NCCE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated
to increasing parent/citizen involvement in the issues and policies
of our nation's public schools. We work with a network of over 325
parent/citizen groups which are active in public education at the
local and state level, and which represent 250,000 members. One
of the beliefs we share is that decisions affecting the lives of
children should be open to public scrutiny.
We have found that a growing body of research demonstrates
* that parental involvement in school activities has a positive effect
not only on school policies, but on student achievement as well.
Over a decade ago, for example, James Coleman made his now-famous
report to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which
showed, among other things, that student achievement is higher in
schools with active parent organizations.1 And a 1973 HEW study
1. James S. Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity
(U.S. Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare, Washington, DC, U.s.
Government Printing Office) 1966. See also Christopher Jencks,
"The Coleman Report and Conventional Wisdom," in Nosteller &
Noynihan (eds.) On Equality of Educational Opportunity, (NY,
Vintage) 1972.
PAGENO="0537"
531
2.
found that two key factors in academic success were students' and
parents' expectations, and the extent to which parEnts engaged in
activities supportive of these expectations.2
In addition, the recent report by the Carnegie Council on
Children, The Unexpected Minority: Handicapped Children in America3
argues strongly that parent involvement is critical as a corrective
to the devastating vulnerability of the handicapped child. In
his foreword, Kenneth Kenniston writes, "The greatest harm to the
handicapped child stems from the socially engendered inpairment
of daily life, self-concept, and future--not from functional
impairments themselves," (emphasis added).
A child with a disability is often treated as though there
is something medically wrong, from which he or she is supposed,
somehow, to recover. The child becomes a life-long patient, whose
entire family must submit to domination by professionals, and who
tbnse~uently is excluded from normal expectations. The child's
incapacity becomes an excuse for asserting professional expertise,
and, as the authors assert, "a more striking abuse of our culture's
concept of the expert cannot be imagined. In every handicap
speciality," the report continues, "it is essential that parent and
professional actively work together on the child's behalf."4
2~ Nayeské, George W., "A Study of the Attitude Toward Life of
our Nation s Students (Washington DC U S Department of
health, Education & Welfare) 1973.
3 John Glidzman and William Roth The Unexpected Minority Bandi
capped Children in America, (Harcourt-Brace, NY) 1980.
4. Ibid p. 145.
PAGENO="0538"
532
3.
Our own experience with parent/citizen groups also leads us
to conclude that it is indeed wise policy for the federal govern-
ment to encourage parent participation in public schools. We
strongly support the provisions in PL 94-142 requiring parent in-
volvement in the development of individual education plans (IEP's)
for their handicapped children, and protecting that right through
procedural safeguards and confidentiality requirements.
II. NCCE Study
Once PL 94-142 became effective, NCCE decided that independent
monitoring of the parent participation provisions was necessary.
Beginning in November 1978, together with a research team based at
Ohio State University and a coalition of more than 400 state and
local volunteer organizations, we conducted a survey to examine the
parent's role under the law and to answer such questions as
* Are affected parents aware of the law and their rights
under it?
* Have schools notified parents that their presence is
required at an IEP meeting?
* Has a meeting been held, and how were parents treated
atit?
* Are educators helpful? Are they listening to parents?
* Is the program resulting from the IEP meeting based on
what a child needs or on what the school system has to
offer?
* Do parents know they can appeal IEP's made for their child?
PAGENO="0539"
533
4.
Nearly 2,500 parents of children with various handicaps took
the time to complete and return our questionnaire. To our knowledge,
it is the only national survey focussed upon parent participation
in PL 94-142.
The next phase of our study was to examine the program
administrative reviews conducted by the Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped, now the Office of Special Education (OSE), in
each state. We identified IEP-related areas cited by OSE for
corrective action, to determine the extent of state compliance
with the law, and to assess the administrative burden and per-
formance of OSE.
This study was supported by the George Gund, Field, New
World, and Hearst Foundations. No federal funds were involved.
III. The Survey
First, I would like to discuss the findings of the parent!
citizen survey. If you have no objection, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to have entered into the record a copy of the questionnaire
and responses tabulated. Nearly 2,500 parents from 438 school
districts in 46 states (including West Virginia and Vermont) res-
ponded to the survey (see Attachment A).
Considering that PL 94-142 had, at the time of the survey,
been in effect only one school year, the IEP process seems to be
working basically quite well, although there is room for signifi~cant
improvement.
PAGENO="0540"
534
5.
* Nearly 60% of the parents report that an IEP meeting
was held within 30 days of their child's evaluation.
Only 6% report that a meeting was never held.
* Over 70% said that the information about their children's
evaluations was "fair and useful," that educators
presented the IEP "in understandable language," and
that there was an opportunity to ask questions.
* According to 83% of the parents, the meetings were well
attended; 77% said teachers were present, and 66% said
other "school representatives" attended. (Only 18% of
the parents, however, reported that their children were
present.)
* 707~ of the parents reported that the IEP's did contain
important basic information: annual goals, short-term
objectives, specific services to be provided, present
performance levels, and the dates that services were to
begin.
* 63% of the parents felt adequately informed about the
IEP and 70% felt that the IEP "seemed to fit" their
children's needs. Only 5% refused to approve the IEP's.
PAGENO="0541"
535
6.
I think these figures indicate that the idea of an individual
education plan for every handicapped child, drawn up in consultation
with the child's parents, has had success.5 Such a massive under-
taking has required an enormous amount of time, energy, and commit-
ment from everyone involved--teachers, administrators, and parents--
and it is indeed a tribute to the wisdom of the Congress, and of
this Subcommittee, which played such an important part in the legis-
lation, that it has worked so well.
On the other hand (there is always another hand--I think
it was President Truman who said that what he needed was a one-
handed advisor) there are some substantial problems.
* Parents are not participating as full partners in the
development of the IEP's.
-- a majority (527,) of the parents reported that the
IEP's were completed before the meeting.
-- nearly 30% reported that the IEP's do not contain
ways for parents to check their children's progress.
- - 30% reported that the IEP did not indicate how much
time the child would spend in a regular classroom
setting.
5. A few caveats should perhaps be noted. Because the survey was
not done by random-sample, there will be a bias, in that parents
* most likely to seek active participation in the IEP process
would also be the most likely to respond to a questionnaire.
A breakdown of respondents by geographical area, size of school
district, and sex, age, and handicap of children, however, does
correspond roughly to the population as a whole. Copies of the
data analysis are available upon request.
PAGENO="0542"
536
7.
- - 40% reported that no specific date was set for re-
viewing a child's progress, and one-third reported
that no mention was made of how, when, or by whom
a child's progress would be checked.
* Parents are not being prepared to participate in the
IEP process~. In fact, over half the school districts
covered in the survey do not have a program to prepare
parents.
* Information on how to appeal a contested evaluation or
IEP was not made available to nearly 46% of the parents
surveyed.
* And while the most basic requirements of the IEP have
been met, still a full 45% of the parents reporting felt
that the annual goals set in the IEP did not fully meet -
the educational needs of their children.
A further analysis of our data shows that the parents of
mildly handicapped children are generally more satisfied with IEP
procedures than are the parents of severely handicapped children.
Also, we found that smaller school districts (those serving fewer
than 5,000 children), as well as parochial schools and state-operated
programs, are having greater difficulty in meeting IEP requirements.
IV. Monitoring of State Performance
The major administrative responsibility for PL 94-142 lies
with the State Education Agencies (SEA's), which are required to
PAGENO="0543"
537
8.
assure that a free, appropriate public education is available to
all handicapped children between the ages of 5 to 18 (~ 612(2) (B)),
and that the Local Education Agencies (LEA's) have carried out
all the requirements of the law (~ 612(6)). To ensure that the
states have, in fact, met this responsibility, the Office of
Special Education (OSE) schedules Program Administrative Reviews
(PAR's) in each state approximately every other year.
For this portion of the study, our staff, together with
Policy Analysts from the Youth Policy Institute at the Robert F.
Kennedy Memorial, read all the PAR reports and charted the cor-
rective actions dealing directly with parent or public involvement.
If the Chair has no objection, I would like to have the charts
entered into the record.
Before I present our findings, I would like to make a few
probably tedious points about methodology and approach. Although
OSE is supposed to visit each state every two years, severe short-
ages of funds and personnel have forced delays and cancellations.
Consequently, most states have had only 1 PAR since the law be-
came effective three years ago.
* Arizona, Kentucky, and Massachusetts have not been
reviewed since 1977.
* Colorado, Delaware, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah
* and Washington had not, as of this spring, been reviewed
since the first half of 1978.
* Reviews scheduled for 11 states this year were cancelled:
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Delaware,
PAGENO="0544"
538
9.
Massachusetts, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, South Dakota,
Utah, and Washington.
The first PAR in a state is intended to determine whether
the state education agency can actually make reliable assurances
that the law is being fully implemented; that is, whether its
administrative apparatus is in working order, its state laws are
in accord with federal law, its policies are properly written, and
its directives have been adequately disseminated. It is largely
concerned with policies, procedures, and systems, rather than
actual operating conditions. Although several local school
districts are visited as a double-check, they were not identified
in the report.
The second PAR is conducted primarily through "site visits"
to local districts, regional centers for the handicapped, if they
exist, and state institutions. All the areas checked in the
first report are again checked, to determine the extent of local
(or agency) compliance and the effectiveness of the state monitoring
system. In the second report, the districts are identified and
the corrective actions cited for each one.
Even though a single format was used for each PAR series,
allowing standardized comparisons and monitoring of corrective
actions, the quality and depth.of the reviews varied enormously.
No matter what the size, complexity, or reputation of the state,
the visits lasted only 5 days, and only in rare cases did the
teams have more than 5 or 6 members. (Some of the most recent
PAGENO="0545"
539
10.
PAR's have entailed short advance visits and larger teams, a
needed improvement). Also, the cancellation of many second PAR's
makes comparison difficult. In some instances, PAR's conducted
before or just after the law was effective (10/1/77) have to be
compared with others completed 3 years later. -
I would like, therefore, to caution the Committee that our
data should be taken more as a measure of the technical assistance,
monitoring, and enforcement load of OSE than as a record of its
effectiveness. And similarly, that the charts represent more the
magnitude of problems with state compliance than an accurate picture
of their performance. In many states, corrective actions have been
taken, and full compliance, at least as far as there is an SEA
monitoring system capable of assuring implementation, has been
negotiated to OSE satisfaction. It is possible, therefore, for
many of the corrective actions charted to have been made by now;
and yet it is also possible that many LEA's are still not in full
compliance despite state assurances.
Now we get to the findings. In the areas we studied, which
were IEP procedures, content, and participation; procedural safe-
guards; and confidentiality of records, we found serious compliance
problems in at least one area in every state reviewed. (New Mexico
has declined to participate in PL 94-142).
* 47 states and the District of Columbia had corrective
actions cited for IEP procedures. (Massachusetts was
not cited because the PAR took place bef~re the law went
into effect; Pennsylvania also was not cited).
68-332 0 - 81 - 35
PAGENO="0546"
540
11.
* 48 states and the District of Columbia had to take
corrective actions to guarantee procedural safeguards
(Massachusetts again was excepted).
* 48 states and the District of Columbia had corrective
actions cited for procedures to protect the confidentiality
of school records (Vermont, the lone exception, was
praised for its adherence to the confidentiality re-
quirements).
For a more complete picture, see Chart I.
The major problems we identified in IEP procedures were
1. Assuring IEP's for all children in state agencies or private
schools (20 states were cited for violation).
2. Having the IEP in effect prior to providing services (18
states cited).
3. Rounding up the proper participants for the IEP meetings
(36 states, 25 cited for inadequate efforts to include parents).
4. Arranging timely notification and convenient meeting times for
parents, and keeping records of attempts to reach parents
(30 states cited).
5. Ensuring that basic IEP contents are complete (34 states cited).
The problems with procedural safeguar~~ lie primarily in:
1. Informing parents of their right, under prescribed circumstances,
to an independent evaluation, at no cost, to an impartial due
process hearing, and to an appeal (43 states cited).
PAGENO="0547"
541
12.
2. Giving prior written notice to parents about their child's
placement and obtaining their consent (40 states cited).
3. Adhering to proper hearing timelines (17 states cited).
4. Providing surrogate parents when needed (35 states cited).
Nearly every state (except Massachusetts) had to take
corrective action in at least one of these areas. Again, for a
more complete picture, see Charts I and II.
The third provision for parents' and children's rights that
we examined, confidentiality of school records, was also not well
enforced. School districts have been required since 1974 by the
Buckley Amendment (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to
implement a school records policy protecting the confidentiality
of a child's records and guaranteeing access to parents. The
only additional safeguard for handicapped children provided by
PL 94-142 is that parents may request that, once their educational
value has ended, any personally identifiable information in their
child's records be destroyed.
1. Most school districts lacked proper procedures to shield the
records from unauthorized access, and most failed also to keep
a record of who had obtained access (34 states cited).
2. In at least 30 states, parents were not informed of their right
to have records destroyed.
3. Lists of types and locations of records are not maintained in
many states (22 were specifically cited). (See Chart II).
PAGENO="0548"
542
13.
According to OSE staff, there is no real evidence that parents
are being deliberately denied the right to see their children's
records, but the PAR's clearly show a pervasive pattern of slop-
piness at the district level and inadequate direction from the
states. The re~,riew teams from OSE seemed also to assign confiden-
tiality a low priority, for the reviews of records procedures were
seldom thorough or precise. In two states where corrective actions
were cited during the first PAR, confidentiality was not mentioned
in the second, otherwise more thorough, report (DC and Virginia).
V. Conclusions
To those familiar with other reports on PL 94-142, and with
the voluminous testimony that this subcommittee has heard over the
past year, our findings will not come as a surprise. The Education
Advocates' Coalition Report last spring, for example, found that
many handicapped children had not received IEP's or that the IEP's
were "canned," (i.e., prepared before the IEP meeting, using
standardized language), that most states have no system for appointing
surrogate parents, and that inadequate notice of rights under the
law and unnecessary procedural hurdles are often used to discourage
parents from full participation.6 These problems were evident
both in our survey and in the PAR' s.
6. "Report by the Education Advocates' Coalition on Federal Com-
pliance Activities to Implement the Education for All Handi-
capped Children Act," (Children's Defense Fund, Washington,
DC) April 16, 1980.
PAGENO="0549"
543
14.
Many excellent recommendations were made in the Advocates'
report, in other reports, and in the testimony presented. We do
not intend to recapitulate or repeat them here, but we do have
some observations and further recommendations the Subcommittee
and others nay find useful.
In both legislation and regulation the law offers too little
guidance on parent participation. Other major federal education
programs devised to serve a specific category of children in need- -
Title I, ESEA, the Bilingual Education Act, the Emergency School
Aid Act, for example--recognized the importance of am independent
committee or council, composed of a majority of parents, to provide
help to other parents and to hold local officials accountable for
the use of federal funds. Despite the commendable avenues for
individual parent involvement required in 94-142, there is no mention
of local parent councils. It is our experience that when state and
local education agencies seek outside opinion, if they seek it at
all, they work only with a select set of people and often in a very
closed way.
Yet the Carnegie Council report concludes that "perhaps more
than anything else, it is essential that parents of handicapped
children organize themselves into self-help groups,"7 (emphasis
added). These can provide parents with alternative sources of
information and moral support, as well as the greater leverage
7. Glidzman & Roth, op. cit., p. 170
PAGENO="0550"
544
15.
against professionals and the school system so necessary to
counteract their children's vulnerability.
Accordingly, we would recommend that:
* Guidelines be written, or the regulations amended if
necessary, to permit use of local administrative funds
(up to 57~ of an LEA allocation) to support a parent ad-
visory group offering services such as
1. Providing basic information on PL 94-142 to all
parents of handicapped children in the local school
district, including information on how to appeal an
evaluation, an IEP, or a placemeut.
2. Reviewing the local school system's plan for implementing
PL 94-142 and holding public meetings on the plan.
3. Developing a roster of interested citizens and agencies,
including parent/citizen organizations, which can offer
services and should be informed of the group's activities.
