7/1/2003 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has marked up a special education bill June 25 that contains many of the NSBA-supported reforms in the bill approved in May by the House.
The Senate's Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (S.1248) "provides substantial administrative relief while returning to a focus on achievement for children with disabilities," says Reggie Felton, NSBA's director of federal relations,
NSBA also is pleased that the Senate bill does not include any form of vouchers.
The Bush Administration had proposed giving parents the choice of having public funds for private schools for children with disabilities without any guarantees that the private schools would provide the services necessary for such children.
Two attempts to add voucher amendments to the House bill failed during the floor debate.
Following are some of the key provisions in the Senate bill:
• The bill provides expanded authority to local school districts. Districts would have more discretion on the use of federal funds to support pre-referral services, risk-sharing pools among districts for high-cost services, and schoolwide programs under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
• Unnecessary administrative requirements would be reduced, and states would be encouraged to reduce state-imposed regulations.
• The due process provisions would be improved. The bill would allow for the early resolution of complaints, early full disclosure of issues, a two-year statute of limitations for complaints, options for mediation, and provisions relating to the objectivity of hearing officers.
• More flexibility would be allowed in the design of Individual Education Plans (IEPs). School officials would have more flexibility in convening IEP meetings, determining who must attend, and evaluating students.
• The bill would provide more equitable financial responsibility for the cost of related services.
It requires state law or a written agreement to identify the specific public agencies and their financial obligations regarding the costs of related services and clarifies that local school districts are to be reimbursed.
According to Felton, "These provisions would ensure that related services are provided to students with disabilities in a timely manner and that the costs for such services would be apportioned among the local school district and other public agencies."
While the Senate bill contains many provisions "that can substantially strengthen services for students with disabilities," Felton says, "the bill has failed to address several critical concerns, such as the need for mandatory funding and the need for uniform discipline policies, that if not addressed, would seriously undermine the success of the program."
While Congress has increased appropriations for students with disabilities in recent years, local school districts were shortchanged more than $10.5 billion in fiscal year 2002.
"In the absence of mandatory funding," Felton says, "states and local school districts will continue to face uncertainty around federal revenues."
With regard to discipline, S.1248 does allow school districts to place students with disabilities in alternative settings pending appeals and a decision as to whether the behavioral problems are a manifestation of the student's disability.
However, "these changes do not go far enough and do not eliminate the operational problems associated with dual discipline systems," Felton says.
NSBA believes that school districts should be given the authority to deal with discipline on a case-by-base basis. "This would allow school districts to effectively address the safety concerns for all students without taking away the rights of individual students," Felton says.