ABA and IDEA

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Enclosed you will find the lastest breifing for the new IDEA revision that

is slowly making its way through Congress. Many agree that it will not get

through before the election. This gives usa chance to formulate a grass

roots campaign for parents and all involved with ABA. We should push for

one Board Certified Behavior Analyst per 1,000 children to be written into

the regulations. Currently, IDEA gives a number of School

Psychologists/2,000 children, the number of counselors, and hte number of

school counselors. It will help ensure that Functional Behavioral

Assessments are conducted and that curriculum based measures and direct

instructional practices are available to the school. In addition, it will

ensure that the current push for school-wide discipline practices are in

place (for a good article see the 3.1 issue of the behavior analyst today

www.behavior-analyst-online.org).

We need to organize Behavior Analyst's. Maybe we should organize

symposiums at ABA on current legislation in " behavior analysis around the

country. " I offer the BAO website as a place where all should feel free to

post legislative issues that are on the horizon that the behavioral

community should know about. BAO is www.behavior-analyst-online.org

Between the revisions of IDEA and the Medicare billing legislation, I

believe that Behavior Analysis can finally have its day in the sun and

with it a critical improvement for all in this country.

Thanks for your time and for your writing,

Joe

P.S. Please pass to your students.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:31:31 -0700

From: preserveIDEA <preserveIDEA@...>

jcautill@...

Subject: IDEA Reauthorization RRN #17

>From the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

preserveIDEA@...

IDEA Rapid Response Network (RRN)

Briefing #17 October 2, 2002

TO JOIN THE RRN: Send an email to preserveIDEA@... and we'll add you

to our distribution list. To read earlier Briefings, visit www.dredf.org

MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR DIANE LIPTON: Please join Disability Rights Education

and Defense Fund and her family and friends to honor the life of DIANE JULIE

LIPTON (1945-2002):

Sunday, November 3, 2002

1:00 - 4:00 PM

Berkeley Hillel (at College Avenue)

2736 Bancroft Way

Berkeley, CA 94704

DIANE LIPTON CHAIR IN SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW: DREDF wants to ensure that

Diane's work will continue by endowing a chair for an attorney at DREDF to

direct our Children and Family Advocacy Program and do policy work on

special education, as Diane did. To that end, we will be launching a

fundraising campaign in Diane's memory. Contributions already received

honoring Diane have been earmarked for this fund.

RRN T-SHIRT: Wear a bright red IDEA and advertise your support of special

education and civil rights for students with disabilities! To support our

work-in the tradition of Diane Lipton-on the RRN, in grassroots parent

organizing and parent advocacy, and in the trenches in Washington, DREDF is

selling an IDEA T-shirt. The shirts are heavyweight 100% cotton, U.S. made

and union printed, and are available in Youth Large and Adult Large and

Extra Large sizes. The design is a red light-bulb face with electric hair

that spells out Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the slogan

is, " Whose IDEA Is It, Anyway? " Shirts are white, with the DREDF red logo

on the left sleeve. On the right sleeve is the purple logo of the SEIU,

Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has generously sponsored

this shirt to help us raise money, and we are grateful to them.

Shirts are $15, plus $2.50 postage and handling. We don't have the

capability to process online orders, but you can print out the order form

from our website: http://www.dredf.org/ and send checks to DREDF, 2212

Sixth St., Berkeley, CA 94710. The order form has an illustration of the

shirt to check out also. Remember to specify quantity and size.

We are also offering these shirts as a special thank you to individuals who

donate $100 or more for our work.

Limited edition-get them while they last. You never know-these shirts could

become a valuable collector's item!

IN WASHINGTON: It appears likely that Congress will adjourn early so that

members can get down to the business of election campaigning. So it will

probably not be until January or later that a bill drops. That delays the

process. It also gives the DREDF IDEA network more time to organize parents

at the grassroots level, to make sure that IDEA reauthorization is on the

reelection agenda, and to question Representatives and Senators on IDEA as

they campaign on their home turf.

REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Little public has been happening on IDEA

reauthorization. We are participating in behind-the-scenes work on language

for a new law. In the meantime, this RRN provides summaries of some reports

that have appeared since the end of formal Congress hearings and the

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education report.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ON IDEA: RRN #14 was

inadvertently sent out before its completion. Hence the NCD recommendations

it mentioned were missing. We apologize for the slip. Here are the

recommendations published by NCD on July 5, 2002 in " Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We Really Stand? " The

full report can be found at

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/synthesis_07-05-02.html

1. DOE should carefully review state regulations and provide technical

assistance and instructions so that implementation can be assured without

unnecessary paperwork. NCD believes that procedural pressures originate

largely at the state level. NCD worries about overhauls that endanger FAPE,

LRE, IEP and due process protections. Results focus is good, but emphasis

on accountability has led to importance placed on test results, which puts

students with challenging disabilities at risk of being relegated to

segregated settings if they fail to perform. Paperwork and process

protections must stay in place to protect the civil rights of these students

2. DOJ should have an expansive role in enforcement so that DOE is not the

sole enforcement agency. DOJ should be authorized and funded to

independently investigate and litigate IDEA cases as well as to handle

pattern and practice complaints. Both DOE and DOJ need adequate funding for

enforcement, complaint-handling, and technical assistance infrastructures.