4. Encouraging and assisting school personnel to conduct
a parent training program about the law, the IEP process,
and to answer questions parents may have.
5. Assisting school personnel in a training program for
teachers on how to work with parents on the IEP.
* OSE policy papers on IEP's should strongly recommend that
all IEP's contain specific items for parent involvement:
1. How to check the child's progress.
2. At-home activities that can reinforce the education
program.
PAGENO="0551"
54~
16.
3. Check-point intervals for parents to confer with
teachers and to revise and update the IEP. (Over
40% of the parents we surveyed stated that no date or
method for reviewing progress was specified.)
* OSE should also specifically require, in its policy
papers and through its monitoring system, that an IEP
may not be completed before the parent meeting, that a
completed copy be made available to parents a reasonable
time after the meeting, and that all parents be informed
at the meeting of their right to an appeal.
In light of the Carnegie Council report and the experience,
not only of advocacy groups but professionals in special education,
who strongly endorsed the parent involvement provisions in the
original legislation, the strongest possible parent participation
is necessary to the full success of this program. We feel that
these recommendations are within the intent of the law and could
be implemented easily and with minimal cost.
The remainder of our conclusions deal with the second part
of our study--the federal and state administration of PL 94-142,
specifically the parent involvement provisions. Given the magni-
tude of this law--the tremendous change in state and local policy
and practice it requires--and its status as a virtual civil rights
act, it is clear that the Office of Special Education is painfully
under-staffed and under-budgeted. The amount of funds OSE received
in fiscal year 1980 to administer the law--that is, its allocation
PAGENO="0552"
546
17.
for salaries and expenses--is .17% of its total program budget,
less than two-tenths of one percent ($1,875,000 to administer a
$1.1 billion program). The total salaries and expenses for the
Department of Education is 1.6% of its operating program budget,
or proportionately ten times higher ($238,638,000 to administer
$14.5 billion). The administrative budget for the Office of
Rehabilitative Services, in another sharp contrast, is 1% of its
total operation ($9,854,900 to administer $93l,319,000).8
The Division of Assistance to States, which is responsible
for policy development, technical assistance, and enforcement, not
only lacks adequate staff and funding, it has also been poorly
organized. A 1977 plan to establish three branches, one for each
function, was never approved. Consequently, since January 1978,
enforcement and technical assistance have both been lodged in the
Field Services Branch. The job to review all state plans, conduct
all PAR's (each state plus Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and
the Trust Territories, every two years), and monitor all corrective
actions, has fallen to a staff of sixteen professional staff and
three Section Chiefs.
It is generally agreed among advocacy groups9 and agency
staff that a review schedule of every two years is minimal,
8. FY 80 Estimate, Dept. of Education, "Mission Budget," in
Justification of Appropriation Estimates for Committees on
Appropriations, FY 81, pp. 99-110.
9. Education Advocates' Coalition, op. cit., pp. 11, 15, 20.
PAGENO="0553"
547
18.
especially considering the enormo~is problems pf compliance
documented here, and that the staffing level go do even that i~
skeletal. But compounding the problem is that there have been
several vacancies in the Field Services Branch over the past few
months that cannot be. filled because of the freeze on hiring.
This has meant that eleven PAR's had to be cancelled Vh~s year,
three in states that have not been reviewed since 1977,
There is also a larger question of the wisdom of assigning
both assistance and enforcement functions t~ a single official,
aside, of course, from the basic problem of oVerlo~d. In practice,
it seems to result in protracted negotiations, not just oyer the
PAR findings (while the average lapse between 5ite visit and final
report is 3½ months, for some states it is as long as 6 months,
and for two states a full year), but over the tirnelines for cor-
rective actions, too. In the eleven states where two PAR's had
been completed at the time of our study, nearly every one had the
same problems cited the second time as had required corrective
action in the first report,1° (See Chart III).
On September 29, as the final version of this testimony was
being written, OSE announced that a reorganization plan has finally
been approved. Compliance and technical assistance will be separate
10. The process of monitoring corrective actions at OSE is not
monitored clearly enough to study more systematically how
long it takes the states to meet their timelines.
PAGENO="0554"
548
19.
functions, each with its own branch chief and staff. Policy
development, the third branch, will remain separate. Dr. Ed
Sontag, the Acting Director of the Division of Assistance to
States, has assured us that compliance will be its top priority,
that thirty-one states will be visited this year, and that all
cancelled PAR's have been rescheduled.
A decision has also been made to increase~ Division staff
by ten professionals. The technical assistance branch (Field
Services) will have a Chief and 23 professionals (an increase of
four), and the new compliance branch will have a Chief and 11
professional staff.
Because we held a long series of meetings with the Division
staff while the reorganization plan was being designed, much of
the information contained in this report had a formative effect.
While we are delighted that the reorganization has been approved,
we do feel that the staffing level is still inadequate. If the
former staff of nineteenprofessionals could not meet its compliance
load, as this report clearly shows, the new compliance staff of
eleven professionals, even relieved of technical assistance res-
ponsibilities, is going to be hard-pressed.
It hardly seems fair to criticize OSE further, when it has
only just been given the means for self-improvement. The staff we
have worked with in preparing this report has been very competent,
cooperative, and self-critical. It is, in fact, the most highly
impressive and professional staff we have encountered in a govern-
ment agency. If the bureaucracy is bloated and inefficient, as
PAGENO="0555"
549.
20.
its critics allege, the evidence is not to be found at OSE; and we
wonder what the effect of the mandated reduction of 500 personnel
that was required for a separate Department of Education will be
on its performance.
Nevertheless, a few recommendations should be made here.
Now that OSE petitions for increased staff and reorganization have
been heard, I am confident that these measures will be considered:
* The schedule for PAR's should be changed and made more
flexible. States with serious compliance problems should
be visited more frequently than those with better records.
The length of the visit and the size of the team should
also be adjusted according to circumstance. Other recom-
mendations about better use of data, cooperation with the
Office of Civil Rights, and contents of the PAR's have
already been made by other groups, especially the Advocates'
Coalition, and we fully support them.
* A visible, regularly updated, and comprehensive system
of monitoring corrective actions is desperately needed.
Information, correspondence, and documentary materials
from each state now lie in folders and it is impossible
easily to determine its status on meeting timelines or
taking action.
* OSE needs, at minimum, to identify and disseminate -
"best practices" among the states. In some areas, such
as IEP manuals for parents or teachers, or examples of
PAGENO="0556"
550
21.
proper written notice, OSE should develop its own models
for recommended use. Many school districts are groping
in the dark and a system of trial and error is not only
harmful but unnecessary.
* OSE should be more sensitive to the needs of parents when
it develops materials for state and local officials. The
otherwise well-done recent policy paper on IEP's drafted
by the Division of Assistance to States (May 23, 1980),
for example, does not consider any of the items we recom-
mend above--assisting parent groups; revising IEP's to
èontain specific times for review, supportive at-home
activities, or ways to check a child's progress; dis-
couraging'cannedlEP's," informing parents of hearing
rights at the IEP meeting, and providing copies of IEP's--
all issues raised regularly by parent advocacy groups.
* OSE should also develop a compliance/monitoring agreement
with the FERPA office, similar to that worked out with OCR.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for
this opportunity to present our report and conclusions. We hope
it has been helpful in your oversight of PL 94-142.
PAGENO="0557"
tivvsr torte vvwr answer
Pteuse'(Jedh tour sits
tow w~
t4 A specific date wan set br
riemgnt~ dhtjdsprclrem'tmderihit
SEP. .`* `/Y,IYeI 4O~jb,Q
~5 The method of checking spy
ti~',progressinihe.IEP included:
toss `rr'woutdbecherked ~ Yes No~.t
`ns'hrn stss'oiildbechetked Yen .No3q~5'
hr `isiutd be respcmsible for makmg
`t.~ioe'its'done . LJ3l~'~e~ No3/.5
in Some `regular class placements
ii,rm~ehld were considered during3he
`tEfmeettng ~57 Yes No'33.7
r E'seri attempt :was `made br
`cdsr,Aturs to provide sercuces for as
mob time as possible in a regular
ciasuriiom .* /f~3Yes No,~75'
18 `A contpleted `copy of the IEP
made asailéble to me to took at 44YYes No 73
madeacaitable'to:me:to:keep ~ No~o,2
19 The IEP'for.rny'chitdwascom'
pleted hetoretheineeimg'wtthme ~ ,~/,~Yen No~I4
WhatWere'YourTeelings AboutiheFollo*ing:
.20 Educators'presented information
during'the IEP'meetmg.in uriderstanda-
blelanguage. `lf.T Yes No'?.!
:21 :t `was ,gtven the opportunity `to
ask questions `about points I `didn't'
`undetstand'regarding.thetEP Jr ~ Yes No"f,f
:22 1 ssas'encouraged `to contribute
significant tnformatton to my child's
IEP ~ Ves No !ê.2
23 The IEP that `was developed
seemed itt m~ chitd~s needs 7O.3~ Yes No I'I.D
94 Educators pros ided information
that helped me understand.the IEP pro-
cess ~3.O Yes No
`25 `I felt like a fully participating
member with the educators during the
planningofihelEP S'?.'tYes No~~.O
26. The school `which my child
attends'has.a'program for preparing
porents ioporticigwle'in thelEPprncesn ~ ~4o 57,,~
27. l'relunedlocotisentlOthetEP. ~ Yes .No"~~
28. 1 was given sipes.ifli. information
on hots `to appeal the `program assign.
ment'dectsions in the'IEP ~ 3~f.C' Yes No ~!SZ
29 lssai.aoked to assume coSts con-
:nected'tosers'ice's in my chLtds EP ~ Yes No ?7. ~
30 1 am.hopefut that ihelEP ice my
child will'impriis'enest'year 4'fD Yes No!!, Ct
`Other commeflte:
Please feel free to give its any additional comments
about yourIEP experiences:.
Insert the completed `form in envelope provided
Your 15t stamp saves us 20c
National Committee for
Citizens in Education (NCCE)
Suite 410, Wilde Lake Village Green
Columbia, Maryland 21044
Return as noon as possible.
but no later than July 1. 1979
A
PARENT-
CITIZEN
SURVEY
Checking
Your Child's
Progress
hi
Special.
Education
Programs
C."
Cit
PAGENO="0558"
P(eusi' Cirrlt you iiflSisiit
15'~5'tiVOu? iifliWN
ic Law 94142 (The Education for All Handicapped
dren Act of 1975) isa federal law which provides for
,.t and appropriate public education for all handicap-
children regardless of the degree or type of handicap.
ass also requires that a written educational
tam (rEP) be developed for each child to meet his/
unique educational needs.
* questionnaire is designed ti find out about the
-nts views concerning one aspect of this law-the
i dual Educational Plan llEP(. We value the amount
mi and help you art- ahtiut tugis.- keep in mind that
help iiiulil impriis i semi -s lot children
iughiiui the t.ountrs As one sample we plan to pro.
a handhioil fur parents on buss in participate more
.ess(iilli. in the IEP prin:ess
iii) Building
iii) sssttm _____________________________________________
ent s Name.
Street City Stat. /ip
d's Age_ Sen M - F......
at is your child's primury handicapping i:nndiiion'
:our child in a public schuiil' Yet. - No -
~O. what type of school' i e. pariu.hial private. state
it phone number (would be held confidentiall could
helpful to us if we want to follow up.
oa Coae
Number
as. answer the following questions after vnu have attended
meeting at which your child's IEP was developed for the
ong school year
1 The IEP meeting was held within
30 days following evaluation of my
child. If NO. please check when the IEP
meeting was held following the evalua-
lion: 3'1.!Yes No.31!.'!
~.0 .2.~ I.'?
2 moe. later 3 moe. later 4 mos. later
0.1 ~ _______
5 mon. later S moe. later never
2 The information from my child'o
evaluation befsre the IEP was fair and
useful for planning a program for ms
child `71. 3 Yea No /3
1 The following were present at the
lEP meeting
My child ,L7.,,tyea No~O.'A
Child's teacher 7~~Yea ~
Schcotl representative (otherthan child's
teacher) ` ~.ti.Yes ~,QJ53,1j
Parent or Guardian ~ys NoI~,,
4 The IEP for my child contained
the following items'
*annual goals ~vi_Ye*~jjj~
*shorl.term obteetives
*speciflc service(s) to be provided ~
*preseni level of performance 7~.,7~esNoE.~o~
*date servtces were to begin
Sways to check my childs progress Yes
Sspecial materials, equipment or
media 5MYes ~
Spercentage (is) of time in regular
class placement ~
Splace for me to indicate my approval ~
Seducators informed me of boss hi-
IEP was to be developed and what
would be in it
5 The description of my child's pre-
sent educational performance in the IEP
included information in alt four of these
*srlf.help skills (personal mainten
once) ~.L1es Nol3
Sacadrmic skills (reading math etc i ~sl.h Yes No //.
Ssocial behavior lhosv she gets along
ssiih others cii &7.t Yes No IS
Sphysica skills (coordinaiton run
ning cit..) 5~4Yes No,).
I There ssrre ma~ot areas of
Icitnul nerds liir ms child is hich is it
ignored during the IEP meeting ___________
The shori.uerm ob~eciiirs ott
written as npecifti steps mc child is
achieve in the nest three months i
more S~ DYes No .~I
8 The short.term oh~ectisrs diii
seem closeR related ui thu. anouo
goal(s) ` ~.~YesN~iI,
9 The annual goal(s) in the IEP dul
not fulls me.- the educational neids'.:
my child ~` `ffl'~Yes No,~6
10 Tnr IEP clears Soe. us ia
spei:ifci servicets) my child wi.:ild fur
receiving ,~_Yes s0ic
11 Thu. dates fot the heg.nnin~ ii)
U2 services for my child ssere quilt i(iot~OYes No /~.
