**Introduction to a New Era**

Four decades ago, Congress began to lend the resources of the federal
government to the task of educating children with disabilities. Since
then, special education has become one of the most important symbols of
American compassion, inclusion, and educational opportunity.

Over the years, what has become known as the *Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act* has moved children with disabilities from
institutions into classrooms, from the outskirts of society to the
center of class instruction. Children who were once ignored are now
protected by the law and given unprecedented access to a "free
appropriate public education."

But America's special education system presents new and continuing
challenges. For far too many families, teachers, principals, and school
districts, special education presents a daunting task---a morass of
rules, regulations, and litigation that limits access and hinders
learning.

Hundreds of thousands of parents have seen the benefits of America's
inclusive education system. But many more see room for improvement.

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the *No Child Left
Behind Act* into law. That law united Congress and our nation. It made a
bold, new commitment to *every* child.

We became a nation committed to judging the schools by one measure and
one measure alone: whether every boy and every girl is
learning---regardless of race, family background, or disability status.

On October 2, 2001, the President created the Commission on Excellence
in Special Education (the Commission). The Commission continues the
President's education vision for America---an America where every public
school reaches out to every single student and encourages every child to
learn to his or her full potential.

Although it is true that special education has created a base of civil
rights and legal protections, children with disabilities remain those
most at risk of being left behind. The facts create an urgency for
reform that few can deny:

-   Young people with disabilities drop out of high school at twice the
    rate of their peers.

-   Enrollment rates of students with disabilities in higher education
    are still 50 percent lower than enrollment among the general
    population.

-   Most public school educators do not feel well prepared to work with
    children with disabilities. In 1998, only 21 percent of public
    school teachers said they felt very well prepared to address the
    needs of students with disabilities, and another 41 percent said
    they felt moderately well prepared.

-   Of the six million children in special education, half of those who
    are in special education are identified as having a "specific
    learning disability." In fact, this group has grown more than 300%
    since 1976.

-   Of those with "specific learning disabilities," 80% are there simply
    because they haven't learned how to read. Thus, many children
    identified for special education---up to 40%---are there because
    they weren't taught to read. The reading difficulties may not be
    their only area of difficulty, but it's the area that resulted in
    special education placement. Sadly, few children placed in special
    education close the achievement gap to a point where they can read
    and learn like their peers.

-   Children of minority status are over-represented in some categories
    of special education. African-American children are twice as likely
    as white children to be labeled mentally retarded and placed in
    special education. They are also more likely to be labeled and
    placed as emotionally disturbed.

The President sought a commission that would recommend reforms to
improve America's special education system and move it from a culture of
compliance to a culture of accountability for results.

The President earnestly desires a *new era* in special education---one
that doesn't seek to meet minimum requirements, but rather embraces
increased academic achievement and real results for every child with a
disability. He desires a special education system that aspires to
excellence.

The Commission's charge was to encourage an open dialogue with parents,
teachers, families, and communities in an effort to gather insights as
well as find better ways to meet children's learning needs.

The Commission heard from hundreds of individuals and organizations at
13 public hearings and meetings---held in cities throughout our nation.
The Commission also invited and received hundreds of written comments.

Their voices were heard.

From the parents who are generally satisfied with special education, to
the parents and teachers who expressed deep frustration, we listened.

Their needs are the impetus for reform. Their hopes are the imperative
for action.

What we found was a system in need of fundamental re-thinking, a shift
in priorities, and a new commitment to individual needs. What we saw was
a need for reforms that promise to transform and reach the life of every
child with a disability as well as empower every parent.

The Commission worked from the simple principle that accountability for
results matters, that parents desire maximum input, and educators want
to see efficiency melded with compassion and improved outcomes. The
ultimate test of the value of special education is that, once
identified, children close the gap with their peers. That's what
accountability for results is about.

Yet, after thousands of comments and letters on the real complexities in
the system, we found common threads among those whose needs weren't
being met.

**Finding 1:** IDEA is generally providing basic legal safeguards and
access for children with disabilities. However, the current system often
places process above results, and bureaucratic compliance above student
achievement, excellence, and outcomes. The system is driven by complex
regulations, excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative
demands at all levels---for the child, the parent, the local education
agency, and the state education agency. Too often, simply qualifying for
special education becomes an end-point---not a gateway to more effective
instruction and strong intervention.

**Finding 2:** The current system uses an antiquated model that waits
for a child to fail, instead of a model based on prevention and
intervention. Too little emphasis is put on prevention, early and
accurate identification of learning and behavior problems, and
aggressive intervention using research-based approaches. This means
students with disabilities don't get help early when that help can be
most effective. Special education should be for those who do not respond
to strong and appropriate instruction and methods provided in general
education.

**Finding 3:** Children placed in special education are general
education children first. Despite this basic fact, educators and
policy-makers think about the two systems as separate and tally *the
cost* of special education as a separate program, not as additional
services with resultant add-on expense. In such a system, children with
disabilities are often treated, not as children who are members of
general education and whose special instructional needs can be met with
scientifically based approaches, they are considered separately with
unique costs---creating incentives for misidentification and academic
isolation---preventing the pooling of all available resources to aid
learning. General education and special education share responsibilities
for children with disabilities. They are not separable at any
level---cost, instruction, or even identification.

**Finding 4:** When a child fails to make progress in special education,
parents don't have adequate options and little recourse. Parents have
their child's best interests in mind, but they often do not feel they
are empowered when the system fails them.

**Finding 5:** The culture of compliance has often developed from the
pressures of litigation, diverting much energy of the public schools'
first mission: educating every child.

**Finding 6:** Many of the current methods of identifying children with
disabilities lack validity. As a result, thousands of children are
misidentified every year, while many others are not identified early
enough or at all.

**Finding 7:** Children with disabilities require highly qualified
teachers. Teachers, parents, and education officials desire better
preparation, support, and professional development related to the needs
of serving these children. Many educators wish they had better
preparation before entering the classroom as well as better tools for
identifying needs early and accurately.

**Finding 8:** Research on special education needs enhanced rigor and
the long-term coordination necessary to support the needs of children,
educators and parents. In addition, the current system does not always
embrace or implement evidence-based practices once established.

**Finding 9:** The focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives in
the current system, instead of academic achievement and social outcomes,
fails too many children with disabilities. Too few successfully graduate
from high school or transition to full employment and post-secondary
opportunities, despite provisions in IDEA providing for transition
services. Parents want an education system that is results oriented and
focused on the child's needs---in school and beyond.

In short, our reforms must remove the bureaucracy and regulations that
prevent a focus on closing the gap. We must begin with the simple
question of whether children with disabilities are learning and
functioning well and then reform and tailor the system from there.

To overcome the many challenges to and obstacles in our special
education system, we must consider reforms at every level of public
education, from the federal to the local level, so that every resource
is tailored to the specific needs of students and parents.

This report represents the thoughts, suggestions, and wisdom of more
than 100 recognized special education experts, special and regular
education finance experts, education and medical researchers, parents of
children with disabilities, persons with disabilities, teachers and
administrators, and others possessing special education expertise and
direct experience with the status quo.

After months of work, we could not agree more with President Bush. We
believe and we know we can do better by applying many of the same
principles of *No Child Left Behind* to IDEA: accountability for
results; flexibility; local solutions for local challenges;
scientifically based programs and teaching methods; and full information
and options for parents.

The members of the Commission are pleased to submit this report, *A New
Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families.*
The report outlines our findings and recommendations for improving the
educational performance of children with disabilities.

Ultimately, it is a message of hope, an invitation to a new era in
education.

We know this report will build on the President's desire for a simpler,
fairer, more compassionate and more effective special education system.
We know, because we listened to the American people. We know that
special education is not a place---it's a service and should be
accountable for results.

This year, President Bush has asked for the largest increase in federal
funding for IDEA of any president in history, a billion dollar increase
to \$8.5 billion dollars. That means the federal government will be
supplying \$1,300 for every child with a disability---the highest
funding *ever*.

But we cannot be satisfied with merely spending more. We must spend more
wisely. The *No Child Left Behind Act* united Congress behind the idea
that we can no longer afford to just debate about money. Every education
reform must focus on results. Every education idea must be judged by its
effect on children.

It is the Commission's hope that this report provides a solid foundation
for continuing the President's leadership in education. The report
offers an invitation to a *New* *Era*---an era that serves the needs of
the child first, an era that focuses on results, and an era that hones
our teaching and instruction to identify needs early and accurately and
provide every child with help swiftly and surely.

It is our hope that this report will continue the bipartisan spirit for
education reform already achieved so that we ensure our nation leaves no
child behind.

# Executive Summary

*"The education of all children, regardless of background or
disability...must always be a national priority. One of the most
important goals of my Administration is to support states and local
communities in creating and maintaining a system of public education
where no child is left behind. Unfortunately, among those at greatest
risk of being left behind are children with disabilities."*

**---President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13227**

On October 2, 2001, President Bush ordered the creation of the
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. As part of
the President's charge to find ways to strengthen America's four decades
of commitment to educating children with disabilities, the Commission
held 13 hearings and meetings throughout the nation and listened to the
concerns and comments from parents, teachers, principals, education
officials, and the public.

In this executive summary, we provide the overarching findings
illustrated throughout the following pages of the report.

# Summary of Findings

# 

**Finding 1:** IDEA is generally providing basic legal safeguards and
access for children with disabilities. However, the current system often
places process above results, and bureaucratic compliance above student
achievement, excellence, and outcomes. The system is driven by complex
regulations, excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative
demands at all levels---for the child, the parent, the local education
agency, and the state education agency. Too often, imply qualifying for
special education becomes an end-point---not a gateway to more effective
instruction and strong intervention.

**Finding 2:** The current system uses an antiquated model that waits
for a child to fail, instead of a model based on prevention and
intervention. Too little emphasis is put on prevention, early and
accurate identification of learning and behavior problems, and
aggressive intervention using research-based approaches. This means
students with disabilities don't get help early when that help can be
most effective. Special education should be for those who do not respond
to strong and appropriate instruction and methods provided in general
education.