3. DOE and DOJ should be directed to develop national compliance standards,

improvement measures, and enforcement sanctions that will be triggered by

specific indicators and measures of a state's failure to ensure

implementation of the law.

4. IDEA should include a formula that triggers additional funding equal to

10% of every IDEA Part B increase to fund state and local Technical

Assistance networks, self-advocacy training, and monitoring training for

students and parents, as well as low-cost legal services for families.

5. IDEA should mandate reporting for all students with disabilities in state

accountability reports. IDEA should also mandate that IEPs be required to

address the need for alternate assessments and individualized

accommodations. Schools must be monitored so that they don't remove

students to alternate placements in order to " protect " their scores on

school-wide tests.

6. Congress should adopt mandatory IDEA funding in keeping with the original

federal commitment to fund 40% of the per pupil cost of special education.

Full funding should also be tied to full enforcement and implementation.

7. Discipline requirement should be carefully examined and simplified

because they are confusing, but the 1997 discipline amendments are right and

equitable and their protections must stay in place. No cessation must

remain an absolute requirement in the law.

8. Overrepresentation of diverse populations in special education should be

addressed with early intervention and prevention services in general

education, funded through Title I and other so designated funds. While NCD

agrees that there is an overrepresentation problem of students wrongly

placed in special education, NCD believes strongly that it is wrong to use

IDEA funds to pay for general education prevention. " Funding authorized in

the IDEA must remain money set-aside exclusively for students with

disabilities who are determined in need of special education services. It

must not be blended with general education funds for any purposes. "

9. OSERS in DOE should expand its initiatives to serve non-English speaking

groups and/or people with limited English proficiency and create culturally

appropriate training materials.

CONSORTIUM OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ON IDEA: On August 19, 2002, the

CCD issued its comments on the President's Commission on Excellence in

Special Education. The comments recount the successes of IDEA-reduced

numbers of children with developmental disabilities live in state

institutions apart from their families; more young children enter school

ready to learn; more students with disabilities participate in state- and

district-wide assessments; Part D research funding has produced some

effective practices; more students with disabilities are completing high

school; and more people with disabilities who want to work are doing so.

The comments note that at the end of the second full school year during

which the 1997 IDEA reforms took effect, too many school officials still do

not know how to implement the law, especially with respect to access to the

general curriculum and participation in assessments. CCD also notes that

while implementation has been uneven, the No Child Left Behind Act builds on

the 1997 changes to IDEA and has the potential to increase educational

results for students with disabilities because states will have to establish

systems of accountability that measure how they meet educational needs for

all students.

CCD concurs with the Commission on its main policy goals-focus on results

rather than process; use a model of prevention rather than failure; consider

students with disabilities as general education students first. CCD also

records the following concerns:

* The Commission fails to distinguish between issues that require statutory

or regulatory change and those that require improved implementation and

accountability.

* The Commission does not define " paperwork " : when is it a burden and when

is it a focus on results? How can accountability be adequate without

documentation?

* CCD supports mandatory full funding of Part B and increased funding for

Part C and Section 619. CCD also supports Medicaid support of services for

IDEA students.

* Part D funding should be indexed to Part B so that Part D is funded at a

level that is 10% of Part B.

* Continued expansion of IDEA funds beyond students who have disabilities

may have profound consequences for child find, service delivery, and the IEP

process.

* CCD represents the disability community in " fiercely resisting " altering

the IDEA disability categories. IDEA's great strength is in its individual

approach.

* CCD believes that IDEA already provides for private school placement when

a school district cannot provide what a student needs. If IDEA funds follow

students to private schools, those schools are not held accountable for the

student's progress and the student may lose due process protections provided

by IDEA.

CCD urges policymakers to make careful determinations about whether existing

problems results from the stature or whether they represent inappropriate,

ineffective, or incomplete implementation of the current statute.

The complete report can be found at

http://www.c-c-d.org/fed%20reg%20response%208.19.02.doc

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES: The NCSL website contains a

briefing on IDEA that points to over-identification of children for special

education services and paperwork burdens. NCSL proposes " a more unified

system of education in which special education is an integrated component of

school improvement, rather than a separate program. " Their briefing

discusses the important role of funding, accountability, and teacher and

administrator capacity in the education of children with disabilities.