12 1 kniss when hi lEt siru~~
will end for my child 4- ~~es No I~
~ 13 The service)vi liii mi hhc cr
1.3 the IEP ssas determined Its ssha uvu'
113 available rather than ss'hat isa' needed
(for esample if a certain srrs ii'. ssa.
knosso lobe needed but the final d.c.
suon svas made based on what thu-~~ huuii
district currently had) , 37.3 Yes
(continued
PAGENO="0559"
553
CHART I: MAJOR PROBLEM AREAS IN MOST STATES
# of States
Cited for
Corrective
Action (& DC)
I. Individualized Education Plans (IEP's) 48
1. The SEA assures an IEP for each handicapped
child served by a public agency 20
2. The SEA assures an IEP for each child
referred/placed in a private facility by
a public agency 20
3. The IEP is in effect prior to provision of
services. 18
4. Participants in the IEP meeting include a
representative of the public agency, the child's
teacher and parents, the child (if appropriate),
evaluation personnel, and others necessary. 36
5. Parent participation includes timely notifica-
tion, mutually convenient time and place for
meeting, and records of attempts to involve
parents. 30
6. The IEP contents are complete and contain
present performance level, goals and objectives,
special education and related services to be
provided, extent of participation in regular
education programs, start and legnth of services,
evaluation criteria and procedures 34
PAGENO="0560"
554
~hãrt I Page 2
# of States
Cited for
* Corrective
Act~on(~ DC~
II. Procedural Safègutrth 49
1. All telêvãnt state agencies h&ze procedures
consistéfit %~ith ~EA guidelines 22
2. Procedurêé have beeh {m~lttneit~d to assure~
oppöttunity to eraniine ~ecords~ right to an
independent evaluatioti and due procese hearing~
prior notice arid ~arent tons ent for evaluation
and all pltceme~t thanges; tight to ao iupartial
hearing, to an ã~peal~ a~d to tivil action;
adherance tO timeilties; agteement on child's
Ctatus during proceedingS; ~nd avéilability
of surrogate pãteflts~ 49
III. Confidentia1it~ 49
l~ Procedures have béén impleihented to cbver~
* floticé to parents
o access rights
* récotd Of aOtésS
* iiét Of typeC and location of ~tif~rm~ti~n
o tees
o anetidmetit Of records at parent requast
* Opportünit~r for hearitig
o parent cotisét t to réléa~é 1tifortiati~ti
* safeguardS
PAGENO="0561"
555
Chart I Page 3
# of States
Cited for
Corrective
Action (& DC)
* destruction of records
* children's rights
* enforcement 48
2. All relevant state agencies have
implemented procedures consistent with
state guidelines. 20
68-332 0 - 81 - 36
PAGENO="0562"
CHART II: PL 94-142: MONITORING SEA PERFORMANCE (fron Program Adninistrative Reviews ron ducted by the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped 1977-1980) n-Corrective Action Required
DATE STATE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLAN (REP) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CONFIDENTIALITY (MONTHS)
[~nsuren Assures In Effect Held Proper Parent Contents1 [State Ri] Procedures State Tine Lapu~1
Public Private Prior to Within Partici- Notifi- Complete Agencies Assured in Place Agencien Between PAR
- 8.121. ~&f.Si.1L Services ~ j9~)~5~ cation Consistent Consistent & Final Report
2/79 ALABAMA cc x cc cc 2
5/80 ALASKA cc 6 6
12/77 ARIZONA cc n 1
1/79 ARKANSAS cc
1/78 CAIItORNIA 1
4/78 COLORADO 3
2/NO CONNECTICUT cc cc 3
4/78 DELAWARE
4/78 DISTRICT OF COLUMSSA cc u 1 4
3/78 FLORIDA a cc cc 3
4/79 GEORGIA cc cc
5/78 HAWAII 0 cc N cc 1 5
4/79 IDAHO cc cc cc N 12
6/78 ILLINOIS o cc cc 7 7
8/78 INDSANA cc cc 0 8
10/79 IOWA cc 1 8
6/79 KANSAS u 2
11/77 KENTUCKY
3/79 LOUISIANA cc cc cc cc 3
6/79 MAINE 2
4/77 MASSACHUSETTS (conducted before FL 94-142 was to take effect) 6
4/79 MARYLAND cc n cc cc cc 5
4/79 MICHIGAN cc 0 cc 12
1/79 MINNESOTA cc 8
PAGENO="0563"
CHART II: PL 94-142: MONITORING SEA PERFORMANCE (from Program Administrative Reviews conducted by the
Bureau of Education f or the Handicapped 1977-1980) x.~ Corrective Action Required
DATE STATE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLAN (SEP) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CONFIDENTIALITY (MOHTHN)
SEA SEA Proper [
Auuures Assureu Is Effect Held Proper Parent Contents State Rights Procedures Btate Tine Lapse
Public Private Prior to Within Partici- Hotif i- Complete Agencies Assured in Place Agencies Between PAR
~&80AN ~ Services ~ ~ cation Consistent Consistent 8 Final Report
3/79 MISSISSIPPI x o x x u x 3
3/79 MISSOURI n x 3
7/79 MONTANA o 3
7/79 NEBRASKA o x s x x x 3
6/79 NEVADA x o o x o 6
3/78 NEW NAMPISIRE s x s x x x 3
10/79 NEW JERSEY 5
11/79 NEWYORK x x x 6
1/78 NORTH CAROLINA 3 cJl
C,'
8/78 NORTH DAKOTA x n 3
4/79 OHIO s 4
3/79 OKLAHOMA.
4/79 OREGON x s u 4
7/79 PENNSYLVANIA o u 2
7/79 ANODE ISLAND o o o n u o 2
7/78 SOUTH CAROLINA 0 o 2
2/78 SOUTH DAKOTA x 2
6/79 TENNESSEE o m x
5/78 TEXAS m 3 4
2/78 STAN x n n 3
4/79 VERMONT x 3
1/78 VIRGINIA o 2
4/78 WASHINGTON
2/79 WEST VIRGINIA
PAGENO="0564"
CHART II: PL 94-142: MONITORING SEA PERFORMANCE (iron: Program Administrative Reviews ronducted by the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped 1977-1980) n-Corrective Action Required
DATE STATE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLAN (REP) - ~ROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CONFIDENTIALITY (MONTHS)
Assures Assures In Effect Held Proper Parent Cootents State Rights Procedures State~1 Tine Lapse
Public Private Prior to Within Partici- Notifi- Complete Agencies Assured is Place Ageocies I Between PAR
~ Services ~ ~) cation Conuistoot Consistent & Fioal Report C)1
8/78 WISCONSIN n n n n 5 5
7/78 WYOMING n 4
TOTAL 20 20 18 8 36 31 34 22 49 49 19 avg. 3.6
PAGENO="0565"
CHART III: PL 94-142: MONITORiNG SEA PERFORMANCE--The Persistence of Problems in States with 2 PAR's
DATE STATE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLAN (IEP) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CONFIDENTIALITY
[Aiiii~- Prior to All Parti- Pareot Contents 1 State LEA's INotice Access List of Destructioo
aoce Services pants Patti- Agencies Records Records of Records
I - ________ £~28.~.~on I -
3/78 ALASKA o x a a a a x
10/79 X X a
2/78 D.C. x a na N x x a
4/80 not mentioned na it not mentioned
4/78 HAWAII n
2/80 a it a x x
11/77 ILLINOIS it o x
11/79 it it x x
C;'
3178 NEW HAMPSHIRE x x x a a a a CC
1/80 a it it x it x a a a a
3/78 NEW YORK a a a a (no agency net all requirements)
11/79 it a it it it a it x a
2/78 TEXAS a a it it it a a a a
2/80 a it a it a a it a a it
1/78 VIRGINIA
5/80 a sot mentioned
8/78 WISCONSIN a o it a a
12/79 a a a
5/78 CONNECTICUT a (local policies inadequate) it
2/OS it a
1/78 IOWA
10/79
PAGENO="0566"
560
MAX BAUCUS COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
CHVIRsuJI, SUSCURMITTEE CR THE
MCRV OVERSIGHT CF THE STERNAL
1157 DIRESER OmcE Butuos; REVUSEJE SERVICE
WASHmGToS.D~ 20510 `~~JC*tb ,.~t fez ~enafc c0VITTEEoNJUDICEARY
Moswu Esu. FREE NURSER WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 LIMITATIORS CII CONTRACTED
1-500.3324106 ~ou DHESATED AUTHORITY
~ `)`) 1 A 0 A SELECT COMMITTEE ON
C 0 er i ~ ov SMALL BUSINESS
Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman
Senate Subcommittee on the
Handicapped
Room lOB Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Please find enclosed copies of
testimony from two constituents of mine
regarding Public Law 94-142, the Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children Act of
1975.
Both Mrs. Dick and Mrs. Zion requested
that their comments be included in your
Subcommittee's hearing record on this
subject, and I hope ya.awill find it possible
to do so.
Thank you for your attention to this
request. I would appreciate your letting
me know if you have been able to include
these remarks in the hearing record.
~ With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
~ op
Enclosure ~ /
UcM~w~
PAGENO="0567"
561
LAW OFFICES
ZION, UDA, REYNOLDS & PERLMUTI'ER
SUITE 201, POWER BLOCK
P. 0. BOX 1255
HELENA, MONTANA 59601
JAMES W. ZION October 17, 1980 TELEPHONE
ROSEMARY B. ZION (406)442.3261
JOAN A. UDA
JAMES P. REYNOLDS
STEVENJ. PERLMUTFER
Senate Handicapped Subcommittee
House Subcommittee on Select Education
do Sen. Max Baucus
1107 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Members of the Committee:
I am an attorney practicing law in Helena, Montana. Although
I am now in private practice, I did spend a year as the attorney
for Montana's Developmental Disabilities/ Montana Advocacy Program,
the protection and advocacy organization for developmentally
handicapped persons in Montana. In this position , as well as in
my subsequent private practice, I have represented families of
many children in need of special education. I have also testified
concerning the Montana Special Education State Plan at public hearings.
My experience in attempting to employ the Education of the
Handicapped Act, P.L. 94-142, to obtain needed special educatLon
services for handicapped children has caused me to have a great
concern and even scepticism about the efficacy of this law as it
is presently administered. I have become particuDarly sceptical
about the extent to which the Office of Special Education (formerly
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped) of the Department of
Education is prepared to require that a state adhere to the
substantive requirements of that law, or even to interpret the law
as having any substantive requirements.
There has been a lot of criticism of the regulations implementing
the Education of the Handicapped Act for the reports, written
programs and other paper documentation which the regulations require.
I can understand the frustration of committed special education
professionals who feel they spend too much time filling out forms.
My frustrati~n is that as long as the forms and documents required
by the regulations are filled out, the Office of Special Education
appears totally unwilling to address the question of program substance.
Nor does the office require the State Educational Agency to address
the question of program substance. What this means in operation
is that on the whole, as long as a local educational agency keeps on
top of its paperwork, it can do what it wants in regard to educational
program, even if what it wants makes no educational sense.
PAGENO="0568"
562
Comments to House and Senate subcommittees
*page 2
During the past year, I have been involved in a lengthy piece
of litigation with the Montana Office of Public Instruction, our
State Educational Agency under P.L. 94-142, regarding the responsibility
of that agency for the difficulties which a profoundly handicapped
child encountered in obtaining an appropriate education in her home
community. Numerous problems had arisen for the child and her
foster family which we felt were caused by the total reluctance of
the school to try to deal with her, the refusal of the school
to seek appropriate training for its special educational staff,
the refusal of the school district to make use of itinerant resources
that were available to it. As a result, the child was threatened
with removal from the school, removal from her home, and relocation
in another community over 60 miles away on the other side of a mountain
range. The foster mother sought the assistance of the state agency
but was only informed of her right to legally contest the actions of
the school district in a "due process hearing." The state agency
approved the out-of-district placement request on the basis that
the papers were in order, maintaining t~et they need not, indeed
could not, consider the rightness of the placement.
I became involved in the situation when it was already in
litigation. The child, as required by law, was still in the community.
The school's efforts toward providing her even an interim education
were grossly inadequate. I sought the assistance of the state educational
agency. The agency agreed with me t~at the school was not even filling
out the forms correctly, but would not meet with me and the school
district to address the more fundamen~l issue of whether the education
being provided was as good as it could be. They told me that they could
assist the school but they could not assist me, or the child I repre-
sented. Even if they agreed with me that the child's program was
not what she needed and not what the achool was capable of delivering,
they could not, they told me, do anything about that. That was a
"due process" issue. In vain did I argue that my clients wanted help,
not more litigation.
At about this time, I had an opportunity to come to Washington
on another matter. So, I decided to discuss the entire situation with
the legal and evaluative staff of the Office of Special Education. I
had several apecific questions. Didn't the staff who worked with
handicapped children have to be qualified? Didn't this mean they had
to have some training of some sort in dealing with the kinds of children
they were teac~ing? Wasn't the state educational agency responsible
for assuring that special education staff were qualified? Wasn't
the state educational agency responsible for assuring that a handicapped
child's education is appropriate? Didn't this mean they should at least
be willing to look at the question of whether the program was any good,
or any good for the particular child? Shouldn't it be a concern
of the state educational agency as to whether school districts were
willing ,to utilize regular schools and regular classrooms for handicapped
children when possible (I was also having a very difficult time getting
the state educational agency to require schools to provide special
services in regdlar classrooms to learning disabled children) ?
What I learned told me a great deal more about the orientation
of the Office of Special Education than it did about education of
handicapped children. For example, Websters Dictionary notwithstanding,
according to the Office of Special Education, a special education staff
PAGENO="0569"
563
Comments to the House and Senate Subcommittees
* page 3
person is "qualified" to teach a handicapped child as long as th~
state educational agency says he or she is qualified, regardless of
whether this person has any training or experience in educating
that kind of child. "Qualified" is what ever satisfies the SEA.
In the case of special education teachers in Montana, qualified
means "certified" even if the teacher has had no course and no
on the job training in working with the kind of children she is
supposed to be teaching (for example, the child I was representing
was profoundly retarded. Her "certified" special education teacher
had a professional and educational background in teaching the learning
disabled). In the case of special education aides, "qualified" meant
alive and breathing. There was and is no educational, experiential,
or in-service training requirement at all for s~ecial education aides.
The state educational agency is only "responsible" for assuring.
that special education staff are "qualified" not that they have any
training, experience or ability for their job.
Likewise, a individual educational program is "appropriate" if
it conforms to the individual educational program plan, and if the
plan has all the technical parts specified by the regulations.
It is "appropriate" whether or not it makes any sense for the particular
handicapped child. The state educational agency is "responsible
only for making sure t~st the individual educational program
is "appropriate." It is not responsible for considering whether
the plan makes any sense.
The "least restrictive alternative" in which a child can be
educated is the one indicated on the individual educational program
plan. It is not the least restrictive setting in which the child
could actually be effectively educated. The state educational
agency is only responsible for assuring that a child is educated
in the "least restrictive alternative" , not for assuring that
the child is in as normal and unrestrictive an educational environment
as could reasonably be provided. Also, it appears that the least
restrictive alternative means the least restrictive alternative that
a school is willing to provide.
The entire interview went like that. Absolutely the only thing
that I could determine that a state educational agency had to make
sure everybody does is to fill out the forms correctly. I would like
to stress that I was speaking with a staff attorney and a member of
the compliance staff for our region. The interview had been scheduled
in advance. These answers I was getting were not accidental or the
product of surprise. They were the agency~s position.
Another area I discussed with the agency staff was the whole
due process hearing. It is my experience that most families of
handicapped children do not want to have to challenge the school
their child attends in an adversary proceeding. They want some help
from the state educational agency or somebody in mediating their
disagreements with the school district. They want somebody knowledgeable
about special education and about the special education laws to assist
them in working the situation out. What they get is the "right to a
hearing" before, in the case of Montana, a county superintendent of
schools, who has spent two days learning how to conduct hearings and
two hours ( I learned this in a deposition) learning about the
education of handicapped children. Then they can appeal to an attorney
PAGENO="0570"
564
Comments to the House and Senate Subcommittees
page 4
from Helena who also has no background in the education of handicapped
children. Then they can go to Federal District Court. They don't want
to go to court. They want some help from somebody who understands
how the education of the handicapped laws are supposed to function
and is willing to try to make them work.
The people I spoke with at the Office of Special Education admitted
that the entire "due prOcess hearing" procedure absolutely depended on
having a knowledgeable professional, familiar with education of the
handicapped, conducting the hearing. They also admitted that they
* realized that the typical hearing officer does not meet this criterion.
They did not seem to realize that such a defect in~the fundamental
assumptions underlying their due process system could compromise its
effectiveness.
I next went to the Office-of Civil Rights of the Department of
Education. I learned that the Office of Civil Rights has problems with
the Office of Special Education, too. The lawyers and investigators
of the Office of Civil Rights often find a violation of 8504 of the
Rehabilitation act for the same aspect of a special education program
that the Office of Special Education says is acceptable. I learned
that even the Office of Civil Rights has not figured out how to
make the word "qualified" mean ~qualified when it is applied to
special education personnel. What they have done, however, is to
determine that if the instructional staff has no training or experience
for teaching a particular handicapped child and don't know what they
are doing, then they may be "qualified," but they are not able to
give an "appropriate" education to the child. It was a relief to
finally be talking to someone who recognizes that the special education
staff should have some background in what they are doing. But, surely
it should not be necessary to stretch logic and language to this point
to reach such an obvious conclusion.
This letter is longer than I had intended. However, I feel that
it is important that you get the flavor of the way in which the Office
of Special Education interprets its responsibilities under the Education
of the Handicapped Act. No parent can deal with a system that operates
like this. The act does bring some additional money into the
speciaLeducation system. It does provide some guidance and procedures
for those local school districts already committed to doing a good job.
As presently administered, it does not effectively impact those schools
which are resistant to making the changes necessary to educate handicapped
children. It creates an elaborate and expensive enforcement structure.
But the primary agency charged with enforcement of the act is not
willing to require substantive compliance. State educational agencies
take their cue from the Office of Special Education.