**Finding 3:** Children placed in special education are general
education children first. Despite this basic fact, educators and
policy-makers think about the two systems as separate and tally *the
cost* of special education as a separate program, not as additional
services with resultant add-on expense. In such a system, children with
disabilities are often treated, not as children who are members of
general education and whose special instructional needs can be met with
scientifically based approaches, they are considered separately with
unique costs---creating incentives for misidentification and academic
isolation---preventing the pooling of all available resources to aid
learning. General education and special education share responsibilities
for children with disabilities. They are not separable at any
level---cost, instruction, or even identification.

**Finding 4:** When a child fails to make progress in special education,
parents don't have adequate options and little recourse. Parents have
their child's best interests in mind, but they often do not feel they
are empowered when the system fails them.

**Finding 5:** The culture of compliance has often developed from the
pressures of litigation, diverting much energy of the public schools'
first mission: educating every child.

**Finding 6:** Many of the current methods of identifying children with
disabilities lack validity. As a result, thousands of children are
misidentified every year, while many others are not identified early
enough or at all.

**Finding 7:** Children with disabilities require highly qualified
teachers. Teachers, parents, and education officials desire better
preparation, support, and professional development related to the needs
of serving these children. Many educators wish they had better
preparation before entering the classroom as well as better tools for
identifying needs early and accurately.

**Finding 8:** Research on special education needs enhanced rigor and
the long-term coordination necessary to support the needs of children,
educators and parents. In addition, the current system does not always
embrace or implement evidence-based practices once established.

**Finding 9:** The focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives in
the current system, instead of academic achievement and social outcomes,
fails too many children with disabilities. Too few successfully graduate
from high school or transition to full employment and post-secondary
opportunities, despite provisions in IDEA providing for transition
services. Parents want an education system that is results oriented and
focused on the child's needs---in school and beyond.

## **Summary of Major Recommendations**

# In response to these findings, the Commission has produced *A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families*. This report contains dozens of recommendations addressing each of the Commission's nine major findings and their ramifications. 

Overall, federal, state, and local education reform efforts *must*
extend to special education classrooms. What we discovered was that the
central themes of the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001* must become the
driving force behind IDEA reauthorization. In short, we must insist on
high academic standards and excellence, press for accountability for
results at all levels, ensure yearly progress, empower and trust
parents, support and enhance teacher quality, and encourage educational
reforms based on scientifically rigorous research. In addition, we must
emphasize identification and assessment methods that prevent
disabilities and identify needs early and accurately, as well as
implement scientifically based instructional practices.

Three broad recommendations form the foundation of the report.

**Major Recommendation 1:** ***Focus on results---not on process***.

IDEA must return to its educational mission: serving the needs of every
child. While the law must retain the legal and procedural safeguards
necessary to guarantee a "free appropriate public education" to children
with disabilities, IDEA will only fulfill its intended purpose if it
raises its expectations for students and becomes results-oriented---not
driven by process, litigation, regulation, and confrontation. In short,
the system must be judged by the opportunities it gives and the outcomes
achieved by each child.

**Major Recommendation 2:** ***Embrace a model of prevention not a model
of failure.***

The current model guiding special education focuses on waiting for a
child to fail, not on early intervention to prevent failure. Reforms
must move the system toward early identification and swift intervention,
using scientifically based instruction and teaching methods. This will
require changes in the nation's elementary and secondary schools as well
as reforms in teacher preparation, recruitment, and support.

**Major Recommendation 3:** ***Consider children with disabilities as
general education children first.*** 

Special education and general education are treated as separate systems,
but in fact *share* responsibility for the child with disabilities. In
instruction, the systems must work together to provide effective
teaching and ensure that those with additional needs benefit from strong
teaching and instructional methods that should be offered to a child
through general education. Special education should not be treated as a
separate cost system, and evaluations of spending must be based on all
of the expenditures for the child, including the funds from general
education. Funding arrangements should not create an incentive for
special education identification or become an option for isolating
children with learning and behavior problems. Each special education
need must be met using a school's comprehensive resources, not by
relegating students to a separately funded program. Flexibility in the
use of all educational funds, including those provided through IDEA, is
essential.

## **A Final Challenge**

Before signing the *Education for All Handicapped Children Act* of 1975
(since reauthorized as the *Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act*), President Ford expressed some concerns about the effect of the
law. He worried that it would create new complexities and administrative
challenges for public education. But ultimately it was hope and
compassion that inspired him to sign the bill into law.

More than a quarter century later, we know that many of President Ford's
concerns were realized. But we also know that IDEA has exceeded
President Ford's greatest hopes. Children with disabilities are now
being served in public schools. And new opportunities abound. This
Commission is optimistic that our nation can build on the successes of
the past and do even better in meeting the needs of special education
children and their families. But we will do so only through a focus on
educational achievement and excellence, teacher quality and support, and
rigorous research. We will succeed if we work to create a culture of
high expectations, accountability, and results that meets the unique
needs of every child. Only then can the promise of no child left behind
truly be fulfilled.

# Federal Regulations and Monitoring, Paperwork Reduction and Increased Flexibility

# RECOMMENDATION---REPLACE Federal Monitoring Practices With A Focused APPROACH: The U.S. Department of Education should seek to radically change how it conducts technical assistance and monitoring activities to focus on results instead of process. The Department should monitor and provide effective technical assistance on a much smaller number of substantive measures guided by broad federal standards that focus on performance and results.

# RECOMMENDATION---Reduce Regulatory Burden AND INCREASE FLEXIBILITY: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should emphasize flexibility to achieve results for children with disabilities, including a unified system of services from birth through 21, and simplify the Individualized Education Program to focus on substantive outcomes. The IDEA federal regulatory and administrative requirements imposed on state and local education agencies are burdensome and should be dramatically simplified to be more understandable for parents, educators and administrators. Up to 10 states shall be allowed to propose paperwork reduction strategies under IDEA to the Secretary of Education.

**RECOMMENDATION---UTILIZE FEDERAL SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF MORE
EFFECTIVELY. The U.S. Department's of Education's Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has not been able to meet
its obligations and appropriately implement its responsibility under
federal law. Within three months of the issuance of this report, the
Secretary of Education should provide recommendations to Congress on how
OSERS can better utilize its staff and resources to implement federal
special education law.**

RECOMMENDATION---EXPEDITED RESULTS FROM EXPEDITED IMPLEMENTATION:
Consistent with the *No Child Left Behind* Act, IDEA should provide for
expedited implementation of the new IDEA authorization in 12 months.
Further, reauthorization should establish a timetable for each section
of reauthorization.

Before the enactment of IDEA's predecessor, only about one in five
children with disabilities received a public education. More than 1
million students were excluded from public schools, and another 3.5
million did not receive appropriate services. Twenty-seven years later,
changes in how we view people with disabilities and the potential of
children with disabilities have resulted in increased access to public
schools and special educational services for an entire generation.

Yet these gains only reveal part of the story. Since 1975, many of the
positive effects realized by federal involvement in special education
have been overshadowed by the growth in paperwork and administrative
entanglements. These entanglements reduce the focus on individual child
results and educational outcomes.

At all levels, the Commission finds that the emphasis on IDEA paperwork
requirements is unnecessarily onerous. The culture of process compliance
begins at the top of the IDEA implementation pyramid and has a dramatic
effect all the way down through the bureaucracy to the classroom.
Teachers spend far more time completing documentation and paperwork than
is merited by any educational or civil rights compliance purpose.
Educators spend more time on process compliance than on improving
educational performance of children with disabilities.[^1] The
Commission finds that the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP), which is a division of OSERS, fosters
this emphasis as a result of its state and local monitoring methods.
These methods place too much emphasis on the compliance for process
rather than a more effective and efficient strategy of focused
monitoring of compliance for performance and results.

# 

## Change from a "Culture of Process" to a Culture of Results

Two problems arise from this culture of process compliance. First, the
emphasis on process has led to use of checklists of more than 814
federal monitoring requirements to determine if schools have implemented
all procedural requirements of IDEA. Few of the more than 814 items on
the checklist are directly related to student performance. The National
Council on Disability (NCD), testimony from Commission witnesses and
public comments at Commission hearings and meetings assert that no state
education agency is in compliance and never has been fully in compliance
with IDEA. In fact the assistant secretary for the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Robert Pasternack, Ph.D.,
testified before the U.S. Senate on March 21, 2002,[^2] that no state is
in full compliance with IDEA. Ironically, even if a school complied with
the more than 814 requirements, families and Congress would have no
assurance children were making progress. Current law has become overly
procedural and complex. As a result, schools and other education
agencies cannot focus on the improvement of student performance and on
student transition to independence and self-sufficiency after graduating
from high school.

Second, there is little demonstrable link between process compliance and
student results and success. While process compliance two decades ago
allowed the federal government to determine whether children with
disabilities received any education services, then and now it does
little to help parents and teachers judge whether those services lead to
student success. Indeed, the complaints by NCD, witnesses and the public
about the lack of historic compliance with IDEA beg the more fundamental
question of whether such procedural compliance has anything to do with
actual student achievement, and their post-school success. To answer
these problems, the Commission recommends that IDEA, its regulations and
federal and state monitoring activities be fundamentally shifted to
focus on results and accountability for scientifically based services,
and their continuous improvement.

## 

## Federal Regulatory Activities Are Off-Target and Inefficient

In IDEA, Congress directed OSEP to provide grants to states for the
education of children with disabilities in accordance with IDEA Part
B.[^3] The IDEA statute does not specify that OSEP must monitor states
for compliance with IDEA in the manner OSEP currently practices. It
merely requires that states demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Education that they have policies and procedures to ensure
the basic *principles* outlined in the statute can be met.[^4]

OSEP implements this statutory requirement through a complex compliance
review process that includes periodic on-site monitoring of states. The
OSEP Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division (MSIP) is
responsible for state plan reviews and approval under IDEA, and for
monitoring formula grant programs to ensure consistency with IDEA and
the implementing regulations. The Commission finds that the methods
historically used by OSEP through its MSIP division are focused on
administrative and regulatory compliance at the expense of assisting
state and local education agencies in their efforts to educate children
with disabilities. The Commission heard testimony that MSIP is
attempting to change its monitoring process but that it may be
constrained by current law. The Commission further finds that the
OSEP-issued regulations implementing IDEA are unreasonably complex;
burdensome for state and local agencies to comply; and minimally related
to student achievement, results and success.