DREDF is concerned about their stance on special education as a separate

program. This argument is quite different from arguing that students with

disabilities should be fully integrated into regular classrooms and moves

toward eliminating procedural safeguards and administrative protections for

our children by eliminating the very program that provides them with

services.

Go to http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/edu.htm for more information.

LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ON IDEA: In their July-August

Newsbriefs, the LDA supports maintaining existing provisions of IDEA-97 and

strengthening those provisions by:

* Requiring services beyond curriculum adaptations and accommodations

* Ensuring the availability of preventive and health-related services

* Providing qualified, licensed special education teachers

* Establishing transition programs and requirements so that graduation rates

increase

* Improving accountability and monitoring programs

* Establishing reasonable teacher caseloads to maximize teaching time and

minimize paperwork without sacrificing procedural safeguards

* Increasing federal funding to the promised 40% level

* Providing parents and educators with technical assistance and research

dissemination

* Increasing research-based projects in classroom instruction and

instructional technology

* Improving assessment and evaluation procedures

* Clarifying accountability data-gathering and processing procedures

* Decreasing inappropriate over- and under-representation of students of

color and non-English speaking students

* Implementing research-based behavioral support and intervention programs

* Establish research-based intervention studies in learning disabilities

CENTER FOR LAW AND EDUCATION COMMENTS: The Center addressed comments on the

President's Commission report on August 19, 2002. CLE holds that " the

Commission's attack on the IDEA regulations is not germane to

reauthorization of the IDEA statute. Rather, problems that exist derive

from uneven implementation or poor educational practice not IDEA

regulations. CLE also argues that " it is, in fact, attention to the legal

and procedural requirements for formulating the IEP that makes it the

critical tool for learning and ensuring improved educational outcomes that

it is under existing law. " Requirements that the IEP identify measurable

goals, benchmarks, and objectives, represent a key element of

accountability, because these identify how teachers and service providers

will help the student to achieve and let them know if they are succeeding.

The entire statement can be found at

http://www.cleweb.org/Current_Fed_Leg/CLECommentsCommReport.htm

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN IOWA: Rep. Boehner (R-OH), chair of the House

Subcommittee on Education and the Workforce and Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA),

chair of the House Budget Committee, toured Iowa schools and issued a press

release on August 14 saying that the GOP budget would fully fund IDEA within

10 years provided that reforms are made in the law concerning paperwork

reduction, focus on results not procedures, and reduce over-representation

of minority students in special education. The press release can be found at

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/press/press107/nusslejab81402.htm

EDUCATION DAILY ON PAPERWORK: In its August 19, 2002 issue, Education Daily

contains an article pointing out that the two mantras of IDEA

reauthorization discussions so far-reduce paperwork and improve results-are

at odds with one another. If IEPs are simplified and short-term benchmarks

and objectives eliminated in order to reduce paperwork then there is no way

to track accountability and results. Reporter Hicks cites DREDF's

analysis of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education

report.

CATO INSTITUTE ON IDEA: On July 10, the Cato Institute, a conservative think

tank, published a paper by Marie Gryphon and Salisbury, from the

Institute's Center for Educational Freedom. The report is entitled

" Escaping IDEA: Freeing Parents, Teachers and Students through Deregulation

and Choice. " As you might imagine, DREDF does not share the views in this

long paper, which sees IDEA as " the high-water mark of federal control of

American education " that has created " a barrage of compliance-driven

paperwork so overwhelming that special educators are driven to quit the

profession. " The paper rails against the regulatory and procedural

protections in IDEA. Needless to say, DREDF is appalled by this report.

The thrust of the paper is to advocate for " portable benefits " -code for

vouchers. The authors argue that many children are placed in special

education simply because they are poor readers. They see the current system

as smothering and adversarial, and argue that nearly everyone is unhappy

with it. Yet while arguing out of one side of their mouths that affluent

parents seek to have their children identified as disabled in order to

receive the increased resources special education provides, the authors also

argue out of the other side that the system is failed and overregulated.

The report concludes that federal funding should remain small, using the

weird argument that low funding will encourage states to get rid of the

system and forego the pittance in favor of creating their own reforms

through parental choice programs. DREDF agrees with one of the paper's

final sentences- " Raising a disabled child is difficult enough without

fighting protracted annual battles with her teachers, her school, and its

lawyers about the programs and services she needs most. " But moving

children to private schools that have no responsibility to provide

appropriate services and no accountability systems for students with

disabilities is not the answer. The answer is to fund and enforce the

existing law so that it does what it was intended to do: educate all

children with disabilities along with their non-disabled peers in a system

that is accountable for processes as well as results.

The full text of this paper is available at

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-444es.html