I am not certain if you should consider new legislation or simply
require this federal agency to return to the plain meaning of English
words in interpreting its responsibilities. Probably new legislation
would be simpler. I leave that to the national advocacy groups which
have already reported to you and to your own experience. Based upon
my experience, however, some change is imperative.~
-~incerely,---
Rosemary B. n *~~`N
PAGENO="0571"
565
ve442ph~ /~eai~2n~ 94-I~~2 0C44 15, 1980
~ f~wvn: CaI7D4n Lee &o~, pane42.
çen2Lenen T/wni4 gou foi~ ~v2n2 me 21%Ld oppoiv&uti4 2o addte44i ~&7U~t
1 ~n Cano4u~ Lee &c~ ~Ae panen~ of ~uø cAthL#ten~. 7 ~iAou1d 4a~ ~v
ieena~e,L.~,. t9otA ojf uALcIt one 2n. IAe /O2A p~nade and /6 ~yiz~s. oki. Che
of nz~t cAth/Aen. 24 2n ned of 4peCJJJ.~L educa22on and ?`L 94L./4L2.
We ç~te~~eivi~4 J2ve 2n ft~in2ana, 6w~ have ~Uvd Ln Ca4~w~~ti~ 7 have had
a V2411 of ~L4 d4jfeiteiu~ 42dA~e4' duca22ona2 4~di~efld and 4peC~a.L ducaIion
a'J.dpen4d b~z 6~tA.
T/z24 ~tea~t I /za~, 2nzz2n2n~ 2n 9'~.-/4i2 and 574~. 7 u.oLdd Lii4e 24 2AanJ~ you
fan £k24 op1r~)thLn~4 it ha,, niademy ,w4~e a4 a p2itent of a hand2aappd
one iJi~at ~c4 cLean çocLd fan me. in ~envLce to panenl4 24 21uk22ucZb~le.
1 dzou.Lcl .Lthe to coiwnend tke Cei.t~ of irdepeident 12v4r9, Inc. abV.t4
LaiU 7~edOWWe Cer~teit2z~ /3e.iAeLey, ~ foiL tAe~te ou ai'n~ uuiv4~.
TAe,te 24 an anea of ~teat conce~n foiL me. The ,~ta~e4 of ~2ef that a
pa~tent o't ~ua'zdian moat expeateiice and pizow thi,wu~A u~n ftnclinp out that
t&e4,t ci4iJd 24 /iardLcappen~. I have /ieand a~nvaI, ~tLe4 denta1 and deL/f
~in24hment feom ~xz~ten24 ako caLL foiL a~i24tance wLtA thett /iand(~cappd
chthL. I feeL that 2h24 aitea ~ ociJJtd f.win ~ene.na.L teac1th~ and the
pa..tent 24 `eft to dea2 ~ beet ha oiL ~/ie can. In the 2ru~eevLce th24
ub~ect mwet be toucked on 40 2/mt a ponen.t util identLfy thett needo
and wLdeizutand the /ftVit badLc feeL2n~4 befone toaveJJ~n2 tnto 9hi_/4~2
WL2/L tALo bwLdeh up~.n tAeLi~ ~AouLdeíz,i. TeacAeivn and adntn24timatoivo mu.ot
aLdo become ~nL4Men about tALo matteit. Stnce a pood cLo4e uUi7JthZ$l
ne.Lattondz2p nmu.et be a ~oa1 behaeen the foiunentiond paztte4.
in owt ~2ate Me.. Joe Lucknan of 9e.eat FaLL, i~ontana ha~ developed a
p'Leoentat.Lon that 24 tizuLy tnfoiunative. I thank £Lm foit hLo 2nut~ht tnto
the patent4 of tiLe kanrlLcapped.
iVow we came to the l~J and Lt'~ .iinpothznce, Afiee. neadiii~ the heat~.u~
book pant / /frLom the //owne of iRepim. I 4/muLLen to tALnk anyone uuatd make
J.4h.t of .U'4 .&npintance a~ to count 2/me nwn~'e'z. of pa~e4 ilL it. it .c4
PAGENO="0572"
566
2. Coito4~n L.'e ;9Lch cor~rnent~:
rzo~ £&e nwnbe.'t c~ 1xz~e~ buL izathen the conieuL~ ~/ud L4 cvtJ~ani~. Jfl4e1LvJ~e
a ma~e.'t a~ 4zouzinp how ~o wn2~e iho~~ iaol. U L~ ju,i~ ihuL io a ioo4
oit be~e,t yei ~Ae /teaizi and 40wL oj~ 911-142. ~UinAoLd L~ all one ha4 L~
idn~4Lailion and on4 ~Aai. I can ie~4~ 6e~one ~ co'iinin~ee ~Aa~
m~ 4ofl /1a4 pane wV~AauL an Z~7~ and i/te erlitcaiiort ho iteceived we4 ~e.'zo.
Since ho Ld iuLe2lepeni and ~frwppLinp io acteLve cZa»=~ Lthe oiAen .~iiuden/~i
/thi ape many peobleiw have developed and I have 4cen rnoei in /~L~
beAnviolL in 4chooL 1/ow 3 ~ douji i/ie Line i&e 4d~oal can -dee ike
beAavioit bui ilOT ike p'zobLen~ £~ei developed ike beAavioiz. 1/ad an
been in place ih~e4e 3 ~1eaA4 we mould noi be ukJi7Alnp wJJA beAavJoIL a4 4uCA
6zd ike lewzninp cLLdabiii4. T/7Ld Ld one o~ ike iteaon f~oit a 5?pape !~.
9~eni.Lenerz, 1 ,ana~ in ~e~wt widarn iha~ ~eu will nei weakth 911-1 42 6~ chanpiqi
OIL n&2/eiflp 14hi o~ ike l~ff. Ad io add~e~ £4e ike n~d~eit aj~ ~n~zncin~ and
a'~ei 1 coIL on4 a~i WI/AT IS T//~ COST O~ A ~P~SOV"S 7/19/ITS? The hondLcczppd
have been hidden fiwin ik pabLLc ioo lonp and have lived in ini.~d2on.d
limp enoupA~. I, we can pui men on ike moon 4wL/J/ we can pive hanclLcappd
pen4on' ikeiit izip/it~. l~f noi maybe a'- al/thtp on ike avon u~ a cL'i~ean we
eAóu-ld have le1fi .io clteameiti.
.4, ike paneni o~? iuv clzLldtert 1 peel ~oit ike er/iicaii~on o1f huLA. 1 have noi
eez ihai ike erJuajjJ~~n ojf my .~,on /za~~ Iwni my c/auphieit. No ~wwLinp OIL
&4ei ~ have adveizedy ajfjfecied Ae't ducaLiön. &zi I have een how
~e~o ducaiiona.L pizizcik had effeeiedmy dauph.teiz. WLik boik dzthfr'~en hemp
ike .oane Oit nevz4 ike .tiaine ape, ikey aiiend ike dame deADol and p~wIie leveL
.1.., deve2opirzp and one -14 noi cc~pahle of piwwth wL~Aoai ike l~f foIL a
çuide. Otce apamn piniinp ioike W~~D fo~ I(~'4 foit ike harSicoppdthider~.
LabeLoip and oit dLviiond of hanrlLcappinp condUiond .14 anoiken. a'ten!
1feel nedd adilae~winp. 1 an conccend foitmy cALLd hzd find w'ziJe utwzkinp
,ifoir. all hantli.cappinp condLt.iorto iopeike.ir. ber4Li~~s my #ion1d ducidion even
fuLieiz. The lined 7,11/, PR, ~ilR, 14 eci. .ihould noi be vLevd on addrL&idd
40 ad io po~ii Lined wLihin ike handLcapd educuLion. I ~iLie ikLd excri~oLe:
The1te cite ane thdenti u/a' weipA 18o# -iane 11O# .iane KX)# The weiphi i~a
rzo2~ ike oiziani .14.~iue bzd ike paul of indLvij.ia-L needo. ?~diLnp in ike
div.14ion of lined fopp-d ike i-i.~ue end inwte-a ihni mi.44 ciaddifLaziiion will
accwte and pa.e.enid and ieac/LeILd and af inieieaiion Will leaizn io idena!4y
wL.i/L on4i a .deLeci fav of I/ie /tunrIieiif'pi:s~j rouuijjiijn i. The mondilion of
/tUUI/l.l!lI/S ,le.~/4 10 /50 *fI/i/flts1-l~5dl I~ iL,' /1, st..1 /s./..~/I.
PAGENO="0573"
567
/?~q /,,A1 j,.$4f~ai ~,4 ,I,$c /kli~lC4.I. k 1r1 gggc .klf/ 4(/',lI i ~ ~/w~ c/ac'
1m~ice44 14 ti 4.tifi OIL lJtc U4'724L lii ti tilt IJLE i1a~Le. 7/~e~ can
cz/ffoizd lo ~o ~hiuw due pwce~ bu.~ can ~ a,4o~'zd Ia ~o /foi~ I1z~e 4aflCI.10n4
o/f non-.ccxi~aL1ance. [Aie pizoc&~ 14 expeiviLve Ia pvten.14, ma~ o/f w1L2dL WL~
a2nead~j indLca14 bwzden. /1~ an ieitv~Lce 14ain1n~ pal on b~ Ike ~ilaIe
l~je,je f4vzed we~e wied('12, C~:x?.cx) Ia $5, C~X).W )( C041 lo Ike paneal.)
7/cal 14 nol a /feee appao,cvuale edtzcal2on. Then Ike nexl p4obi~ein wILL be 10
/fLnd a Lcw~ei7. ve~wd In 4pecIa~L edocallon. ~ do nol /fee1 due peoce~~ ~i4
a good uviu4In~ looL ~/L pa/Lenl4 In /faal ~uLI Ike oppa.~il~e.
(S'h.en non-c~ccLIance a/f a d thtLc.l ~ naled 6~ Ike wIale, a dc/fLnI.le tIme
LIne ft~'5T be pLven In ~ Ia I/ce dLdl/ILcI and Ia Ike pczitentci uv'w
/cave 1Wd Ike dtwz~ze4. i/f La /facl `~4-f42 ~t., a Ic*v IAan LI nuo~ thud
adahzu.
I Iicaa/~ ~pu faa 1h14 lIme fan m~ camleivtd. ?~Lea4e enl&'L Ike4e CxtnøVI4
Lab Ike fo,v~ aeCoi7~1d.
1 uuuLd app'tecIale a copp~i of I/ce fInaL ce.Lpl of lkede keaI&Ln$24.
Thoiz/c~ou
~ ~
Caao4~ILee l2Lci4
~ ,-,~
c~ ~x 3~u~
T"ab WiJLIan~
tWITCH
&`tH
~ çteat FaLI4, t'knlana
PAGENO="0574"
568
Statement of
THE AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION
Before the
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON P.L. 94-142
THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
Submitted by
Roger P. Kingsley, Ph.D.
Director
Congressional Relations Division
October 1980
PAGENO="0575"
569
Introduction
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is pleased to
present its views on the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Public
Law 94-142 stands as one of the landmark pieces of legislation concerning equal
educational opportunity for all children. More than four years after its
enactment and two and one-half years following promulgation of federal regula-
tions, the achievements of P.L. 94-142 are evident in most parts of the coun-
try. Approximately four million handicapped children are receiving special
education and related services under the Act and almost every state has shown
impressive increases in the number of children served. Even during a time of
declining school enrollments, many thousands of handicapped children are being
identified annually and given the attention and assistance they need in order
to fulfill their physical, intellectual, social, and emotional capacity for
growth.
These are no small achievements, particularly when one considers the com-
plex intertwining of state laws, local agency procedures, judicial decisions,
and federal agency policy regulations and interpretations. Despite these
achievements, the goals established by Congress in 1975 to achieve a free and
appropriate education for all handicapped children are still a long way from
being realized. With governmental and public concern over inflation and hal-
anced budgets, the resources needed to fulfill these goals have been placed in
jeopardy. As American consumers, we share in the general concern over economic
problems. But we also know that such problems must not be allowed to interfere
with the fulfillment of basic rights like equal educational opportunity.
Speech, language, and hearing disorders are commonly found among the very
young. Because the ability to communicate effectively is so fundamental to
other life activities, any loss or limitation of this ability can be detrimen-
PAGENO="0576"
570
-2--
tal to individual human development and performance. Children frequently
suffer from voice disorders, articulation disorders, stuttering, slow or
incomplete development of language skills, and hearing impairment - problems
which stem from a variety of causes, but which all require professional eval-
uation and treatment. A young child whose communicative problems are not
properly treated is likely to encounter difficulties in academic learning,
interpersonal relationships, and future vocational achievement.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association is a scientific and
professional society consisting of over 35,000 speech-language pathologists
and audiologists. These health and education professionals are concerned
with the systems, functions, and processes of normal and abnormalhuman
communication. ASHA. Members are qualified to provide services in hospitals,
speech and hearing clinics, outpatient rehabilitation centers (such as those
rim by the National Easter Seal Society and the United Cerebral Palsy
Association), skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, Head Start
Programs, Veterans Administration and Department of Defense hospitals, public
and private schools, and private practice. Approximately 45 percent of all
ASHA Members work in a school setting.
ASHA sets and enforces a three-tiered standards program which is
designed to assure high quality educational programs, competent clinical
practices, and recognition of qualified professionals. Through the Council
on Professional Standards, higher education programs are accredited under
procedures recognized and approved by the Department of Education. Clinic
programs are likewise evaluated and accredited by a Professional Services
Board. In order to qualify for ASHA's Certificate of Clinical Competence
(CCC), individuals must have successfully completed strict educational and
training requirements. The CCC is awarded to individuals who a) complete a
PAGENO="0577"
571
-3-
graduate course of study leading to a Master's or Doctoral degree in speech-
language pathology, audiology, or speech and hearing science; b) complete 300
hours of a supervised clinical internship; c) pass a national examination ad-
ministered by the Educational Testing Service; and d) subscribe to ASHA's
Code of Ethics. The CCC is recognized by the Medicare and Medicaid programs
as evidence of proficiency in dealing with speech, language and hearing dis-
orders.
Public Law 94-142: Purposes, Problems, Progress
The right to a public education for all citizens has evolved into a
central principle of the American social system. Yet the fulfillment of this
right has not always been possible because of conflicting stands concerning
the appropriate domains and mechanisms for carrying out such democratic prin-
ciples. Long the exclusive domain of the local school district, responsi-
bility for public education has only recently been shared by the states and
the federal government. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the Supreme
Court placed the individual's right to an equal education above the preroga-
tive of any governmental entity to act or fail to act in a manner that would
impede that right.
In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of
an education. Such an opportunity is a right which must be
made available to all on equal terms.
The realization that millions of handicapped children were not being ed-
ucated on free, equal, and adequate terms led to the gradual extension of the
Court's decision to this sector of American society. In several class action
suits (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth
68-332 0 - 81 - 37
PAGENO="0578"
572
-4-
of Pennsylvania, E.D. Pa., 1971, and Mills v. Board of Education of the
District of Columbia D.D.C., 1972), the Court decided that handicapped chil-
dren could not be denied a public education and that due process procedures
had to be established to guarantee the appropriateness of their academic
placement. In the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230) and, most
significantly, in passing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
P.L. 94-142) ten years later, Congress recongized that what the Court said in
1954 of children generally was also true of unserved, underserved, arid in-
adequately served handicapped children. At the heart of P.L. 94-142 was the
goal to
Assure that all handicapped children have available to them
a free appropriate public education which emphasizes
special education and related services designed to meet their
unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped chil-
dren and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist
States and localities to provide for the education of all
handicapped children, and to assess and assure the effective-
ness of efforts to educate handicapped children. [Sec.
601(c) 1
The 1975 law was remarkable in that it went beyond merely guaranteeing
equal educational opportunity. Taking into account the arguments of thou-
sands of interested citizens and group representatives, Congress built into
the legislation the concept that educational programs must be structured
around the needs and problems of the individual child. Of the estimated
eight million handicapped children in the Untied States, fully half were
reported to be receiving an inadequate or inappropriate education. The indi-
vidualized education program (IEP) was designed to remedy this deficiency.