At a Commission meeting on February 25, 2002, in Houston, TX, experts
provided testimony regarding the current status of OSEP federal
monitoring activities of states with respect to IDEA. Lawrence
Gloeckler, Ph.D., deputy commissioner for Vocational and Educational
Services for Individuals with Disabilities in the New York State
Education Department, stated his frustration with the focus on process
rather than results for children with disabilities.

> "In New York state, if you asked how well children were achieving
> academically, administrators couldn't answer, but what you could find
> out is how compliant with the process is the given school district.
> This is what the federal government asks us to focus on. \... We are
> now working on the fifth draft of the New York State eligibility
> document required by OSEP to receive our annual IDEA funds. This year
> our document is 73 pages, and OSEP is debating over our choice of
> words with respect to transition services. \[W\]e have been asked to
> change our state regulations from inviting a child to a meeting if it
> discusses transition services to OSEP's \[suggested language of
> inviting\] a child to transition if it\'s about transition or if it's
> about looking at the need for services. Since the State of New York
> used words that are not identical to OSEP's, we may need to change our
> regulations, which means going through a major review in our state,
> including public hearings and reprinting thousands and thousands of
> documents, that has nothing to do with providing transition services
> to students with disabilities at all. In the end we will have done
> nothing except spend money." [^5]

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

The Commission recommends that the current continuous improvement
monitoring system be replaced with one that focuses on student
performance and results, and emphasizes continuous improvement in
significant, measurable areas related to important compliance
findings.[^6] As further support for its findings, the Commission
requested that OSEP provide additional information about how much time
is spent in the monitoring process and what resources were devoted to
state and local compliance monitoring activities.[^7] The Commission's
analysis of the above data provided by OSEP shows that a total of 27
States and territories were monitored between January 1, 1997, and
February 1, 2002. While OSEP tells states that a monitoring report will
be issued within four to six months of the exit conference with state
officials, OSEP's actual performance is typically between four and 20
months, with an average of 13.6 months during the period noted in the
chart at (left/right/top/bottom). OSEP's response shows that
considerable resources are on these activities with questionable
results. For example, while one state, Utah, was ultimately found to be
among the most compliant in the nation, the final report was not issued
by OSEP for a full year from the date the state was monitored.

  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
  States and Territories               Number of Months Between
                                       Monitoring and Report Delivery

  Connecticut, Mississippi, American   4
  Samoa, Northern Marianas             

  Arkansas, South Dakota               7

  Missouri, Oregon                     8

  California                           10

  Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota,   12
  Utah                                 

  New Mexico, Virgin Islands           13

  Florida, Washington                  14

  Colorado                             15

  Arizona, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania 16

  Ohio, Louisiana                      17

  Nebraska                             18

  Wisconsin                            20

  Maryland                             21

  New York                             36+
  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

A final OSEP report can be a useful document for technical assistance
purposes if the document is provided to the state within the promised
length of time. Because of the substantial time between on-site
monitoring and the release of reports, most reports are impractical and
provide no assurance to Congress or families of the status of IDEA
implementation. The Commission recommends that OSEP *publicly* document
the actual time between the date of the on-site exit meeting and the
date of issuance of the state compliance report.

Data about special education program performance are critical to
determine state implementation of federal law and in ensuring children
with disabilities and their families are provided with a free
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The
Commission heard statements about graduation rates, participation in
regular school settings, and other quantitative information from past
annual reports to Congress. However, the identification of trends has
been hampered by inconsistent reporting and data formats.

If the culture of monitoring for results is to take hold and the promise
of special education is to be achieved, then accurate and consistent
data must be gathered, assiduously analyzed, and publicly reported in a
manner that families and states can use. Congress must know that its law
is being effectively implemented and that federal resources are used
wisely. The Commission finds the current Annual Report to Congress
inadequate. It does not give the public and Congress useful information
on the accountability of states and their relative performance in
meeting federal requirements and standards for achieving satisfactory
results. The Commission recommends that the Department of Education's
Annual Report to Congress on IDEA should describe how each state is
performing relative to other states. It should also report state
performance on a variety of results-oriented dimensions.

## Utilize Federal Special Education Staff More Effectively

The Commission believes that full implementation of federal law requires
a commitment to an appropriately trained and well-utilized staff. The
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services---OSEP in
particular---has not been able to meet its obligations and appropriately
implement its responsibility under federal law. Families and states will
not receive the promise of special education without a strong federal
office to assist states, reinforce flexibility and innovation, collect
important data about results and enforce compliance for results. The
Commission recommends that, within three months of the issuance of this
report, the Secretary of Education report to Congress recommendations
for how OSEP can better utilize its staff and resources to implement
federal special education law.

An emphasis on relationships between OSEP staff and state directors of
special education blurs the ability to engage in meaningful enforcement
actions. Although such relationships may be helpful in terms of
providing technical assistance, the current structure of monitoring,
technical assistance and enforcement from one OSEP division, the
Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division, is problematic.

The Office of Special Education Programs, through its staff and funded
projects, often provides valuable technical assistance to states and
local agencies regarding the implementation of federal requirements for
effective programs. However, this relationship inhibits the
effectiveness, accuracy and validity of federal monitoring. While no
state has ever been found to be in full compliance with federal special
education law, monitoring has not been shown to be either efficient or
effective in ensuring Congressional intent. The Commission finds that
OSEP has not been effective both in implementing technical assistance
and in monitoring compliance program performance in states. The
Commission recommends that the assistant secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services take whatever steps necessary to ensure
states continuously improve their compliance with IDEA and document
improved results, including consideration of a separate office for
accountability whose most essential function is to monitor special
education programs.

OSEP has neither the authority nor the resources to investigate and
resolve individual complaints alleging noncompliance. Additionally, even
though such authority was incorporated into the 1997 IDEA amendments,
the Department of Education has not sent a single case to the Department
of Justice for 'substantial noncompliance.'[^8] While the Commission
shares the view that regulations are impossible for state and local
compliance, this Commission also holds that the current organization of
OSEP performing monitoring, technical assistance and enforcement should
be changed. This current organization does not allow an appropriate
separation between those who provide assistance to state and local
agencies and those who enforce compliance at the federal level.

Combining technical assistance and monitoring appears to be a promising
new strategy, as described by Larry Gloeckler in Houston, TX.[^9] The
strategy in New York that he described has been to follow up OSEP
monitoring with a focused effort on working with the state to obtain
technical assistance in the areas cited during OSEP's visit. While
technical assistance and monitoring should be done separately to ensure
the objectivity of monitoring, they should work together to improve
results. Monitoring is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, to
influence improvement.

[Need for Better Intra-Agency and Interagency Coordination]{.underline}

Multiple federal requirements for a variety of educational programs
implemented by different offices within the U.S. Department of Education
can lead to overlapping and discontinuous requirements for
accountability and routine reporting. Many of these requirements are
unrelated to the expected results to be achieved with students.  Many
federal requirements of schools from various programs have a direct
effect on planning and implementation of services for students for
disabilities (e.g., *No Child Left Behind*). The Commission finds that
schools are often unnecessarily burdened by these requirements in that
no integrated system of accountability has been developed to
ensure efficiency in reporting on federal requirements.  Lack of
integration often leads to multiple, separate data requirements and
on-site visits and local agency personnel unnecessarily distracted from
the focus on student results.

For example, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) frequently investigates
and makes findings on issues related to students with disabilities. In
some instances OSEP monitors special education programs or administers
corrective actions in the same settings. Communication between the OCR
and OSEP is not always sufficient and collaborative to ensure that
states and LEAs are supported in finding quick resolution and
effectively improving results. The Commission recommends that the U.S.
Secretary of Education ensure all federal requirements for
accountability be integrated into a unified system of accountability
throughout the Department.

Numerous witnesses testified that conflicting priorities and
requirements at the federal level confound state and local attempts to
provide services and programs that will lead to better results and
outcomes for students with disabilities while resolving conflicts.
Federal agencies with responsibility for educating students with
disabilities in special settings (Department of Defense, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, etc.) often fail to communicate with the Department of
Education regarding essential elements for improving results. Further,
data about student performance and results are not systematically
collected and disseminated by and across all pertinent federal agencies.
Funding for effective programs for students with disabilities at the
local level is often complicated by a lack of coordination among
agencies with separate funding targeted to meet the needs of these
students.

In addition to this Commission, the President has launched his New
Freedom Initiative to ensure that all federal agencies work together to
reduce barriers to independence for individuals with disabilities. The
Commission recommends that the President expand the New Freedom
Initiative to address any interagency or intra-agency conflicts or
barriers to improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth
with disabilities.

## 

[Accountability, State and Local Paperwork, and the Individualized
Education Program (IEP)]{.underline}

A particularly revealing issue to the Commission was the strikingly high
number of parents, teachers and administrators who described how IEPs
are not actually designed or used for individualized education; instead
they are focused on legal protection and compliance with regulatory
processes. During a Commission site visit to a local school, one
administrator referred to IEPs as a litigation document rather than an
instrument outlining an effective instructional program for children
with disabilities. The original concept of IEPs as an instructional
framework for a defined period of a child's education has been lost to
the greater need to document legal and procedural compliance. Parents
and schools often debate the process of special education with little or
no attention to expected results. The Commission believes that educators
should educate and families must hold schools accountable for compliance
with IDEA that generates improved results for students with
disabilities.

IEPs should provide a guide for quality instruction and related services
for children. IEPs must preserve basic civil rights and promote
achievement, but we find this is possible while reducing current
excessive and repetitious paperwork requirements. The Commission
recommends that IDEA statutory IEP requirements focus on substantive
educational and developmental outcomes and results. Failure to meet such
outcomes/results would be the basis for individual additional
assistance/enforcement under the law.

Among the IEP provisions that would be replaced by measurable annual
outcomes and results would be the obligation that IEPs include
"benchmarks or short-term objectives." Their inclusion in IEPs
contributes greatly to the paperwork burden on educators and parents,
and bears no relationship to the non-linear reality of a child's
development. Members of the child's IEP team should agree as to the
length of evaluative periods, and the criteria for judging results. To
the extent desired, an IEP team could include such markers. IEPs should
also list services as they relate to the achievement of measurable
annual outcomes, not as an independent feature in and of themselves as
required in current federal law.

[The Impact of the Paperwork Burden in the Classroom]{.underline}

The combination of federal, state and local paperwork requirements
creates a heavy burden on teachers, schools and parents. The growing
paperwork requirements do not contribute to student results. The
Commission finds that the U.S. Department of Education should clearly
describe what paperwork requirements are imposed by federal law. State
and local paperwork requirements should be changed to reduce this
burden.

Students, teachers and families have all complained about requirements
for paperwork and documentation driven by the more than 814 federal
monitoring requirements for state and local special education programs
to comply with IDEA. Often reported violations of federal, state or
other requirements results in local schools and agencies developing
additional paperwork requirements rather than directly correcting the
violation. 

## 

Special education teachers feel excessive paperwork interferes with
their ability to serve children with disabilities more effectively. The
Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education[^10] (SPeNSE) sponsored by
OSEP reveals that special education teachers often cite required forms
and administrative paperwork as an area of dissatisfaction with their
working conditions. The typical special education teacher spends five
hours per week completing forms and doing administrative paperwork.
Moreover, special educators spend more time on paperwork than grading
papers, communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues,
supervising paraprofessionals and attending individualized education
program meetings combined.

SPeNSE reinforces the Commission's findings that the federal emphasis on
procedural compliance requirements trickles down to directly impact the
amount of time actually spent providing direct services including
instruction to children with disabilities. Process compliance review
evolved as the major focus to measure compliance with IDEA because it is
more difficult to measure outcomes. This challenge to measure the
quality of special education services must be the focus of any federal
monitoring activity, what Wolf and Hassel call *an obsession with
results*.

"First and foremost, every element of the system should focus on student
learning. This obsession must begin at the federal level, with the way
Congress frames the federal mandate and the way Washington structures
its funding and oversight of states. Through those mechanisms it must
create the same obsession in state educational agencies, so that they in
turn structure their funding and oversight of school districts, charter
schools and other entities with student-learning results in mind.
Prodded by those systems to focus intently on learning outcomes,
districts must structure their relationships with schools and other
providers to produce results. Ultimately, the people on the front lines,
those who work directly with children, must share this obsession."[^11]

Therefore, the Commission recommends that the reauthorized IDEA include
provisions charging the U.S. Department of Education to report back to
Congress within 18 months of enactment on strategic proposals to reduce
the current paperwork burden. Recognizing that paperwork is a
combination of state, local and federal requirements, the Secretary's
strategic plan must examine the problem at all levels. To fully examine
this problem, we suggest further that the Secretary determine up to 10
states that will be allowed to submit proposals for IDEA paperwork
reduction. States would be allowed a waiver of federal paperwork
requirements for a period of time with findings reported to the
Secretary prior to his report to Congress. Such proposals promote local
innovation to reduce paperwork and will also serve as valuable resources
for the Secretary to consider in developing federal strategies to reduce
the paperwork burden under IDEA.

[Early Childhood Programs]{.underline}

## The Commission also heard testimony on the IDEA infants and toddlers with disabilities program (Part C). Although witnesses presented testimony indicating that early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities was efficacious and cost effective, scientifically based programs are not in place in many implementations of Part C. Accountability in Part C is weak and there is a focus on process as opposed to results. The transition from Part C to Part B is often weak. Moreover, services to this population are funded not only through Part C, but through other federal and state efforts. Testimony to the Commission indicated that coordination across programs and with health care providers is often poor. State definitions of eligibility are inconsistent and different agencies may hold responsibility for developing programs leading to wide differences across states in which infants and toddlers receive services and what services they actually receive. Monitoring by OSEP of these programs has only recently been implemented with often disappointing results related to compliance.

## 

## Despite evidence that early intervention works, this program has been imperfectly implemented in many states and localities. Multiple agency configurations and competing bureaucratic cultures have often left families without the services they need at the time when their infants and toddlers can make the most significant gains. The time has come to both take advantage of the evidence of effective programs by simplifying bureaucratic structures so that services can be provided as early as possible to maximize effectiveness for children with disabilities and their families.

The Commission recommends that IDEA ensure a seamless system for
infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, birth through
21 drawing the most effective aspects of Part C (infants and toddlers),
section 619 (pre-school) and Part B (school-age). State educational
agencies must be appropriately resourced, flexibly enabled, and charged
to ensure effective results. This revision in the legislation would
clarify that States could choose lead agencies for different programs
but the state's educational agency would monitor and enforce compliance
for services as a part of the overall monitoring for IDEA. This effort
would enhance state flexibility and promote efficient use of funds for
services in meeting the needs of all students with disabilities,
particularly children between birth and the age of five and their
families.

## Conclusion

# 

# Today, much is known about what works and how to provide excellent special education and related services for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities that affect their individual performance. The current regulatory burden that insists on complex procedures stifles the ability of parents, teachers and others to improve results for children with disabilities. The Commission believes that a focus on results and streamlining procedural compliance requirements will encourage flexibility, innovation and choices at all levels. This important shift of emphasis is critical to improving how well children with disabilities who receive special education services will actually benefit from such specially designed instruction and related services. The Commission urges a significant reduction in the federal regulatory burden, caused by the current version of IDEA, and simplified regulations. To achieve improved results, the U.S. Department of Education must provide the highest quality technical assistance and monitor compliance with IDEA more effectively. 

# Assessment and Identification

**RECOMMENDATION---IDENTIFY AND INTERVENE EARLY: Implement
research-based, early identification and intervention programs to better
serve children with learning and behavioral difficulties at an earlier
age. Include early screening, prevention and intervention practices to
identify academic and behavioral problems in young children.**

**RECOMMENDATION---SIMPLIFY THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS: Simplify the
IDEA identification and eligibility determination process, and clarify
the criteria used to determine the existence of a disability,
particularly high-incidence disorders.**

**RECOMMENDATION---INCORPORATE RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: Implement
models during the identification and assessment process that are based
on response to intervention and progress monitoring. Use data from these
processes to assess progress in children who receive special education
services.**

**RECOMMENDATION---INCORPORATE UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS:
Ensure all tools used to assess students for accountability and the
assessment of progress are designed to include any accommodations and
modifications for students with disabilities.**

The Commission finds that the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) establishes complex requirements that are difficult to
effectively implement at the state and local level. Nowhere in IDEA is
this more complex than in the eligibility determination process.
Improving this process, coupled with research-based early intervention
programs, may reduce the number of children who are identified as having
a disability, particularly when early identification and intervention
are in place, and research-based interventions are provided before
referral.

Some of the complexity of IDEA reflects the proliferation of categories
and assessment

guidelines that vary in their implementation, often with little relation
to intervention. There are 13 separate disability categories in IDEA.
Many categories emerged as a result of advocacy group efforts to promote
recognition for their specific constituency. The necessity of all 13
categories and their relation to instruction is not firmly established.
To illustrate, consider that children with traumatic brain injuries
could easily be classified under the "other health impairment" category.
From the viewpoint of the assessment and identification process, there
are three major types of disorders:

1)  *Sensory disabilities* such as visual impairments, hearing
    impairments, deaf-blindness;

2)  *Physical and neurological disabilities* such as orthopedic
    impairments, other health impairments, traumatic brain injury,
    multiple disabilities, autism; and,

3)  *Developmental disabilities* such as specific learning disabilities
    (SLD), speech and language impairments, emotional disturbance, mild
    mental retardation and developmental delay.

This subdivision is not perfect. There are students with rare disorders
in the "high-incidence" group, such as those with language disorders who
do not speak, or who have a severe psychosis. But the three-group
subdivision facilitates understanding of identification practices under
IDEA. Children with sensory disorders are identified on the basis of
vision and hearing tests. Children with physical and neurological
disorders are identified by parents and physicians through medical
history and physical examinations. These two types of disorders are
commonly referred to as "low-incidence" disabilities and represent about
10 percent of all children served in IDEA.

In contrast, children with developmental disorders cannot be identified
on the basis of acuity, physical or neurological findings. These
disabilities are widely regarded as variations on normal development
that are disabling when they interfere significantly with school
performance and adaptive functions. Accounting for 90 percent of all
students served under IDEA, these "high-incidence" disabilities are
closely linked with teacher referral, but make heavy use of psychometric
tests for identification, often in ways that are not linked with
instruction. The Commission found compelling evidence supporting the
existence of all four high-incidence disabilities and for attention
deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). There was compelling evidence
that children with these disorders often develop disabilities and
require special education services. There are objective criteria for
identifying students with these disorders. However, the model for
identification is like that used for obesity or hypertension, not
measles or meningitis. The disorder is always a matter of degree on a
dimension, not a disorder that you either have or do not have, and
identification is ultimately a judgment based on the need for services.

This distinction between "low" and "high" incidence disabilities is
critical to this section of the report and to other Commission
considerations. Economist Julie Berry Cullen, Ph.D.,[^12] found that
increased funding was not related to the number of children identified
with low-incidence disabilities. She found that funding increases for
support of special education services did result in increased
identification rates for high-incidence disabilities. However, her
preliminary research findings indicated that increases in special
education funding did not result in improvements in the quality of
special education programs.