PAGENO="0579"
573
The Act was unique and progressIve with respect to Its incorporation of
concepts that have increased the potential of fulfilling the promise of
public education to handicapped children. Congress avqided sImple solutions
in favor of procedures that WOUld have maxImum lepact. Nor instance, int~'.
gration of the handicapped was recognized as generally desirable bat no~
always proper with respect t~ benefitting a yQungs~er~s educational develop-
ment. The intent of Congress was to encourage the placement of handicappe4
students in regular classrooms and schools, and to dlscouraNe the segregated
placement of students solely on the basis of their handIcaps. Nowhere In the
law are the terms "integration" or "mainstreaming" used, Instead, the cog-
cept of a "least restrictive environment" was developed to support the ~4
of educating handicapped and nonhandicapped chlldren In a ~oggpg envIronment
`to the maximum extent appropriate." HandIcapped children were to b~ placed
in alternative educational settings "only when the nature or severIty of the
handicap is such that educatIon In regular classes wIth the use of supple-
mentary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfantorily," [sec, ~1~(~)J
Additionally, Congress recognized the importance of 4evelop~ng I~Ps
through the cooperation of parents, teachers, and specialists In one or more
disability areas. Due process was buIlt into the law and regu~atiqgs sp that
parents could participate in the planning and on-going progress of the.~. r
child's education. Here, Congress recognized the problem of converting the
law's objectives into real and appropriate educational programs, gcbop~
off icials could not always be expected to know what was best for the mdl..
vidual child, nor would all of them place the same prIorIties on special
education and related services.
PAGENO="0580"
574
-6-
Due process provides not only legal guarantees to handicapped children
and their parents, but also the mechanisms by which their rights can be
realized. Procedural safeguards are established which include the oppor-
tunity to participate in the development of IEPs, the right to file com-
plaints concerning identification, evaluation and placement, and the right to
an impartial hearing.
ASHA recognizes the complexity of these aspects of P.L. 94-142. We are
aware of the difficulties that have been encountered during the early phases
of implementation, and reaffirm our willingness to work with Congress and
agencies of the federal and state governments in overcoming these difficul-
ties in an effort to fulfill the law's intent. This organization has, in
principle and in practice, been a strong supporter of legislation aimed at
guaranteeing appropriate educational opportunities for all handicapped chil-
dren. In particular, ASHA has endorsed the goal of equal educational oppor-
tunity, provisions for state plans and timetables, use of procedural safe-
guards, due process procedures, and the withholding of funds from non-
complying states and localities. ASHA has stated before, and reasserts now,
the belief that responsibility for providing education rests principally with
the states. But we have also agreed with the Congress that it is the respon-
sibility of the federal government to assure that federal funds provided to
the states for educational purposes are used in the nation's best interest,
according to guidelines established to reflect that interest.
PAGENO="0581"
575
-7-
In testimony before this Subcommittee, the General Accounting Office has
questioned congressional intent with respect to the scope of coverage under
this law.1 The issue was raised as to whether "children with minor impair-
ments" were meant to be included for purposes of special education and
related services funding under P.L. 94-142. Our review of the legislative
history of this Act and the statutes preceding and leading up to it reveals
no intention on the part of GDngress to limit coverage to certain groups of
handicapped children or to children on the basis of the severity of their
impairments *2
Congress has, over the years, legislated in a consistent and equitable
manner in aiming to assure appropriate education for all handicapped
children. Much of the legislative history as expressed in subcommittee
hearings, committee reports, floor statements and statutory language, does
not refer to particular groups of handicapped children. Rather, these
statements and documents deal with the general problem of educating
handicapped children regardless of the specific condition or its degree of
severity. In references to handicapped children throughout P.L. 94-142 the
word "all" is consistently used. There is never any implication that
specific handicapping conditions or the services necessary to deal with them
are to be covered to a greater or lesser degree. Similarly, the legislative
history leading up to the enactment of P.L. 94-142 carries with it no
suggestion that handicapped populations are to be treated differently.
Federal interest in assisting the states through grants, and in
providing for research and training assistance in special education expanded
greatly during the 1960s. Public Law 88-164 authorized the Commissioner of
Education to make grants available to the states for special education
programs covering:
68-332 0 - 81 - 38
PAGENO="0582"
576
-8-
mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf,~ speech impaired,
visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed,
crippled, or other health impaired children who by reason
thereof require special education. [P.L. 88-164, Section 301]
Public Law 91-230, The Education of the Handicapped Act, carried forward
this definition listing specific groups of handicapped children, including
the speech impaired.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was, of course,
the culmination of Congress' ever-increasing commitment to the education of
handicapped children throughout the nation. During public hearings, subcom-
mittee, committee and floor deliberations, it is hard to discover any indica-
tion that Congress was interested in writing a limited law -- one that would
include only children with certain conditions. A statement by Senator
Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Chairman of the [then] Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare typifies the broad interest of Congress:
These provisions to f S.6].. . serve to implement the law of the
land - the law which proclaims that all citizens have a right
to equal protection of the laws. And it is Congress' duty to
enforce this law.
Until every child in this nation is afforded the opportunity
for a decent education, I beleive that we will have failed to
uphold our duties under the Constitution to assure that the
law is enforced.
[Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings before the Subcoittee
on the Handicapped on S.6, April 1975]
While the GAO acknowledges that ~ongres~ has included-speech impaired In
its definition of handicapped children, the agency questions whether this is
provided speech therapy services today compared with 14 years ago."3 We find
this a rather strange line of reasoning since the nature of speech -impair~
mentslias not-changed during this time perIo~. As with other handicapping
PAGENO="0583"
577
-9-
conditions, more children are identified now as compared to fourteen years
ago because there are now more and stronger state and federal laws requiring
the identification of handicapped children. Nevertheless, it is significant
that since the impleme~ttation of P.L. 94-142 in 1977, there has been a 6.4
percent reduction in the speech-impaired child count - 122,506 children.
Also, there are indications that while the total number of speech-impaired
children in the schools is declining, the number of children with severe
speech impairments is rising.4
The GAO has apparently focused its attention on children with speech
impairments because they form the largest single disability category and
generate the highest amount of federal funds under P.L. 94-142. Obviously,
however, the GAO's concern over the inclusion of children with less than
"severe" impairments and of services specifically defined uüder "related
services" applies to many handicapping conditions and professional services
besides speech handicaps and speech-language pathology. With respect to
speech and other handicapping conditions, a review of legislative history
makes clear Congress' intent to make federal assistance available to state
and local education agencies for programs to provide appropriate education to
all children with such conditions.
The GAO has also questioned the clarity of the law and regulations with
respect to what constitutes special education and related services. The
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (now theOffice of Special
PAGENO="0584"
578
-10-
Education)* has, we believe, correctly interpreted congressional intent by
leaving to the states the responsiblity for setting standards to determine
what is special education. All states regard speech-language pathology as
special education.5
The GAO has reported that intervention sessions for speech-impaired
children are much shorter than sessions for children with other kinds of
handicaps. They have also correctly reported that minimum and maximum
caseloads in many states are very high.6 Obviously, these high caseloads are
a direct cause of short intervention sessions and a frequent lack of
attention to the individual speech-impaired child. These are problems that
greatly concern us and they are addressed more fully in later sections of
this statement.
Since implementation of P.L. 94-142 began several years ago, ASHA has
surveyed its Members in the schools in order to learn their views on how the
Act has been working at the local level.
These speech and hearing professionals feel most positively about the
increased level of parental involvement in their children's overall
schooling. They believe that communication has been facilitated among the
parties involved in developing IEPs, including parents, teachers, and
disability specialists. General improvements and measures in the
organization and delivery of services were also reported. As a result of the
Act, severely handicapped children have been afforded an opportunity to
*The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped became the Office of Special
Education when the Department of Education was inaugurated on May 4, 1980.
Hereafter, all references to the agency will be OSE.
PAGENO="0585"
5'19
-*1 1-
attend public schools, and there is sore appropriate placement of those
children who require special education. Conversely, children with minor,
transitory problems that are outgrown after a brief period, are properly
excluded from handicapped education programs. Services also have been
improved through greater use of multidisciplinary teams. In this way, a
variety of educational and health professionals can combine their expertise
to serve children with multiple handicaps by recognizing how specific
disabilities affect various physical and cognitive functions.
Serious problems remain, however, in the sovement toward achieving
appropriate educational opportunities and settings for all handicapped
children. According to many ASRA Members, inadequate funding is a critical
reason why implementation of the Act is proving difficult. The law requires
compliance according to a set timetable, but the resources required for such
compliance have not been allocated in a corresponding manner. There is also
general consensus in the field that classloads and caseloads remain too
high. Insufficient levels of personnel result in children receiving inade-
quate or inappropriate special education and related services, and in many
cases not receiving any assistance at all. There is also a great deal of
concern that many children with language, speech, and hearing impairments are
not being counted as handicapped. Sometimes the reason is that parents are
uninformed about the legal rights guaranteed to them and their children. In
many instances school officials are at fault because they are making little
if any effort to see that parents are made aware of P.L. 94-l~2, or that the
provisions of the law are properly implemented. A particularly serious
PAGENO="0586"
580
-12-
problem exists among hearing impaired children because professional services
and aids to facilitate learning are being limited by severe personnel short-
ages as well as a failure by many local education officials to implement
various provisions of the law.
There are numerous issues concerning problems with the implementation of
P.L. 94-142 and how the interests of handicapped students can be best
served. Here, we will briefly touch on some of these issues, then turn in
greater detail to problems of public funding, appropriate inclusion of
handicapped children, personnel shortages, and audiologic services.
Early Education
Past research has demonstrated that early recognition and treatment of
handicapping conditions can significantly reduce the number and severity of
handicaps in later life. For instance, one study showed that when second
graders with similar speech articulation problems were placed in intervention
and non-intervention groups, the rate of improvement in articulation was
nearly four times as great for the group of children receiving professional
speech-language pathology services.7 Efforts to reduce the limiting effects
that physical and cognitive impairments have on major life functions permit
children to more fully benefit from the educational process.
While it is true that some minor speech and language problems diminish
with time, it is also evident that early delays in the normal learning
process due to such problems can result in subsequent learning disabilities.
PAGENO="0587"
581
-13-
Hence, whether the young child has a speech or language problem that is
minor, moderate or severe, it is most beneficial to provide early diagnosis
and assistance in order to establish the strongest possible foundation for
the child's schooling. There is also a public benefit to be derived from
this early intervention strategy. Since the provision of special education
and related services to infants and preschool children should reduce the
number and severity of handicapping conditions, fewer public funds will have
to be allocated for these children during their later elementary and
secondary school education.
Because early intervention is so critical to the long range development
of children, ASHA recommends:
* that federal, state, and local education agencies give
higher priority to the special education and related
services needs of very young children
* that the Congress reaffirm its support of the Preschool
Incentive Grant Program by funding that Program at the full
authorized level
* that serious consideration be given to covering children
ages 0 to 3 under the Act.
Continuous Education
Related to the issue of when special education and related services
should begin is the question of whether an appropriate education sometimes
requires services that extend beyond the normal academic year. In the
PAGENO="0588"
582
-14-
recently decided case of Armstrong v. Kline (D ~ Pa., 1979), the plaintiffs
argued successfully that extensive interruptions in schooling can be damaging
to the educational progress of handicapped children. Cessation of a handi-
capped child's, educational program during the summer vacation months in par-
ticular can result in regression due to the loss of skills that are a key to
the child's overall progress. The court's decision recognized that a sus-
tained program of special education and related services may be necessary to
achieve the objectives outlined in the child's IEP and in this way guarantee
an appropriate education. Through this decision, the court has reaffirmed
Congressional intent in enacting an education for the handicapped law which
would establish programs and procedures to insure that children could develop
as much self-sufficiency as their innate abilities permit. ASHA supports the
concept that the extent of a handicapped child's education should be based on
his or her individual needs and not be tied to an impersonal academic
calendar.
The Link Between Special Education and Related Services
The federal regulations make clear that special education includes:
speech pathology, or any other related service, if the
service consists of specially designed instruction, at no
cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a handi-
capped child, and is considered "special education"
rather than a "related service" under State standards.
[45 CFR §l2la.141
Most states have dealt appropriately with this provision as far as
speech-language pathology services and funding are concerned. Speech-
language pathologists employed in the schools provide assessments of
PAGENO="0589"
583
-15-
children to determine the existence of speech and language impairments.
Where such impairments are discovered, these same professionals provide
diagnostic and rehabilitative services for the handicapped children. In
numerous ways - for instance, by helping youngsters with articulation
disorders to learn proper production of speech sound, by assisting stutterers
to cope with their disorder and to increase the amount of fluent speech -
speech-language pathologists fulfill the role of special educator.
The definition of related services in P.L. 94-124 as "supportive ser-
vices . . . as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from
special education . . ." [Sec. 602(4) 89, Stat. 775; 45 CFR §121a.13(a)] is
different from that part of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
which deals with public education:
For the purpose of this subpart, the provision of an ap-
propriate education is the provision of regular or spe-
cial education and related aids and services that (1) are
designed to meet individual educational needs of handi-
capped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandi-
capped persons are met . . . [45 CFR ~84.33(b)(l)J
In this same light it is worthwhile to note that a recent court decision
confirmed the preeminent nature of Section 504 with respect to state educa-
tion of the handicapped responsiblity. A federal judge in New Mexico
Association for Retarded Citizens v. The State of New Mexico (U.S.D.C. MM,
1980) agreed with the plaintiffs that the state and its local school dis-
tricts had "failed to provide an adequate and appropriate level of support
services, such as speech and physical therapy . . . failed to establish and
enforce adequate and appropriate standards of procedures necessary to insure
that those in the class are receiving the education to which they are
entitled." Since New Mexico is a recipient of federal financial assistance,
PAGENO="0590"
584.
-16--
it is obligated to comply with the mandate of Section 504 even though the
state chooses not to participate in P.L. 94-142 program funding.
We feel that the existence of handicapping conditions and the need to
provide those services necessary for the child to overcome or cope with his
disabilities must.be the overriding considerations in the determination of
who qualifies for such services and what services qualify for public
funding. Section 504 makes clear that.related aids and services must.be
provided in order to insure that no individual is denied (intentionally or
unintentionally) the right to participate fully in public education. We
support the concept thatrelated services are a necessary component of a free
and appropriate education which should be promoted in order to enhance a
handicapped child's special or regular education.
Excessive Paperwork
The massive additional administrative responsiblities imposed on indi-
vidual special educators and related service professionals by the P.L. 94-142
procedural requirements pose a serious problem. Reports from speech-language
pathologists in various states indicate that an average of six to ten beurs
per week are spent completing paperwork. Some professionals report having
had to complete up to 30 pages of forms in order to place a speech impaired
child in a special education program.
An analysis of this situation reveals that much of the paperwork results
from state and local education agency requirements that vastly exceed the
federal regulations. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists in many
of the states have required caseloads that are way too high (e.g., 70-90
PAGENO="0591"
585
-17-
handicapped children; see also Appendix A). Completing paperwork for this
many children can only result in a further reduction of already insufficient
time to provide actual services.
ASHA recommends:
* that OSE work closely with the states in developing proce-
dures that require less paperwork while still assuring that
data collection requirements are met and that the rights of
handicapped children are preserved.
* that OSE review state policies regarding caseload
requirements for various special education and related
service professionals. The states should be aided in
changing mandatory caseload requirements so that services
are based on the needs of children rather than on outdated
state regulations or administrative mandates.
Funding
To be in compliance with the mandate of the law and to be eligible for
federal funding, state and local education agencies were to have made
available by September 1, 1978, a free and appropriate education for all
handicapped children. By beginning with five percent federal funding in
fiscal year 1978 and working up to 40 percent in 1982, the state and local
education agencies are urst heavily burdened at the outset in trying to meet
their legal mandate.