The Commission could not identify firm practical or scientific reasons
supporting the current classification of disabilities in IDEA. The
intent of IDEA is to focus on the effective and efficient delivery of
special education services. The Commission is concerned that federal
implementing regulations waste valuable special education resources in
determining which category a child fits into rather than providing the
instructional interventions a child requires. The priority should always
be to deliver services, with assessment secondary to this aim. When
schools are encouraged by federal and state guidelines to focus on
assessment as a priority---and often for gate keeping functions to
control expenditures---the main victims are the students themselves,
whose instructional needs are not addressed in the cumbersome assessment
process. Thus, the overall Commission recommendation for assessment and
identification is to simplify wherever possible and to orient any
assessments towards the provision of services.

Early Identification and Intervention Programs

The Commission finds that locally driven, universal screening of young
children is associated with better outcomes and results for all
children. Effective and reliable screening of young children can
identify those most at risk for later achievement and behavioral
problems,[^13] including those most likely to be referred and placed in
special education programs.[^14]

Witnesses provided the Commission with compelling evidence indicating
how early intervention can prevent disabilities in many children and
ameliorate their impact in those who develop them. Although the focus of
early intervention has largely been on reading, this is understandable
given that up to 90 percent of children identified as SLD have reading
as their primary area of difficulty.[^15] The Commission found
compelling research sponsored by OSEP on emotional and behavioral
difficulties indicating that children at risk for these difficulties
could also be identified through universal screening and more
significant disabilities prevented through classroom-based approaches
involving positive discipline and classroom management. The Commission
also found that these approaches are widely used in some states and that
they are at a stage where increased implementation is feasible. The
Commission's findings parallel the work of the National Research Council
report of minority students in special education which found that early
screening followed by effective interventions in the classroom prevented
disabilities.[^16] Most impressive were the results of large scale
clinical trials indicating that early intervention of reading skills in
conjunction with positive behavior programs resulted in improved
academic achievement and reduction in behavioral difficulties in high
risk, predominantly minority children.[^17]

The Commission recommends states be given the flexibility to use IDEA
funds to support early intervention programs and to combine IDEA funds
with other sources of federal support for these programs. This
flexibility to support early intervention programs is more fully
described in the Finance section of this report.

Evaluation and Assessment

What all eligibility decisions share for children who enter special
education under IDEA is a two-pronged determination: The child must be
shown to have a condition (i.e., meets criteria for one of the 13
categories) and must also have demonstrable educational need (i.e., must
have difficulty learning or adapting to the school environment). The
high-incidence disability categories have more stringent requirements
for eligibility. The process typically involves the formal
administration of measures of intelligence, academic achievement and
behavioral functioning. For emotional disturbance, certification by a
licensed psychologist or psychiatrist in many states is necessary to
establish potential eligibility. In contrast, testimony to the
Commission indicated that ADHD should be assessed like other behavioral
disorders and requires a clinical judgment, but children are potentially
eligible with a physician's signature as an "other health
impairment."[^18] The low incidence disabilities also usually require
the signature of a physician designating that the child has a particular
condition and sometimes additional criteria for establishing a sensory
disorder, but these are not dimensional disorders like ADHD.[^19] For
all disabilities, the establishment of educational need is a judgment by
the interdisciplinary team. Children are subsequently re-evaluated every
three years to ensure continued eligibility.

Federal statutes mandate timelines for eligibility decisions beginning
with notification of the parents, who must provide permission for the
evaluation. For a high-incidence disability, individuals with some
postgraduate preparation---such as school psychologists, speech and
language professionals and other ancillary professionals---often do the
evaluations. A great deal of their time is spent completing eligibility
evaluations, which reduces the amount of their time that can be devoted
to direct services, such as behavioral intervention services. The
results of these assessments are rarely used to evaluate progress or
relate in other meaningful ways to educational need. Testimony provided
before the Commission and our review of recent research[^20] leads us to
find that the cost of these evaluations is significant, ranging from
about \$800 to \$8,000 in some sections of the country.

The Commission stresses that each component of any assessment must be
selected because of its relationship to educational need. We recommend
three-year evaluations of eligibility be dropped in favor of short,
yearly assessments addressing progress, which can be used to determine
the need for continued services. This would shift the focus from
continued eligibility to the impact on results and the possibility of
exiting into a less restricted environment. Since norm referenced
assessments of achievement and behavior are given to establish
eligibility, these components should be repeated yearly to provide these
targeted assessments. This information would provide school personnel
and parents with information about how well the child is progressing in
the special education program. Experts appearing before the Commission
also recommended the use of continuous monitoring of progress using
brief (one- to two-minute) assessment measures, which research by OSEP
has shown enhances instructional outcomes and results for children with
learning and behavioral difficulties.

Explosive Growth in the Other Health Impairment Category and Learning
Disability Category

In the past 10 years, the largest increases in students identified for
IDEA services were for the other health impairment category (319
percent), the orthopedic impairment category (45 percent) and the
specific learning disabilities category (36 percent). Some of the growth
in the other health impairment (OHI) category is the result of the
growth in children identified as having ADHD, where a physician\'s
signature is generally sufficient to trigger the eligibility process.
However, ADHD is a clinical judgment that has very specific criteria. It
is widely believed that many children who are identified through this
process are not adequately evaluated. Moreover, in most states the
school cannot establish eligibility even though many school
psychologists are eminently qualified to identify ADHD. Medications
should have nothing to do with identification and must be done in
consultation with a physician. The other factor in the increase in OHI
and orthopedic impairment categories, outlined in testimony by Mark
Batshaw,[^21] is the increased survival rate of significantly premature
infants and the greater recognition of genetic and neurological factors
that cause low-incidence disabilities. For high-incidence disabilities,
the rate of SLD and ADHD in premature infants without neurological
abnormalities is two to three times higher than in the overall
population.

The lack of consistently applied diagnostic criteria for SLD makes it
possible to diagnose almost any low- or under-achieving child as SLD
depending on resources and other local considerations. Researchers
appearing before the Commission uniformly testified that the current
definition of SLD in federal regulations is ambiguous and unrelated to
intervention. Based solely on psychometric tests, these experts were not
able to identify reliable methods for distinguishing children with the
label of SLD from children who were not mentally deficient, but with low
achievement. To paraphrase Stuebing, et al., the IQ discrepancy model
provides an arbitrary subdivision of the reading-IQ distribution that is
fraught with statistical and other interpretative problems. [^22] A
clinical judgment by the interdisciplinary team is always required for
any high-incidence disability.

As a result, the Commission fully supports expert recommendations made
repeatedly in testimony and the scientific literature that the current
methods of assessing the presence of SLD be changed. The Commission
recommends that appropriate steps be taken to amend current federal
regulations to indicate that IQ achievement discrepancies (and therefore
IQ tests) are not necessary for the identification of children as having
a learning disability. Similar practices in some states for children
with speech and language disorders should be discouraged.[^23]

Eliminating IQ tests from the identification process would help shift
the emphasis in special education away from the current focus, which is
on determining whether students are eligible for services, towards
providing students the interventions they need to successfully learn.
There is little justification for the ubiquitous use of IQ tests for
children with high-incidence disabilities, except when mild mental
retardation is a consideration, especially given their cost and the lack
of evidence indicating that IQ test results are related meaningfully to
intervention outcomes.

The Commission believes that the approach to all high-incidence
disabilities needs to shift from a failure model to a prevention model.
Former OSEP director Thomas Hehir and many others have characterized the
approach to the specific learning disability category as a "wait to
fail" model. Despite the evidence showing that many children with SLD
and behavior problems have much better outcomes with early
identification and intervention, many schools do not assess children for
these difficulties prior to the third grade. Experts at the 2001 OSEP
Learning Disabilities Summit described the enormous variation in how
closely schools follow state regulations for eligibility in the
high-incidence disorders, with teacher referral clearly being the most
salient variable determining who eventually is served. Regardless, few
children evaluated for a high-incidence disability fail to receive (or
actually need) an IQ test.

The Commission recommends that the identification process for children
with high-incidence disabilities be simplified. Assessments that reflect
learning and behavior in the classroom are encouraged, with less
reliance on the assessments of IQ and achievement that are now
predominant. A key component of the identification process, especially
to establish education need and make this decision less subjective,
should be a careful evaluation of the child's response to instruction.
Children should not be identified for special education without
documenting what methods have been used to facilitate the child's
learning and adaptation to the general education classroom. The child's
response to scientifically based interventions attempted in the context
of general education should be evaluated with performance measures, such
as pre- and post-administration of norm referenced tests and progress
monitoring. In the absence of this documentation, the Commission finds
that many children who are placed into special education are essentially
instructional casualties and not students with disabilities.

To prevent the wrong children from being served, the Commission
recommends that current regulations be modified so that the student's
response to scientifically based instruction is part of the criteria for
SLD. The Commission also recommends that this concept be extended to
other high-incidence disabilities. This recommendation is consistent
with the emphasis on early screening and intervention advanced
throughout this report. The Commission notes that the development of
these models is uneven and that technical assistance from OSEP will be
critical for implementation of this recommendation. Parents should
always have the right to request an evaluation, and current placement
decisions should be respected. But, the outcomes of children for whom
placement is a consideration or who are placed in special education
should always be monitored to determine whether the child is making
progress.

[Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Special
Education]{.underline}

A particularly disturbing finding is that children of minority status
are over-represented in some categories of special education. This is
especially apparent for African American males in high-incidence
categories such as mental retardation and emotional disturbance. The
recent National Research Council report on minority representation in
special education found that African American children are twice as
likely as whites and American Indians/Alaskan natives to be identified
for the mental retardation category. In the emotional disturbance
category, black students are about half more likely than white students
to be classified in this category. The Commission did not find
significant evidence for over-representation of minorities in the
learning disabilities category. The magnitude of the overrepresentation
problem varied across state and local education agencies within all
high-incidence categories. However, the Commission found no consistent
evidence for over-representation of minorities in low-incidence
categories.

The Commission found that several factors were responsible for this
overrepresentation, including the reliance on IQ tests that have known
cultural bias. This may result in more minority children being
identified in the mental retardation category as opposed to the SLD
category. Minority children are much more likely to be placed in the
emotional disturbance category because of behavioral characteristics
associated with the cultural context in which a child is raised. A major
factor is the role of teacher referral. In some studies, teachers refer
more than 80 percent of children who are placed in a high-incidence
category. To the extent that teachers are not prepared to manage
behavior or instruct those with learning characteristics that make them
"at risk" in general education, minority children will be more likely to
be referred.

To help address this problem, the Commission again recommends all
children be screened for learning and behavioral difficulties in the
early grades. Compelling testimony was presented indicating that such
screening is possible and would serve both to promote early intervention
and to reduce the role of teacher referral in identification for
high-incidence disabilities. We do make recommendations to improve
teacher preparation concerning this issue in the personnel preparation
section of our report. This approach more effectively addresses this
matter in ways that will result in fewer minority children
inappropriately placed in special education programs.

[Universal Design Principles]{.underline}

Despite the fact that IDEA requires participation of students with
disabilities in statewide assessments, children with disabilities are
often excluded from these assessments to establish the accountability
and progress of public schools. This is a major problem, as such
assessments generally are designed without consideration of
modifications or accommodations students with disabilities may need to
complete the assessment. Thus, when students with disabilities request
modifications, the request is denied because it would presumably
invalidate the test or, if the request is granted, the test results are
rejected from accountability considerations as invalid results.

This barrier must be removed to allow the appropriate modifications and
accommodations students with disabilities may require. The Commission
recommends that all measures used to assess accountability and
educational progress be developed according to principles of universal
design so that modifications and accommodations are built into the test
that will not invalidate the results. Guidelines to states and schools
should specifically outline modifications and accommodations that are
reasonable and explain why some modifications and accommodations cannot
be provided, such as reading a reading assessment to a child with a
reading disability.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The Commission recommends amending IDEA to improve the methods used to
locate, identify and assess children who are suspected of having a
disability. In addition, regulations must be issued that are consistent
with the best scientific evidence to assist parents, educators and
administrators in serving children with disabilities. Any amendment must
align requirements for accountability, the inclusion of people with
disabilities and adequate yearly progress to those adopted in the *No
Child Left Behind* Act. Such amendments must also indicate that early
intervention is the responsibility of both general and special
education. Accountability for children with disabilities should continue
as part of the *No Child Left Behind* Act, which should include
referrals from and exits out of special education for both regular and
special education.

# Special Education Finance

Recommendation---INCREASE DISCRETIONARY PART B FEDERAL FUNDING AND
ESTABLISH A DEFINABLE THRESHOLD PERCENT OF EXCESS COSTS: Discretionary
federal funding for special education has significantly increased during
the past seven years. This trend has compensated for historical
under-funding of special education at the federal level. The Commission
believes that the trend of increased federal funding for special
education should continue up to a specified threshold expressed as a
percent of the estimated "excess cost" of special education borne by
local education agencies.

Recommendation---LINK FUTURE FUNDING INCREASES ABOVE THE THRESHOLD
PERCENT TO STATE PLANS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS: Cost
accountability is fundamental to program accountability. IDEA should
increase federal funding to a state for special education above the
established threshold percent only if the state has submitted a state
improvement plan, consistent with *No Child Left Behind*, for
implementing a new accountability system that encompasses a broad range
of measures of results for students with disabilities. Funding in future
years should be contingent on achievement of results in that plan.

Recommendation---TARGET FUNDS FOR DIRECT SERVICES: IDEA should direct
that 90 percent of Part B funds should flow-through to local education
agencies, and prioritize remaining Part B funds, retained at the state
level, consistent with a set of national priorities and additional
recommendations contained in this report.

Recommendation---FUNDING SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR PART C AND SECTION 619.

L

Recommendation---Increase State AND LOCAL Flexibility: IDEA should
eliminate or revise any financial structures in IDEA that hamper state
and local education agencies' ability to focus on results for eligible
students with disabilities. Year-end unexpended local education agency
federal funds and a fixed percent of Part B flow-through funds should be
used to establish and maintain risk management pools to serve high-cost
students such as those who have significant disabilities.

# 

Recommendation---FOCUS ON HIGH-NEED CHILDREN: IDEA should allow and
encourage states to address the impact of students with significant
disabilities on state and local districts through the use of safety net
funding.

The Commission's recommendations relating to the finance of special
education represent several important shifts in how federal, state and
local governments pay for special education services. Central to these
recommendations is a revised calculation of "excess costs," which
essentially are those costs that exceed the average annual per‑student
expenditure in a local education agency during the preceding school
year. A revised calculation of excess costs should include improved
estimates of expenditures necessary to provide appropriate results for
students with and without disabilities, and estimates of per pupil
revenues available to the typical general education student with no
special needs (i.e., a non-disabled student not eligible for Title I
remedial services under the *No Child Left Behind* Act, English language
learner or other federal education programs). To the extent possible,
these data should conform to the most current education finance data
available.

Once a threshold obligation of definable excess cost is established,
incremental increases above the threshold must be linked to improved
results for students receiving for special education. Changes can also
be made to maximize the use of available federal funds without
compromising the supplemental nature of federal funding. These changes
seek to place greater flexibility in the hands of states and localities
and balance the shared responsibility for financing special education.
Rules and regulations created 30 years ago when schools fought against
the entitlement of special education may now create unintended
consequences such as preserving the status quo. They also serve as an
impediment to the appropriate allocation of resources.

Unintended consequences and improper fiscal incentives must be actively
discouraged. The concentration of students with autism, emotional
disturbance or other significant disabilities in LEAs with outstanding
special education programs or medical care facilities or the random
distribution in small towns of these high-need populations creates
disproportionate obligations for these localities to provide services.
The costs of these services should be appropriately shared across a
larger population. These high-need children are precisely the children
IDEA seeks to protect and who states and localities should serve.

## What We Know About Special Education Spending

National expenditures for special education services in 1999-2000
totaled an estimated \$50 billion. An additional \$27.3 billion was
spent on regular education services and an additional \$1 billion was
spent on other special needs programs (e.g., Title I, English language
learners or Gifted and Talented Education). Thus, *total estimated
spending to educate students with disabilities* found eligible for
special education programs was approximately \$78.3 billion.

![](media/image7.wmf)

In per pupil terms, *total spending used to educate the average student
with a disability* was an estimated \$12,639. This amount includes
\$8,080 per pupil on special education services, \$4,394 per pupil on
regular education services, and \$165 per pupil on services from other
federal, special need programs. The total including only the regular and
special education services amounts to \$12,474 per pupil.[^24]

Based on these 1999-2000 figures, total spending to educate students
with disabilities including regular education, special education and
other special needs programs combined represents 21.4 percent of the
\$360.6 billion total spending on elementary and secondary education in
the United States. Total special education spending accounts for 13.9
percent of total spending and 15.4 percent of total, current
spending.[^25]

While these data provide an indication of expenditures associated with
providing special education and related services to students, the data
do not provide any indication of the available revenues that could have
been used to offset the reported expenditures. For example, general
education expenditures of \$4,394 per special education pupil only
accounted for a portion of the general education revenue available to
non-disabled students. The distinction between "available revenues"
(equivalent shares of state and local general education funding as well
as any local enhancements) and legitimate expenditures is important in
determining and defining excess costs and the federal share of those
costs. Eligibility for special education should in no way diminish or
dilute a student's right to a general education.

## Excess Costs and the Appropriations Index

There is no scientific or particular public policy basis for defining
full funding of the federal portion of special education at 40 percent
of average per pupil expenditure. In 1975, the Congressional conferees
arrived at the 40 percent maximum funding level in reconciling
differences between the House and Senate versions of their originally
passed bills. The conferees tied special education funding to average
per pupil expenditure (APPE) because they believed the cost of special
education was approximately twice the cost of regular education.[^26]

Since that time, Congress has expanded IDEA eligibility to include
students with high-incidence disabilities who constitute most current
children receiving for services under the Act. The U.S. Department of
Education now estimates that as a nation, we are spending about 90
percent (1.9 times) more on the average eligible student for special
education than we do on the average general education student with no
special needs (i.e., a student who does not have a disability or who has
no need for any type of compensatory education program). By using APPE
as the baseline, Congress is attempting to meet a percentage of an
approximation of what was believed to be the "excess costs" of special
education.

Since 1975, the "up to 40 percent" APPE target has taken on symbolic
value far beyond Congressional intent in 1975. Many still perceive this
40 percent figure as a representation of "full funding." Over the past
several years, marked increases in IDEA Part B funding have been based
on a desire to meet this "full funding" target. However, the increases
to meet this target have been based on expenditure driven data, rather
than on estimates of the true excess cost of achieving excellence for
students with disabilities.

The Commission believes that federal and state departments of education
should undertake the serious business of determining and funding true
excess costs rather than providing expenditure data that are not always
comparable from state to state or district to district. In the meantime,
a proxy for excess cost determination would be national, state or local
APPE times the most current research-based estimate of the additional
expenditures associated with providing special education (e.g. 1.9)
minus the national, state or local APPE. The remainder of this equation
represents our best estimate of excess costs, or those costs above the
costs to educate a non-disabled student with no other special needs.

After determining a more reliable value for excess costs such as the one
described above, IDEA should provide that any funding beyond the set
threshold percentage of definable excess costs be allocated to states
based on their state improvement plans, and improved academic and
post-school results. Both states and local districts would be
responsible for designing and implementing a program of accountability
as part of their state improvement plans and demonstrating definable and
measurable student results and outcomes prior to receiving these
additional funds. It is also important to recognize that if a percentage
of the total K-12 population (such as 12 percent) is not used as an
index, and other measures outlined in this report are not applied, the
special education population could increase significantly within the
next decade due to the potential for inclusion of students needing
remedial assistance in special education.