For the states to meet the challenge of education for the handicapped
under these circumstances, the states and local districts must come up with
huge expenditures for additional personnel, facilities, materials and
equipment. Yet the Congressional Budget Office reported that educational
PAGENO="0592"
586
-18-
expenditures will exceed state and local revenue raising ability through the
remainder of the decade. The authorized level of federal spending in fiscal
year 1980 was $1.2 billion, in 1981 it is $2.1 billion, and in 1982 it is
$3.1 billion. Yet the amounts appropriated by the Congress fall way below
these levels. For the 1981-1982 school year the Administration intends to
bypass the 40 percent level of federal fiscal responsibility originally
intended by Congress and to continue its policy of funding 12 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure for grants to the states. When inflation is
taken into account along with the Larger number of handicapped students
identified under P.L. 94-142, the recommended fiscal 1981 appropriation of
$1.1 billion amounts to an erosion of the per-child allotment. Most severely
hurt are the preschool incentive grant program, the deaf-blind centers, and
projects for the severely handicapped. The funding recommendation for
special education personnel development - a crucial area for support if the
program is to be effectively carried forward - is barely at the level
appropriated two years ago. While the $58 million in appropriations for 1981
would be a slight increase over the amount being spent this year, it still
falls far short of the $90 million authorized by Congress for personnel
development. A 1978 ASHA report described some of the detrimental effects of
inadequate funding on the Act's implementation:8
1. Some states and local education agencies are developing
program eligibility standards that eliminate from special
education programs students who previously were eligible.
This will reduce the number of handicapped children who
need to be served, reduce the number of personnel and
facilities needed to serve them and reduce costs for
providing special education.
PAGENO="0593"
587
-19-
2. Specla1~sts responsible for determining a handicapped
ch~l4's appropriate education ars being forced to include
i~ the child's Individualized Education Program only those
services that the school districts can provide rather than
what the child needs. Because the school district is re-
sponsible for providing at op cpst to the parent only the
special education and related services inc3~ded in the
IfldividualIzed Education Program, gchool districts are
able to minigize costs by including minimal services ~n
the IEP.
3. School districts are not able to egploy sufficient numbers
of personngl to increase the flumber of handicapped chil~
dren served. Ip some Instances~ existing personnel have
bgen required tq increase the number of children they
serve so the state and ~pcal sducation agency can ~ay they
are serving alJ~ handicapped children. Little considerg-
t~on Is given to ths appropriatsnsss of the services pro-
vided,
~ study conducted by 4SHA shoved that school districts did not come
close to fulfilling the requirement that a~l ha~4ic~pped children ageg five
to s~gbtsen bs enro~.led iq programs designed to fit thgir spec~al needs. Of
l~3 school digtricts strveyed, 99 districts reported a total of 53,436
speech-iapairsd children who neede4 spsc~4 s4ucat~on and relgted services
but were not receiving the qgeded ssrvtcss.9 Speech aqd language-impaired
childrgn fqrg thg ~a~gsst d~gabili~y categp~y among elementary gnd secondary
school a~s gh~l4reo and generate aPpro~ci~ac4~ ~Q Psrcent of Phe P.L. 4~4~
funds PatIonw~dg, ~et the ASHA survey found thg~ fewer than half of the
speech, lan~uags, god hsarin~ programs proy~dIng sSTvices for ~an~icappgd
children wsrs rgc~~ying any ~ 944~ ftmds. The law does pp~ fpclude any
prov~s~on that a proportionats agount of funds generated by spy disability
oatsgory b~ usg4 t~ i,ncrsagg or igprove Services to children ip that
category,
PAGENO="0594"
588
-20-
Recommendations
ASHA recommends that Congress consider a number of policies that would
help to ensure the effective implementation of P.L. 94-142:
* Federal appropriations should allow, at the very minimum,
for funding based on the formula percentages written into
the law. We Fmpe the members of this Subcommittee will
urge their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to
provide for adequate funding~ of P.L. 94-142.
* Provisions should be made for state and local education
agencies to count for funding purposes all handicapped
children who have been identified as needing special educa-
tion and related services, whether they are actually en-
rolled in such programs at the time of the child count or
not. Tied to this is the need to modify the definition of
"unserved" to include those children who are enrolled in
school but who are not receiving the special education and
related services that they require. These changes would
enhance the capacity of SEA's and LEA's to employ special-
ists to serve children on waiting lists.
PAGENO="0595"
589
-21-
Identifying, Counting, and Evaluating Handicapped Children
Identification
The Office of Special Education estimates that by the 1978 - 1979
academic year 70 percent of the nation's handicapped student population were
receiving an appropriate education under P.L. 94-142. This is progress
considering that less than half of this population was receiving an appropri-
ate education prior to the passage of the Act. Yet the figure is disappoint-
ing because three out of ten handicapped children remained unserved or inade-
quately served a year after the Act mandated that all handicapped children
were to be receiving a free and appropriate education.'°
Betw~gn the 1977-78 and 1978-79 academic years, the number of states and
territories reporting a net decrease in the number of children being served
has dropped from nineteen to nine.11 That there are any states which are
showing declines Is, however, quIte disturbing. There will, of course, come
a time whenthe effectiveness of special education and related service pro-
grams will actually bring about a reduction in the number of children requIr-
ing such services. In fact, as pointed out earlier, such a reduction ia
already evident in the speech-impaired child population. Meanwhile, the
Congress and the Office of Special Education must pay close scrutiny to those
jurIsdictions which are failing to make progregs in the identification a~d
education of their still unserved or inadequately served handicapped
childrep.
There is widespread recogqition that handicapped you~gs~ers remain un-
identified or on lists waitIn~ to be served. A survey by ~he HEW Inspector
General!s Of f~ce showed that three-quarters o~ school taachera and admini-
strators believed Ehat there were unserved children in ~hair schoola,12 The
PAGENO="0596"
590
-22-
problem may be most severe in rural areas where facilities and personnel are
unavailable or difficult to gain access to. In some remote areas, services
for handicapped children are r~t provided at all, while in other sparsely
populated areas services are seriously inadequate. Rural school districts
tend to be the poorest in the nation, and have difficulty being able to
afford and recruit personnel for special educaion and related services.'3
The result is that handicapped children must often travel long distances to
get the services they need, or worse, must spend years and sometimes even
lifetimes in an institution.
Speech-language pathologists and audiologists throughout the nation have
reported that they have thousands of students who have been identified as
needing special education and related services but who remain unserved.
Often the reason is insufficient professional staff. But we have also re-
ceived many confidential reports of administrative policies that delay or
prevent services. We are very concerned that many handicapped children are
being denied an appropriate education not because of a failure to identify
them, but because an inordinately long period occurs between identification
and completion of the evaluation. In a recent policy paper, OSE has stated
that placement in special education and related service programs cannot occur
until the IEP is written. Development of the IEP, however, is entirely de-
pendent on evaluation of the child's handicapping condition and instructional
and rehabilitative needs. Because there is no time requirement for comple-
tion of the evaluation, many children enter a school year without the place-
ment they require. Schools use this procedural flexibility as a legal means
of delaying services which they cannot adequately provide due to lack of
facilities, staff or other resources.
PAGENO="0597"
591
-23-
Child Count
The child count is central to the determination of how federal funds are
to be allocated among the states. From the beginning of the Act's implemen-
tation, there have been problems with the child count procedure. The total
number of handicapped children as well as the number in specific disability
categories has remained lower than the numbers estimated by OSE. The
agency's awareness of the discrepancies between projected and reported counts
of handicapped children was made clear in its 1979 Report to Congress:
This disparity between estimates and State counts is a
source of keen concern, as is the great variation in the propor-
tions of children the States have identified as handicapped.
Although the incidence of handicapping conditions may be ex-
pected to vary across different populations, the current varia-
tions among States are so great, with many States serving far
fewer children than the prevalence estimates would predict, that
there is reason to believe many States are not serving all eli-
gible children.'4
There are two components to the child count problem. One is a proce-
dural problem which can be, and to some extent already has been, rectified.
When it was found that taking an average of two counts did not produce an
accurate picture of children being served, the procedure was modified to
require a single annual count. This change, included in the Education Amend-
ments of 1978 (P.L. 95-561) reduces the amount of local administrative work
and frees public funds for actual services. A lingering problem exists, how-
ever, where children receive special education during a substantial portion
of the year (e.g., January - September), but happen to not be enrolled on the
designated annual count date of December 1. It is essential that all chil-
dren who have been enrolled in special education (even if their IEP ends
prior to December 1) be included in the count.
68-332 0 - 81 - 39
PAGENO="0598"
592
-24-
The other component to the child count problem is more serious because
it relates to the failure of school districts to actually identify and pro-
vide services to handicapped children within their jurisdiction. A major
reason underlying this problem is the scarcity of funds for carrying out
education for the handicapped programs. Because the law requires that a. free
appropriate public education was to have been made available to all handi-
capped children as of September 1, 1978, states accepting P.L. 94-142 funds
must be in compliance with this mandate regardless of whether or not full
authorized funding is being provided. Under a legal mandate but with limited
resources for fulfilling it, it is sometimes easiest to simply not identify
some handicapped children. The objective of non-identification can be
brought about by action or inaction. In the first instance, regular or
special education teachers may be pressured to not recommend for an IEP some
of the less severely handicapped students they encounter. This Association
has had frequent reports from its members in the public schools of such
pressure coming from school officials. In the second instance, local and
state educational agencies, along with school personnel, may consciously not
engage in efforts to inform children and parents of their rights under the
law.
A major reason why speech impairment is understated in official counts
is that some states and localities are rewriting the definitions related to
the speech impaired and are changing eligibility requirements to control or
reduce the number of children who need to be served. As with other handi-
capping conditions, there ~ists a range of severity in speech impairments.
Yet some states do not acknowledge that such a continuum exists and frequent-
ly classify speech problems as non-severe, and therefore not handicapped
even though they are in need of special education and related services.
PAGENO="0599"
593
-25-
A final problem with the present method of counting handicapped children
is the rule that a SEA "may not report a child under sore than one disability
category." [45 CFR 121.751(C)1. No allowance is made for the many multi-
handicapped children receiving services from a variety of education profes-
sionals. Speech-language pathologists serve many children with multiple
handicaps including those with learning disabilities, mentally and emotional-
ly handicapped children, deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Studies done at
the local level have shown that between 30 and 50 percent of children with
handicapping conditions also have some kind of communicative disorder.'5
Because these children have a primary handicap other than speech impairment,
they do not appear in the speech impaired child count figures. Allowing only
unduplicated counts results in an underestimation of children with secondary
handicaps, and also makes it difficult to determine the appropriate level of
special education and related service personnel that is needed.
Evaluation
While neither the law nor the regulations provide a precise definition
of the term "educational performance," it is obvious that the meaning goes
beyond an assessment of academic performance. Through its inclusion of young
children in the P.L. 94-142 program and its encouragement of preschool
services in the states, Congress has demonstrated that by education it means
more than the kind of academic performance that can be assessed by the
testing of older children. Nor does the law suggest reliance on standardized
tests and assessment techniques. In requiring and establishing procedures
for the evaluation of handicapped children and the development of IEPs,
Congress and USE clearly sought to take into account the needs and
performance of individual children.
PAGENO="0600"
594
-26-
There are exceptional children at all age levels who perform well by
traditional academic criteria despite their handicaps. Certainly no one
would seriously question the eligibility of a blind or deaf child for special
education and related services because that child received outstanding
grades. Similarly, speech-impaired children who are in need of special
education and related-services and are therefore handicappped as defined by
the law could not be denied services because they happen to also perform well
in academic subjects. Social and emotional adjustment and growth are, along
with academic performance, important components of educational performance.
For example, children who stutter may nevertheless receive good grades in the
classroom. But because of their impairment, such children may be unable to
build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with their peers
and teachers. Their satisfactory academic performance may hide the fact that
they are inhibited from developing their full potential in the overall
educational environment. [See Appendix B for Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services policy interpretation of "adversely affects
educational performance."]
Once out of school, such youngsters may experience difficulty in adjust-
ing to their social environment and in finding appropriate employment. Their
academic performance record will not sufficiently overcome the adverse
effects of an uncorrected communicative disorder. A child with a speech im-
pairment may do well in his course sork because it mainly calls for visual
and writing skills. But in seeking a position following graduation, the
youngster will be required to display oral skills that demonstrate an ability
to communicate effectively in a job situation.
PAGENO="0601"
595
-27-
Implementation of the IEP
Many implementation problems relate to the way the regulations are
interpreted rather than to the contents of the law itself. The Office of
Special Education has made significant strides toward clarifying the meaning
of its regulations in order to facilitate their implementation at the state
and local levels. A recently developed OSE policy paper seeks to respond to
questions and problems concerning the purpose, meaning, and requirements of
individualized education programs. The Office has held that the states
should be given latitude in which to interpret and implement the law's
requirements. Some states, of course, have education for handicapped
children statutes that predate P.L. 94-142, and many have seen fit to go
beyond the requirements of the federal law. The real problem arises when
state and local education agencies establish procedures or engage in actions
that have the effect of not fulfilling requirements of the federal law.
Situations then arise where a child in one state is denied opportunities or
services that are available in other states due to different interpretation
of the statute and the regulations. In effect, the child is not receiving.
full and equal educational opportunities and thus is being denied equal
protection under the law. The practical effect of OSE's efforts at
clarifying the P.L. 94-142 regulations should be to increase uniformity in
the way the law is applied in different jurisdictions. It is also essential
that expert information, comments, and advice be solicited for the purpose of
making policy positions as full and clear as possible. We hope these efforts
by the Office of Special Education will continue.
PAGENO="0602"
596
-28-
Recommendations16
* Because there is such a large incidence of handicapped
children enrolled in school but unserved by the programs
they need, it is essential that federal and state data
collection guidelines provide a means for ascertaining
the number of such unserved children. This information
would permit OSE and the SEAs to plan for funding, per-
sonnel and service programs based on a realistic picture
of unmet needs in the schools. ASHA has recommended
that OSE implement a procedure for the collection of
data on handicapped children who are enrolled in school
but not being served. Program administrators and ser-
vice providers in the local education agencies should
work together toward solutions to the waiting list prob-
lem.
* Many children have multiple handicaps. Because only
primary handicapping conditions are included in the
annual child counts, however, information about other
disabilities is not collected. A large number of chil-
dren served by speech-language pathologists, for in-
stance, are not reported as having communicative dis-
orders because of the federal child count requirements.
ASHA has recommended that a procedure be implemented for
the collection of data that would supplement the child
count data now required for federal funding. These data
are needed to determine the total number of special edu-
cation and related services provided in the country and
to determine personnel needs.
* In order to eliminate the problem of handicapped chil-
dram who are served during part of a year being excluded
from the annual child count, OSE should require the
state education agencies to account for every handi-
capped child who has received special education and re-
lated services during the prior calendar year. In this
way, federal funding will be appropriately applied
toward services actually rendered to handicapped chil-
dren under the program.
* ASHA has recommended that OSE ascertain if state and
local education agency policies or practices have had
the effect of denying a continuum of services to commun-
icatively impaired children. We suggested that the
agency take necessary action to assure that such ser-
vices are provided.
Personnel Deficiencies
The availability and utilization of specialists to deal with the various
disabilities is integral to the achievement of.appropriate education for
PAGENO="0603"
597
-29-
handicapped children. For this reason, there must be a continuing expansion
of programs to train special education and related service professionals such
as audiologists, occupational therapists, and school psychologists. Also
important is the "inservice training" of all educational personnel, including
regular classroom teachers and school administrators, who interact with
handicapped children. Instead of being expanded, however, these programs of
personnel deizelopment are now being cut back.
Under the provisions of a "Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development," each participating state must submit to the Commissioner of
Education for approval a plan which sets forth:
a description of programs and procedures for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive system of
personnel development which shall include the inservice
training of general and special educational instructional
and support personnel, detailed procedures to assure that
all personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained.