Incremental increases based on results above the threshold percent of
the cost to educate the average child in regular classroom settings
should not result in any additional paperwork or reporting burdens on
states and local districts. If additional data are needed to justify the
increases above the threshold amount, these data should replace, not add
to existing data requirements, and be consistent with other
accountability recommendations included in this report and NCLB.

While the Commission believes that increasing appropriations for IDEA
should remain a federal priority, it recommends keeping funding for this
program as discretionary. While students with disabilities receive civil
rights-like protections under IDEA, it is incorrect to claim that the
IDEA Part B program is an "entitlement" that should not be subject to
the appropriations process. Like many other critical federal
priorities---such as funding for disadvantaged students, health care
research, national defense and homeland security---Congress and the
Administration should have the ability to determine the appropriate
federal funding level for IDEA on an annual basis.

## 

## Children with Disabilities Who are the Most Expensive to Educate

During Commission hearings, both invited and public witnesses reaffirmed
many of the perceptions associated with escalating expenditures in
special education: the greatest concerns about costs for local districts
are derived from high-need children with significant disabilities who
require expensive placements within and outside of the district.
Critical shortages of qualified staff in special education exacerbate
these concerns.

Since high need special education students are not evenly distributed
throughout the United States, the Commission recommends that the federal
government assist states and localities in funding the cost of the most
expensive students. The most costly students are almost always students
in which existence of the disability, the adverse impact of the
disability and the need for specially designed instruction are clear and
convincing. Recognition of some responsibility for funding for such
students would not create any adverse categorization or funding
incentives.[^27] Funding for identifiable high-need students would
essentially ensure that students with high-need disabilities who require
unusually expensive special education services receive such services
without penalizing students with less severe disabilities as well as
their classmates without disabilities.

At present, there are no current provisions under IDEA that provide
state educational agencies with targeted resources to offset the fiscal
impact on local education agencies of providing a free appropriate
public education to high-need children with disabilities. States and
local districts often choose not to expend their entire allocation of
federal funds for fear that unanticipated expenditures will suddenly
emerge and explode an already tight budget with no avenue for relief.
Since cost cannot be used as a basis for denying services needed to
provide children with disabilities a free appropriate public education,
concerns about rising special education costs focus on the relatively
few special education students who are among the most costly to educate.
For example, in a prominent case in Cedar Rapids, IA, involving a child
with a severe disability, the school district faced a significant
financial burden to provide constant one-on-one care determined as
related services under IDEA. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
financial responsibility of the district in this regard.[^28]

Ultimately, state and local education agencies are responsible for
providing appropriate special education and related services. Therefore,
states and local districts should be provided with the opportunity to
develop and implement fiscal practices that proactively recognize and
deal with such circumstances without jeopardizing their entire budgets.

A relatively small number of children and youth with disabilities
(approximately one-half of one percent) require special education
services that can cost more than \$100,000 per year. Some states have
established extraordinary cost funds to assist local school districts
with offsetting the fiscal impact of these high-cost students. Examples
of state reimbursement formulas are listed at (right/left/below/above):

However, a number of states with high-cost student formulas have not met
the fiscal obligations incurred under their formulas and have either
under-funded or ceased funding when the budgeted amount is exceeded.
This practice has resulted in a significant financial burden on local
school districts and has raised concerns that in some cases, due to
cost, appropriate services may not be provided.

The Commission recommends IDEA include models for funding the costs of
exceptionally high-need children and allowing local education agencies
to proactively prepare for incurring unanticipated fiscal obligations
associated with the provision of special education. First, IDEA should
permit states to use federal funds to develop and maintain safety
net[^29] programs to help pay the cost of high need children. Second,
IDEA should allow local education agencies to retain a portion of their
unspent federal IDEA funds at a local or regional level for the purpose
of creating risk management pools[^30] to deal with other unanticipated
costs of providing special education.

[The Need for More Research]{.underline}

The U.S. Department of Education has no data or other information needed
to address questions about the costs, expenditures and fiscal planning
to better inform how well states and localities allocate funds to
provide special education services. The Department should undertake
research that begins to help understand the relationship between
definable student outcomes and results, and the investment of
educational resources. We find the need for more data collection and
analysis is crucial to inform the nation about the costs and
expenditures of special education and related services.

Currently, special education finance studies are conducted about once
every decade by OSEP. Given the importance of this information, the
Commission suggests that OSEP conduct studies on special education
spending and spending on general education and other special needs
programs for students with disabilities on a more frequent basis to be
determined by the director of the Office of Special Education Programs
in conjunction with the assistant secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services. In addition, efforts should be made to
coordinate with the National Center for Education Statistics to improve
ways of collecting such information on a continual basis.

Based on the comments of experts, Commissioners and others, the
Commission recommends that data be collected and analyzed for use by
policymakers in the following areas:

-   Use of a census based formula for distribution of special education
    funds;

-   Determination of the costs and necessary resources for student
    achievement of identifiable outcomes and results;[^31]

-   Influence of eligibility parameters and uses of other federal funds
    for high need students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Impact of state special education high need reimbursement models and
    risk management pools on service delivery models and settings in
    special education;

-   Influence of pooling Part C and section 619 funds on early
    intervention success; and

-   Impact of fiscal reforms in special education on the general
    education program.

[State and Local Flexibility]{.underline}

To better balance the competing needs of localities to fund special
education and states to ensure special education services benefit
children within their borders, the Commission further recommends IDEA be
amended to require that a full 90 percent of Part B state grant funds be
passed through to local school districts. IDEA should allow states to
use a fixed percent of the flow-through funds to supplement the creation
of risk management pools and use the balance of remaining grant funds
under Part B for discretionary, administrative and high-need student
reimbursement purposes.[^32]

Further, IDEA should allow States and local districts to pool existing
Part C infant and toddler program funds and section 619 preschool funds
with Part B to create seamless systems of early intervention services.
States and local districts should also be allowed to use Part B funds to
provide pre-referral services.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The recommendations proposed in this section of the report represent
significant cornerstones in the revision and improvement of special
education finance. When taken in aggregate, the recommendations can
serve to move the financial debate in special education from an argument
of under-funded mandates to a focus on reimbursement for results. The
Commission believes that the proposed changes in this section can also
serve to wring many other inappropriate fiscal incentives from public
education finance systems. Some examples may include, but are not
limited to, finance structures that encourage minority over
identification, cause districts to operate special education programs
solely on the basis of available excess funding, thwart parent choice,
drive special educators from their field, and discourage local
innovation.

### Accountability, Flexibility and Parental Empowerment

# 

RECOMMENDATION---set high expectations for special education: The No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires states to establish high
expectations for students with disabilities on state reading and
mathematics assessments. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
should require each state to establish additional ambitious and
conforming goals for students with disabilities by using measures such
as graduation rates, post-graduation outcomes and parent satisfaction
surveys. States should also be required to define "adequate yearly
progress" under IDEA for students with disabilities in local education
agencies (LEAs) toward these goals. In addition, while measurements of
"least restrictive environment" are not necessarily outcomes per se,
they are important and should be measured and reported at state, local
and school levels.

RECOMMENDATION---Hold LEAs ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS: State and local
accountability systems should include all children, and each system must
be consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act. IDEA should require
states to report annually on the success of each school and LEA in
achieving IDEA goals for students with disabilities. IDEA should provide
for technical assistance for LEAs that fail to make adequate yearly
progress under IDEA, and it should require States take more intensive
corrective actions---including state direction of IDEA funds for LEAs
that do not demonstrate adequate yearly progress under IDEA for three
consecutive years. To the maximum extent feasible, states should
disaggregate data, and if not possible, states must work quickly to
establish a system that can do so. These requirements would, to the
maximum extent possible, replace existing process-based accountability
systems, while fully retaining the civil rights protections of IDEA.

RECOMMENDATION---INCREASE PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT AND school choice:
Parents should be provided with meaningful information about their
children's progress, based on objective assessment results, and with
educational options. The majority of special education students will
continue to be in the regular public school system. In that context,
IDEA should allow state use of federal special education funds to enable
students with disabilities to attend schools or to access services of
their family's choosing, provided states measure and report outcomes for
all students benefiting from IDEA funds. IDEA should increase informed
opportunities for parents to make choices about their children's
education. Consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act, IDEA funds
should be available for parents to choose services or schools,
particularly for parents whose children are in schools that have not
made adequate yearly progress under IDEA for three consecutive years.

**RECOMMENDATION---PREVENT disputeS AND IMPROVE DISPUTE resolution: IDEA
should empower parents as key players and decision-makers in their
children's education. IDEA should require states to develop early
processes that avoid conflict and promote individualized education
program (IEP) agreements, such as IEP facilitators. Require states to
make mediation available anytime it is requested and not only when a
request for a hearing has been made. Permit parents and schools to enter
binding arbitration and ensure that mediators, arbitrators and hearing
officers are trained in conflict resolution and negotiation.**

Promoting more effective and efficient methods of accountability for
results emerged as a key theme during several Commission meetings and
hearings. This section focuses on ways that state and local
accountability measures must change to better assess the services
provided to children with disabilities and their families. It focuses on
the importance of expanding standards-based reforms while increasing
parental options in planning their child's education and future.
Recommendations for improving the accountability and effectiveness of
the principal federal administrative agency managing the IDEA statute
are contained in section one.

We believe the same accountability, flexibility and parental choice
concepts embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act must form the basic
blueprint for improving IDEA.

[Set High Expectations for Special Education and Hold LEAs Accountable
for Results]{.underline}

In testimony and public comment, the Commission heard repeatedly about
the need to focus special education accountability on the results
achieved by students with disabilities. Witnesses from a variety of
perspectives told us the current approach to accountability in special
education is too focused on procedural compliance. Though the 1997 IDEA
amendments generated more measurement of results, IDEA remains a
process-focused law under which states and LEAs can fail to achieve
results without consequences.