[Section 613(a)(3) 89 Stat. 782]
The Final Regulations implementing P.L. 94-142 provide that state
educational agencies must include data in their annual program plans which
detail the current level of personnel and the number of additional personnel
needed for special education and related services, including:
school psychologists, school social workers, occupational
therapists, physical therapists, home-hospital teachers,
speech-language pathologists, audiologists, teacher aides
.and other instructional and noninstructional staff. [45
CFR ~121a.126(b)(2)J
The regulations also outline the procedures to be followed by the states
in providing for and reporting on personnel training programs designed to
PAGENO="0604"
598
-30-
remedy personnel deficiencies and to assure the ongoing training of existing
personnel. [45 CFR §121a.380-383J In order for the concept of education in
the least restrictive environment to work, regular classroom teachers must
receive training that will enable them to understand the unique problems of
and to work effectively with handicapped children. By making this require-
ment a part of all teacher training programs, future generations of classroom
instructors will be adequately prepared to work with handicapped students,
and inservice training programs will no longer be necessary. According to
the Office of Special Education, the needs for specific disability
specialists far outweigh their current availability. In the 1976-1977 school
year, OSE reported that there were 18,390 specialists available to serve the
speech impaired and 8,787 teachers of the hearing impaired. However, OSE
projected the need for 22,254 speech-language pathologists and teachers of
the speech impaired by 1978-1979, and 13,766 teachers of deaf and
hard-of-hearing children for that academic year.17 A recent ASHA study of
state education agencies found over 1,500 funded but unfilled positions (see
Appendix A). As a result of the shortage of qualified personnel, many school
districts are forced to hire less than qualified personnel in order to
fulfill the full education requirement of P.L. 94-142. However, the
inevitable result of this weak employment qualification standard is that many
children do not receive an appropriate education.
The services provided by speech-language pathologists and audiologists
are important with respect to (a) identification, evaluation, and treatment
of speech and hearing impaired children; (b) instruction and counseling for
children with communicative disorders; and (c) aiding children in overcoming
PAGENO="0605"
599
-31-
communicative handicaps which are a barrier to success in their overall
educational development. As with any handicapping condition, the provision
of quality services to the communicatively handicapped depends on a realistic
professional-to-student ratio. Just what an appropriate ratio is depends, in
turn, on factors such as school location and classroom setting, the age
groups involved, the severity of individual student's handicaps, and the
existence of other handicapping conditions.
The OSE Report to Congress reveals that there is a nationwide average of
one speech teacher/speech-language pathologist for every 44 speech-impaired
children. However, in some states the ratio was close fo 1:100.18 An ASHA
survey of local school districts found that the average caseload during the
1977-1978 academic year was 58 speech-impaired pupils for every speech-
language pathologist. However, the caseloads ranged from a low of 1:20 to a
high of 1:150. The projected caseload needed by 1980 is 44.5 children, with
a range of 12 - 75 per speech professional.19
The situation is even more critical with regard to services for hearing-
impaired children. ASHA estimates that of every 10,000 school-age children
57.5 can be expected to suffer from some kind of hearing impairment. The
audiologist plays a dual role in the public schools: the screening of all
children in order to identify those with hearing losses, and the provision of
necessary services to those who have been identified as hearing impaired.
The ASHA survey found an average of only 1.41 audiologists per school
district in 1977-1978, an actual decrease from the number in the previous
school year. The availability of audiologists varies greatly among the
states, but in no state is the number sufficient to meet the hearing conser-
vation and audiologic rehabilitation needs of the student population. In
Georgia the audiologist-pupil ratio is 1:20,000. In Ohio and South Dakota
PAGENO="0606"
600
-32-
the ratio is 1:10,000. In Kansas, the ratio is 1:7,000. In the area of
hearing services, the appropriate staff-pupil ratio depends to a large degree
on the range of services that are to be provided. A lower ratio is
appropriate when audiologists provide comprehensive assessment and
rehabilitative services and not just identification and evaluation services.
This Association, along with the Conference of Executives of American Schools
for the Deaf, has determined that when audiologists are involved in providing
special instructional and habilitative services in an educational setting,
there should be a minimum of one audiologist for every 75 hearing impaired
children.2° However, if a school district desires adequate screening of its
students as part of a preventive health program, a considerably larger number
of audiologists is needed to serve both the general and the hearing impaired
student populations.
The lack of sufficient numbers of speech and hearing specialists makes
it impossible for many school districts to comply with the mandate of "appro-
priate" educational opportunities for all. Where there are not enough
professionals, caseloads are high. And where caseloads are high, proper
attention to individuals is impossible. The disappearance of appropriate
personal instruction when caseloads are excessive and classrooms are over-
crowded is not always obvious in the reporting of hours of service. A
speech-language pathologist might carry a caseload of 80 children and attempt
to work with each child every week. For the individual pupil, this might
mean enrollment in a group with three other children for a half-hour session
twice a week. The child will receive only eight hours of instruction. It is
easy to see from this example that the actual size of a specialist's caseload
is critical to the likelihood or unlikelihood of adequate instruction.2'
(Refer also to Appendix A).
PAGENO="0607"
601
-33-
Audiologic Services
Hard of hearing children have been referred to as the "forgotten popu-
lation" in our public schools.22 A study by the Rand Corporation in 1974
reported that about 440,000 public school children could be labeled hard of
hearing, but that only one in five was receiving appropriate services.23 In
1975-1976, around the tine P.L. 94-142 was being enacted, approximately 20
percent of all hard-of-hearing children were receiving services.24 The trost
recent estimates by OSE indicate that only 30 percent of this category of
handicapped students are currently receiving services - although the law
mandates that all handicapped children should now be receiving appropriate
special education and related services.25
An individual's ability to speak and to use language is based on innate
physiological factors coordinated through an auditory system. The ability to
hear sounds is thus crucial to normal speech and language development, and
communication skill, in turn, forms the foundation for educational, social,
and emotional development. Children who suffer from congenital, developmen-
tal, or accidental hearing impairments will experience difficulties in devel-
oping communication skills and in interacting with others. Fortunately, most
hearing-impaired children possess significant residual hearing capacity.
With proper evaluation of the child's condition and rehabilitative potential,
his or her communicative problems can be significantly reduced through audi-
ological rehabilitation, speech and language services, and hearing aid use.
Unfortunately, utilization of this residual hearing capacity has been quite
low among school-age children. Many children with mild hearing impairments
go unrecognized or are misdiagnosed. Evidence shows that at any given time
at least half of the hearing aid devices used by children are not very help-
ful. This may be due to improper fitting, improper usage due to inadequate
PAGENO="0608"
602
-34-
orientation in utilizing the aids, or mechanical malfunctioning. Many other
children wbo could benefit from a hearing aid do not even possess one.
Children with a slight to moderate hearing loss do not usually ~chibit
the more overt characteristics associated with severe hard-of-hearing and
deaf persons. For many children, hearing difficulties are often undetected
or overlooked, while their failure to learn is attributed to limited mental
ability, behavior problems, poor motivation, or lack of interest. Even stu-
dents whose hearing difficulties are recognized may not receive appropriate
instructional and rehabilitative services. Sometimes this is due to the
regular classroom teacher's lack of knowledge about children with disabili-
ties and bow to deal with them. At other times, appropriate educational
services are not forthcoming because of conflicts over roles and responsibil-
ities among the professional staff who come into contact with the students.
Often the problem is due to the unavailabilityof appropriate personnel.
This is certainly true with respect to audiologic services. For the 1977-
1978 school year, OSE found that there were 709 audiologists employed in the
nation's schools. Yet, based on the previously cited minimum need of one
audiologist for every 75 hearing-impaired children and OSE's finding of
86,362 hearing impaired and deaf students in 1978_1979,26 there ~uld appear
to be a need for at least 1,151 audiologists - just to provide needed ser-
vices to those actually identified as having hearing disorders.
Under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, audiology is
broadly defined to include (a) identification of hearing impaired children;
(b) determination of the nature and extent of hearing loss; (c) provision of
habilitative services such as language habilitation and speech reading (lip
reading); (d) programs dealing with the prevention of hearing loss; (e) coun-
seling and guidance of pupils, parents, and teachers regarding hearing loss;
PAGENO="0609"
603
-35-
and (f) determining the need for and providing amplification, including hear-
ing aid selection, fitting, and orientation. [45 CFR, §121a.13(b)(1)}
The enactment of P.L. 94-142 has broadened the range of services pro-
vided by educational audiologists. Formerly, audiologists in public schools
were mostly concerned with hearing evaluation and conservation programs.
Now, the audiologist works more closely with the individual child actually
identified as having a hearing impairment. Typically, the audiologist is
responsible for a complete diagnostic study, evaluation of the need for
amplification, counseling of students and parents on rehabilitation and hear-
ing aid usage, and coordination of a hearing aid orientation program.
The provision of these audiologic services has been generally unavail-
able to public school children in the past. But now, under P.L. 94-142, the
services are mandatory. If a child's individualized education program states
that audiologic services and hearing devices are essential to an appropriate
education, then these must be provided. Moreover, the regulations require
state and local education agencies to "insure that the hearing aids worm by
deaf and hard-of-hearing children in school are functioning properly.' [45
CFR 5121a.303] In an attached comment, it is noted that Congress "expects
[that] the Office of Education will ensure that hearing-impaired school chil-
dren are receiving adequate professional assessment, follow-up and services."
The problem of interagency cooperation in providing diagnostic and reha-
bilitative services to handicapped children is a serious one, and perhaps
nowhere is the problem more evident than in the area of services for the
hearing impaired. In the past, Medicaid, Head Start, and Maternal and Child
Health and Crippled Children's programs supported audiologic services and
PAGENO="0610"
604
-36-
hearing aids for many school children. Now, because P.L. 94-142 delegates
this responsibility to the school system, many of these public agencies are
refusing to continue funding for these services and benefits.
State and local education officials, meanwhile, have balked at the
prospect of having to use their limited P.L. 94-142 funds for audiologic ser-
vices and for the purchase, maintenance and professional management of hear-
ing aids. They are reluctant to pay outside public agencies for services
they believe should continue to be the responsibility of those agencies. As
noted above, the other social agencies do not share this view. Another
difficulty with the SEA's and LEA's position in this matter is that programs
like Medicaid and Crippled Children's serve only a portion of the total
handicapped population - children from socioeconomically disadvantaged
families and some who reside in rural areas.
Interagency agreements are needed in order to avoid duplication of ser-
vices, but more importantly to avoid situations in which the inability or
unwillingness of agencies to agree on where responsibility for providing ser-
vices lies results in handicapped children being denied necessary services
altogether. Cooperation is particularly important in the realm of related
services and in outlying areas - situations in which the appropriate person-
nel and facilities may rxt be found in the schools themselves. Arrangements
for services should be based on the needs of individual handicapped students
and not on administrative procedures or convenience. Facilities outside of
the schools such as hospitals, clinics, rehabilitation centers, and private
practitioners' offices should be utilized when available and when needed. In
short, the coordination of services among public agencies must be based on
PAGENO="0611"
605
-37-
the overriding goal of guaranteeing that handicapped children receive the
free and appropriate education to which they are entitled.
Some education officials claim that their responsibility to use public
funds for hearing aid procurement and servicing is limited to the utilization
of the devices in the school setting. If such devices are also needed out-
side the classroom - at beme or elsewhere - then the responsibility for pro-
viding them should not belong to the education agency. In fact, the vast
majority of hearing aids used by school have been purchased privately. We
believe that these attitudes are counter to the purpose of the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act. They represent an extremely narrow definition
of the education concept. P.L. 94-142 is based on the idea that an appropri-
ate education requires the participation of children, parents, regular and
special education teachers, and disability specialists, and that learning is
not confined to the classroom, but extends throughout the child's academic
and social environment.
Cooperation is the key to making this Act work - cooperation between
Congress and OSE, between the federal government and the states, between
state and local education agencies, between public and private education and
health organizations, between parents and school personnel.
In closing, we want to restate this Association's support of the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act and our eagerness to work with
this Subcommittee and other Members of Congress in a continuing effort to
make the promise of this law a reality.
PAGENO="0612"
606
FOOTNOTES
1. Statement of Gregory J. Ahart, Director, Human Resources Division,
United States General Accounting Office, before the Subcommittee on
Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (September 10, 1980).
2. The setting of priorities for unserved children and children with the
most severe handicaps pertained to the first year of the Act's implemen-
tation. After September 1, 1978, a free appropriate education was to be
made available to all handicapped children.
3. Statement of Gregory J. Ahart, 2.R~ cit., p. 22.
4. Byrne, Paul, "Report of Handicapped Children Receiving Special Education
and Related Services as Reported by State Agencies Under P.L. 94-142 and
P.L. 89-313: School Years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80. Data
include children under P.L. 94-142 only. Indication of an increase in
the number of children with severe speech impairments is reported in:
Blanchard, M.M., "An Investigation of the Impact of Massachusetts
Special Education Law Chapter 766 on Public School Speech, Language and
Hearing Clinicians: Implications for Training (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1976); Barbara D. Katz-Brown
and Susan T. Karr, "Impact of P.L. 94-142 on New York School Clinicians:
Pilot Study" (unpublished, 1980).
5. The only partial exception is New Hampshire which leaves to the local
education agency the responsibility for determining whether a service is
special education or a related service.
6. Statement of Gregory J. Ahart, ~. cit., pp. 11-12.
7. J. W. Helmick, "Effects of Therapy on Articulation Skills in Elementary
School Children," Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol.
Viii, No. 30 (July 1976): 169-172.
8. "Recommendations for Increasing Funds Under P.L. 94-142," American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, School Services Program (draft,
November 1978).
9. "Language, Speech, and Hearing Programs in the Schools - Survey Data,"
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, School Services Program
(September 1978).
10. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Progress Toward a Free Appropriate Public
Education: Semiannual Update of the Implementation of Public Law
94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (August 1979),
pp. 1-2.
11. Ibid., p~ 2,
12. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, statement by Edwin W. Martin,
Deputy Commissioner, before the Subcommittee on Select Education, U.S.
House of Representatives. (October 24, 1979), p. 6.
PAGENO="0613"
607
13. Judy Schrag, Lucretia Swinburne Farago, and Lisa Walker, "Education of
Handicapped Children in Rural Areas," a paper prepared for the Rural
Education Seminar (May 29-31, 1979).
14. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Progress Toward a Free Appropriate Public
Education: A Report to Congress on the Implementation of Public Law
94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (January 1979),
p. 17.
15. ASHA School Services Program has received reports from: Iowa State
Department of Public Instruction; Fountain Valley City Schools in Ohio;
and the Dallas public school system.
16. An earlier version of these recommendations was contained in a letter
from Stan Dublinske, Director of ASHA's School Services Program to Carry
McDaniels, Director of BEH Division of SAid to the States (February 8,
1980).
17. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, Progress Toward a Free Appro
priate Public Education (January 1979), p. 193, Table D3.4. Note: The
figures in this statement are correct, although the tables in the BEH
Report are mislabeled. Individual state counts are not uniform because
some states included both speech-language pathologists and teachers of
the speech impaired while others included one or the other. One state
counted speech-language pathologists among teachers for the learning
disabled. Similarly inconsistent combinations occurred in the state
counts of audiologists, teachers of the hearing impaired, itinerant
teachers and counselors of the deaf and hard of hearing. Speech-lan-
guage pathologists generally have more education and training than
teachers of the speech impaired.
18. Ibid. p. 57; p. 190, Table D.3.1.
19. `Language, Speech, and Hearing Programs in the Schools," American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1978).
20. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and Conference of Execu-
tives of American Schools for the Deaf, "Cuidelines for Audiology
Programs in Educational Settings for Hearing Impaired Children," Asha,
Vol. 18, No. 5 (May 1976): 291-294.
21. See Stan Dublinske, "P.L. 94-142: Developing the Individualized
Education Program," Asha, Vol. 20, No. 5 (May 1978): 380-393.
22. Julia Davis, (Ed.) Our Forgotten Children: Hard of Hearing Pupils in
the Schools. A publication of the National Support Systems Project
under a grant from the Division of Personnel Preparation, Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped. (U.S. Office of Education, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1977).
68-332 0 - 81 -
PAGENO="0614"
608
23. C. D. Brewer, and J. S. Kaklik, Improving Services to Handicapped
Children. (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1974).
24. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, (U.S. Office of Education,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976).
25. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, "Report of Handicapped Children Receiving Special
Education and Related Services as Reported by State Agencies Under P.L.
94-142 and P.L. 89-313 School Year 1978-1979" (1979).
26. Ibid.
PAGENO="0615"
609
APPENDIX A CASPLOAD REQIJIRENENTS POSITIONS FUNDED BUT UN~iLLa~
__________________ __________________________ _~ppech-Lang. Path. -
abarsa _____________________________ ____________________________________
.aska None NB. N
-izona None NB. N
-kansas 50 NB.
ilifornia ____________________________ 700
)lorado 50 3
)nneCticut None 25
slaware ____________________________ __________________________________
strict of Columbia ___________________________ _________________________________
bride None 70 0
sorgia evere-20 / Mod-40 / Mild -60 60
swaii None 2 N
laho None NB. N
blinois ao 100-150 N
idiana ___________________________ _________________________________
wa 0 for itinerant; 18-resource 27
unsas None 47
sntucky 75 mild/moderate 50 lb
3uisiana _____________________________ ___________________________________
sine 50 NE
sryl and _____________________________
assachusetts None NE lb
ichigan 75 NE N
innesota ndirect service-60;~ direct-i 70
ississippi 60 NB. lb
issouri 85 NE lb
ontana None; suggested 60 9
abraska 70 Several
svada .60 5 lb
5w Hampshire None NE
sw Jersey None NB. lb
aw Mexico 90 for "A" & 36 (resource~ NE lb
ati York 75-related; 20-severe 0
Drth Carolina None 30
Drth Dakota None 10
hio ____________________________ __________________________________
klahoma __________________________ _______________________________
regon None 20 lb
annsylvania . 20~9o* 0
bode Island ____________________________ __________________________________
outh Carolina 100 70
auth Dakota 70 12
ennessee None NE
exas None . NE
tah 60 20 5-
ermont None ~_. 8
ir~inia 75; 65 max. state reimburses'tt NE
ashinqton 42 NE
est Virginia Must not exceed 40..... 14
isconsin 30 itinerant/resource I 93 a
________________ None 6
*Miy be met in a variety of ways: 20 students (5 sessions per student per week);
45 students (2 sessions per student per week);
90 students once a week.
PAGENO="0616"
610
APPENDIX B
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON. DC. 2C202
MAY 3 0 1980
Mr. Stan Dublinske, Director
School Services Program
American Speech-Language
~ Hearing Association
10801 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 208S2
Dear Mr. Dublinske:
Recently, you requested a policy interpretation of the term "adversely
affects educational. performance" as. it relates to speech impaired children.
You indicated that the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(fi&{A) has received reports that some State and local educational agencies
are requiring educational assessments of all speech~ impaired children as
part of the evaluation process in order to determine their eligibility
for special education and related services.
The broad issue raised in your inquiry is whether the definition of
"speech impaired" in the regulations implementing the Education of the
Handicapped Act, Part B (as amended by P.L. 94-142) is interpreted to
mean that children with connmaiicative disorders who have no other handi-
capping condition are ineligible for services as "handicapped children"
unless educational assessments indicate concomitant problems in academic
achievement. An interpretation is needed because "educational performance"
is not specifically defined in the Part B regulations. However, the
standard for determining whether a child fits into any of the categories
of handicaps listed in the Act and regulations is that the impainnent
"adversely affects a child's educational preformance." Under Section
602 Cl) of the Act, a child with one of the listed impairments must need
special education. tobe a "handicapped child". For children who need a
"related service" but no other special education services, the Part B
regulations in section l2la. 14(a) (2) allow a State to consider that
service as "special education", bringing those children within the scope
of the Act.
I agree that an interpretation which denies needed services to speech
impaired children who have no problem in academic performance is un-
reasonably restrictive in effect and inconsistent with the intent of the
Act and regulations.
PAGENO="0617"
611
Page 2 Stan Dublinske
There is strong support in the Act and regulations for a broad con-
struction of the term `educational performance". By its terms, the Act
affords some services (and encourages States to provide more) to infants
and preschoolers with the kinds of handicapping conditions listed in the
statute. "Speech impaired" is one of those categories of handicapping
conditions. Obviously,, assessments of academic performance (through
standardized achievement.tests in subject matter areas) would be inappro-
priate or inconclusive if administered to many such children. The meaning
of "educational performance" cannot be limited to showing of discrepancies
in age/grade performance in academic subj ect-matter areas.
The extent of a s mastery of the basic skill of effective oral
communication is clearly includable, within the standard of "educational
performance" set by the regulations. Therefore, a speech/language impair-
ment necessarily adversely affects educational performance when the
communication disorder is judged sufficiently severe to require the
provision of speech pathology services to the child.
The process for determining a child's disabilities and need for educa-
tional services is described.in Sections 121a.530-533 of the Part B
regulations. These evaluation and placement procedures contemplate that
the diagnosis and appraisal of coimmmicative disorders as handicapping
conditions would be the responsibility of a qualified speech-language
pathologist. (see, also, the definition of "speech pathology" in Section
l2la. 13(b) (12)).
Section l2la.132 sets minimum requirements for the evaluation procedures
that. public educational agencies administer.
Section l2la.532(f) indicates the possible range of areas for assessment
(i.e., health, vision, hearing, social-emotional status, general intelli-
gence, academic performance, conwnunicative status, and motor abilities).
However, the "comment" following this section states:
Children who' have a speech impairment as their primary handicap may
not need a complete battery of assessments (e.g., psychological,
physical or adaptive behavior). However, a qualified speech-language
pathologist would. (I) evaluate each speech impaired child using
procedures that are appropriate for diagnosis and appraisal of
speech and language disorders, and (2) where necessary, make referrals
for additional assessments needed to make an appropriate decision.
PAGENO="0618"
612
Page 3 Stan Dublinske
The "multisource" requirement of Section 121a. 533(a) (1) makes public
agencies responsible for using information from a variety of sources in
interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions. Listed
sources include: "... aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommenda-
tions, physical condition, social or cultural background and adaptive
behavior". Following this section is a "comnent" which clarifies the
nultisource requirement in relation to. speech- language children:
Paragraph (a) (1) includes a list of sources that may be used by a
public agency in making placement decisions. The agency would~ not
have to use all the sources in every instance.. .For example, while
all the named sources would have to be used for a child whose
suspected disability is mental retardation, they would not be
necessary for certain other handicapped children, such as a child
wh~has a severe articulation disorder as his primary handic~p. For
such a child, the speech-language pathologist, in complying with
the multi-source requirement, might use (1) a standardized test
of articulation and (2) observation of the child's articulation in
conversational spç~ç)~~. (Emphasis added.)
AAny public agency requirements which impose procedures more extensive or
stringent than those in the Federal regulations must be scrutinized in
light of these clarifying comments. It. is clear that, in establishing
the existence of a speech/language impairment that is "handicapping" in
Part B terms, a professional judgement is required. The basis for that
judgment is the child' s performance on formal and/or informal measures
of linguistic competence and performance, rather than heavy reliance on
the results of academic achievement testing. The impact of the child' s
camm.inicative status on academic performance is not deemed the sole or
even the primary determinant of the child' s need for special educational
services. It is the coimm.micative status - and professional judgments
made in regard to assessments of communicative abilities - which has
overriding significance.
In the event that the speech- language pathologist establishes through
appropriate appraisal procedures the existence of a speech/language
impairment,~ the determination of the child's status as a "handicapped
child" cannot be conditioned on a requirement that there must be a
concurrent deficiency in academic performance.
PAGENO="0619"
613
Page 4 Stan Dublinske
It was not the intent, of the Act.to reduce services to handicapped
children. The practice which you `have brought to our attention could
have that kind of negative effect. I appreciate your inquiry on behalf
of children with speech/languag airinent and trust that this response
has irtade clear the Office's p i on on this issue.
~ere~t
Acting Assistant Secretary
for Special Education ~ Rehabilitative Services
cc: Garry McDaniels
Jack Jones
Tom Irvin
Bill Tyrrell
Jerry Vlasak
PAGENO="0620"
614
APPENDIX C
P1 94-142: A RESOURCE BIBLIOGR.~2HY
The follcwing materials on P1 94-141 can be used. for pre-service or
continuing education activities.
A Guide to Understanding the Education for All Handicanped Children Act (Pt
94-142)Questicns and Answers on the Federal Law and Regulations American
Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO, Dupont Circle N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Item 435 ($5.00 for 100 copies).
A S~a~ of Selected Legislation Relating to the Eandicaoned.. 0. S. Depart~
cent of Health, Education, and Welfare. For sale by the Superintendent of
Docunents, 0.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (70c)
A Teacherrs Reference Guide to P.L. 94-liz. National Education Association,
1978. 1201 16th Street, ~.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. - -
ámicus: A booklet published by the NatIonal Center of Law- sod the Handicapped.
Subscriptions are $10 per year, National Center for Law & the Handicapped,
1235 North Eddy Street, South Bend,~ Indiana 46617. - . -.
An Analysis of Public Law 94-142. Washington, D.C., NatIonal Asaoc. of State
Directors of Special Education, 1976.($Z.0O). -~ - =
Clarification of P.1. 94-141 for: the Classroom Teacher. 1978. Publications -
Office, Research for Better SchooLs, Inc.,. .1700 ~farket Street,. Fhiladelpbia,
PA 19103
Education for the Eandlcavped law Report~ Publication includes all of the
legislation related t~ the handicapped plus information on court decisions
and state education agency hearing decisions relaEed to handicapped individuals.
The subscription rate is $300 per year, CR.R Publishing. Company, 1156 15th
Street, N.W., Suite 724, Wasbington, D.C. 20005.. - . -
Education of HaodIàpped Children, P.1. 94-142 Regulations, Federal Register,
Vol.. 42, No. 163, August 23,. 1977. ~. .. -- .. . - -
tducat~cn of the HandIcapped: A biweekly newsletter on Federal Legislation,
programs and funding for special education. Capitol Publications, Inc.,
Suite G-l2, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave., N. V., Washington,. D.C. 2003T. The annual.
subscription rate is $105. - . - . -
Handicapped AmerIcan Reports~ A bi-weekly newsletter. Handicapped American
Reports, 2626 Peonsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
The Handicapped, the Teacher and the Law. 1978. A filmstrip package from
National Education Association, 1201 16th Sc., N.H., Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 833-4336.
IEP Packet. Foundation for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Dr.,
Rescon, VA 22091. ($65)
PAGENO="0621"
615
-2-
ImPlementating Procedural Safeguards. Filmstrip. Council for Exceptional
Children, 1920 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091, #167. ($90).
Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap (Section 504). Federal Register,
42, May 4, 1977.
Preparing for the LEP Meeting. Council for Exceptional Children, 1920
Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091, 11188 ($35).
Primer on Due Process. Council for Exceptional Children. 1920 Association Dr.,
Reston, VA 22091, #104 ($4.95).
Public Law 94-142 and Section 504 - Understanding What They Are and Are Not.
1977. Council for Exceptional ChIldren, Unit 9, 1920 Association Dr., Reston,
VA 22091. (50G f6r 1 to 9 copies; 10 or more 40c).
P.L. 94-142 Developing the Individualized Education Program, Asha, May 1978,
p 380.
P.L. 94-142: How It Affects Teachers. Audio Material with discussion guide,
1978. National Education Association, stock ~1l593-2-00.
P.L. 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. FIlmstrip,
Council for Exceptional Children, Unit 9, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA
22091. ($50).
Public Policy and the Education of Exceptional Children. Council for Exceptional
Children, 1920 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091, 11123 ($14.25).
Privacy Rights of Parents and Students Final Rule on Education Records.
Federal Register, 41, June 17, 1976.
Questions and Answers on P.L. 94-142. Washington, D.C.: National Association
of State Directors of Special Education, 1976.
Reprints from American Educati~~ Education of the Handicapped Today and A
Bill of Rights for the Handicapped, June, 1976. Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, Stock #017-080-01569-2,
(35~).
Right to Education Act P.t. 94-142. Filmstrip, Council for Exceptional Children,
1920 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091. #136 ($50).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Fact Sheet. March, 1978, Brochure:
Department of Health, EducatIon, and Welfare. Office of the Secretary, Office
of Civil Rights, Washington, D.C. 20201.
Word from Washington: A newsletter available from the United Cerebral Palsy
Assoc., Inc., Suite 141, Chester Arthur Building, 425 I Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001.
Prepared by: Ellen Sarnecky, Director, Educational Planning Office,
School Services Program, ASHA, 10801 Rockville Pike;
Rockville, ~ 20852
PAGENO="0622"
616
(~JESTION FOR RUThANN SAXMAN
1. You talk about the need for casmunity involvement in order to improve
services to handicapped people. Could you tell us a little more about
the other conniiunity groups you usually work with and the services your
organization provides?
In my testimony I dealt not with improving services to
handicapped people but rather promoting better understanding
of handicaps to allow for a more successful integration into
society.. I also mentioned that handicapped people should be
recognized for theIr achievements.
As for the other groups I work with they are as follows:
A. The President's Committee on Employment of
the Handicapped They made it possible for
me to have an article published that I had
written concerning our parish's involvement
with integrating the handicapped into our
community.
B. Diocesan Council on the Handicapped of
Arlington - I attended a seminar on
dealing with a handicapped child in
the religious education environment
as far as discipline and educating
them.
C. Arlington Council on Learning Disabilities
They were speakers at a program I put
together to educate our parishioners about
children with learning disabilities. I
still speak with their President from time
to time about theIr concerns.
D. Diocesan Council on the Handicapped of~
Buffalo, New York I speak with their
President from time to time on what is
being done in their diocese for the
handicapped.
PAGENO="0623"
617
As for the services my Committee provides they are as
follows:
A. An attorney volunteers her services to aid
people in the area of their rights, whether
~r not they have a problem that can be
dealt with legally. In one inStance we
had a woman who had been a nurse for the
local health service who, upon developing
arthritis in her hands was told that if
she voluntarily resigned they would
guarantee her disability. The state
subsequently denied her disability. My
attorney prepared her to appeal this
decision in Richmond and the appeal
was suecessful. However, this is only
instance of such violation of rights.
Public agencies are well aware that
the decision on disability is not
made at the local level.
B. Another member of my committee is a
social worker. She works with people
in the area of helping them obtain
whatever assistance they are entitled
to, if any, and also assists them in
filling out the appropriate forms.
C. Another member of my Committee is a
special education teacher. At the
present time we are preparing our
own seminar to be held for the religious
education teachers on how to deal with
a handicapped child in the classroom.
D. Another member of my Committee is a
legislative liaison on Capitol Hill.
He obtains laws for our review and
has in the past prepared my speeches.
In addition to these services, two of us alternate weekends
providing a homebound parishioner with meals and teaching
him how to be more independent. Another function of the
Committee is to educate the parishioners in such a way
that they understand and welcome the opportunity to have
a handicapped person participate with them in the Mass.
We were also very important in getting a ramp built at
our church. We provided the people overseeing this matter
PAGENO="0624"
618
with the present ANSI standards to insure that the rsmp would\
be built according to the necessary qualifications. We point4d
out to them that the door woold have to be reversed and I am
at the present time working with some people on deciding what
part of the church it would be most appropriate to remove two
rows o~ pews so that people in wheelchairs could have easy
access to Communion and to leaving at the end of the Mass.
In closing I would like to say that I hope you find my
aniwer to this question helpful and that you feel I have
answered it sufficiently. Should you have any furkker
questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 624-2454.
PAGENO="0625"
619
Senator RANDOLPH. I think that could be helpful in connection
with the hearing we have had today.
Senator Stafford and I would say that there is a possibility we
may hold another hearing, but that will be subject to the decision
that we will make with reference to concerns that surfaced during
these hearings which might need additional exploration.
We are very grateful again to you for coming.
With that understanding, we thank also our guests and those
who are concerned who have been with us. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
0
PAGENO="0626"