Consequently, IDEA should be revamped to require states to: (1) set
ambitious goals for special education in alignment with the No Child
Left Behind Act; (2) define "adequate yearly progress" toward goals for
special education; (3) measure and report on achievement of these goals;
and (4) take action when local education agencies chronically fail to
make progress.

Setting ambitious goals for special education is the first step toward
accountability for results. For too long, our nation has had low
expectations for students with disabilities. Instead, we must insist
that all students in special education make strides towards challenging
and appropriate learning and developmental goals. The No Child Left
Behind Act moves in that direction, requiring schools to demonstrate
adequate yearly progress for all students with disabilities in reading
and mathematics.

The Commission's recommendations build on that strong foundation. IDEA
should affirm NCLB's insistence on the inclusion of students with
disabilities in statewide assessment and accountability systems. For the
small percentage of students for whom alternative assessments are
appropriate, IDEA should set clear standards for state alternative
assessment systems, including a requirement that they be aligned with
states' broader standards and assessments. The Commission recognizes
that measures of progress for students with disabilities will require
additional assessments and individualized accommodations. But every
student's progress must be assessed every year and "counted" in state
accountability systems. As Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D., stated in her
testimony before the Commission on March 13, 2002, in Des Moines, IA:

> "\[I\]t is important for us to stay the course with the IDEA 97
> requirements for students to participate in assessments, with
> accommodations as needed, and for alternate assessments to be
> developed for those students unable to participate in regular
> assessments. It is important to ratchet-up the requirements, so that
> all students with disabilities \[are\] included in educational
> accountability systems, including those in alternate assessments---a
> requirement that is consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act."

IDEA should also require states to set ambitious goals for special
education on indicators other than standardized assessments, such as
graduation rates, post-graduation outcomes and parent satisfaction.
Consistent with NCLB, IDEA should mandate that states define "adequate
yearly progress" towards these goals. Only with such definitions will
states and the federal government be in a position to judge the success
of special education programs.

Setting high expectations is only the start. The motivating power of
public scrutiny supports numerous federal laws, including NCLB. IDEA
should also demand that each state report every year on the progress
made by schools and LEAs toward achieving the state's ambitious goals
for students receiving special education. These reports should form a
part of the report cards required by NCLB. Reports should disaggregate
data to the maximum extent feasible. In particular, they should make it
possible to judge the progress of students with significant disabilities
at the LEA level. Such students are too often left out of measurement
and accountability systems.

In addition to providing progress reports to parents and citizens,
states should also use information to hold local education agencies
accountable for results. As with NCLB, states should be required to
categorize LEAs based on the level progress they are making toward goals
for special education. IDEA should mandate that states use the following
strategies for LEAs that consistently fail to make adequate progress
toward goals for special education:

1.  For LEAs that fail to make adequate yearly progress, states should
    initially provide technical assistance targeted to those specific
    areas identified in need of specialized intervention.

2.  When LEAs fail to make adequate yearly progress over a certain
    number of years, defined by Congress, IDEA should require states to
    take more dramatic corrective actions, including possible direction
    of LEAs' special education spending and programs by a state trustee.

In cases of consistent failure beyond the timeframe of state actions,
IDEA should allow for direct federal intervention, including but not
limited to the direction of federal special education spending at the
discretion of the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Such a system of accountability would define in clear terms what counts
as success in special education. It would provide everyone, from
families and educators to policymakers and the public, with useful
information about how well we are educating students with disabilities.
And it would ensure that when LEAs fall short in the results they
achieve in special education, swift corrective actions would be taken.

The Commission is appropriately concerned that too many children fail to
move from school to adult living more successfully. Although this
concern is addressed in this report's Transition section, students with
disabilities should strive first for the regular high school diploma.
The current "either diploma or graduation certification" division is
inadequate. A graduated diploma system will more accurately represent
levels of skill and ability. Students with disabilities, who are,
because of their disability, unable to perform at standard for a full
high school diploma, yet demonstrate skills for employment and
post-secondary educational opportunities cannot now enter many
employment settings because they do not hold regular high school
diplomas. States should consider implementing a graduated high school
diploma system that will open more doors to employment and
post-secondary education than current options permit.

We are concerned about children with disabilities in the child welfare
system, and youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. We
encourage state agencies with authority over the direction and
expenditure of federal and state funds under IDEA and the No Child Left
Behind Act to develop interagency agreements with juvenile corrections
agencies, foster care and other relevant authorities to ensure continued
alternative educational services (including the full continuum of
services as provided under IDEA).

[Increase Parental Empowerment and School Choice]{.underline}

Each Commission meeting and hearing provided a public comment period for
individuals to offer their views about special education services. Many
of the individuals who provided comments were parents of children with
disabilities. These parents voiced both support and criticism of the
current special education system. What resonated with the greatest force
was the oft repeated desire of parents to hold "the system" more
accountable for educating their children. The system was frequently
identified as a combination of the local, state or federal educational
agencies with which parents interact, often with great aggravation, to
obtain special education services for their children. The Commission
views parental empowerment as essential to excellence in special
education. Increasing parental empowerment coupled with public
accountability for results will drive better results for children and
schools.

According to teachers and administrators, the current system is focused
on a procedural compliance-oriented program and should be changed to a
system that provides the flexibility to develop innovative strategies to
achieve results for each child. Schools and parents should be granted
the flexibility (e.g., waivers for performance) currently barred by
federal and state law and local practice to design educational programs
that meet the needs of children within a results-based framework.

Commissioners and expert witnesses have repeatedly stressed that parents
are the key to success for students with disabilities. There has been
much discussion and concern about what happens when parents and schools
disagree about the dispute resolution process. Though there are good
models for community and parent outreach, many low-income families and
underserved populations are still not involved in their children's
education.

Consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act, parents need access to
meaningful information about their children, adequate yearly progress,
and how assessment serves as a diagnostic tool that measures not only a
child's strengths and weaknesses, but also their yearly progress. This
information can help teachers develop evidence-based practices that they
can then use to drive classroom instruction that will benefit each
student. The Department of Education should increase support for
programs that promote parental understanding of their rights and
educational services under IDEA so parents can make informed decisions
about their children, particularly programs that serve families who have
not traditionally been informed or involved in their children's
education.

States and local schools must increase parents' and students'
flexibility to choose educational services. Parental and student choice
is an important accountability mechanism and IDEA should include options
for parents to choose their child's educational setting. States must be
provided the flexibility by the federal government to offer school
choice options.

Increasing school choice options is an effective means of achieving
accountability in the broad system if parents are able to more easily
choose where their child attends school. Parental choice can be a
valuable tool in serving the educational needs of children with
disabilities. The many parents that provided comments before the
Commission persuade us that incorporating this option into the next
reauthorization of IDEA must be seriously considered.

One way to increase choices for students with disabilities is simply to
give states more flexibility to use IDEA funds for this purpose. For
states that choose to provide more options for students with
disabilities, IDEA should make it possible for IDEA funds to follow
students to the schools their families choose. The No Child Left Behind
Act takes an additional step, requiring states to offer choices for
students in schools that do no make adequate progress. IDEA should
include parallel requirements, mandating that states allow IDEA funds to
follow students with disabilities when they choose to opt out of
chronically failing schools or districts. As funding follows students,
so should accountability. States should measure and report outcomes for
all students benefiting from IDEA funds, regardless of what schools they
choose to attend.

The Commission heard testimony from Harvard University Economics
Professor Caroline Hoxby suggesting that in order to work properly for
students with disabilities, choice programs must provide schools with
appropriate resources.[^33] Otherwise, schools and districts will not be
sufficiently eager to educate students with disabilities---especially
those with the most significant needs. Consequently, while federal
policy should not require them to do so, the Commission recommends that
in designing optional choice programs, states allow all available
revenues to which the student would have otherwise been entitled---not
just IDEA funds---to follow students to the schools their families
choose. The increasing numbers of parents who have chosen charter
schools[^34] leads us to recommend further that attention be paid to
providing the statutory and regulatory support necessary to maintain and
promote this option for children with disabilities.

Since public charter schools are typically small and often independent
from local school districts, they face unique challenges in providing
special education.  To create an environment in which charter
schools can meet the needs of students with disabilities, states need to
give charter schools equitable access to special education funding as
well as programs that help small local education agencies provide
services, and the same technical assistance opportunities that are
available to districts.

Though each state may approach these issues differently, the Commission
recommends that federal policy provide strong incentives or requirements
for states to take these actions.  Federal policy should also provide
the flexibility states need in this area, including the flexibility to
define charter schools' local education agencies status in ways that
maximize the capacity of such schools to meet the needs of children with
disabilities.  In addition, federal policy should make clear that
families working with IEP teams can choose charter schools and
other choice options that target students with disabilities, even if
these offer relatively restrictive environments, as long as those
programs can appropriately serve the student.

The Commission recommends greater flexibility in using federal funds
allow states to create parental choice programs while preserving the
student's basic civil rights. However, we recommend that any such
program also require schools and programs to be held to the same
accountability requirements for public schools, assuring that students
achieve excellent results.

States and localities must treat IDEA's least restrictive environment
(LRE) issues as basic civil rights and essential to special education,
by making LRE a matter of results-based services rather than a matter of
procedural safeguards. Least restrictive environment is a statutory
requirement that applies to all students with disabilities. The central
issue is to establish the optimal LRE to effectively educate students in
the most integrated setting possible. The Commission recognizes that it
may be appropriate for some children to receive some time or
supplemental services in smaller group settings. LRE is designed to
individually determine the most appropriate educational setting for each
student. Students with disabilities are best served with their
nondisabled peers whenever possible and consistent with the individual
needs of the child and the wishes of the parent. The placement
provisions should make it clear that if the current needs of the student
preclude services in the regular educational setting, a specific goal of
all possible educational and school social experiences with nondisabled
peers be included. The provision must include the requirement that, as
appropriate, school systems provide supplementary aids and services to
enable students with disabilities to participate in nonacademic and
extracurricular activities with their nondisabled peers.[^35]

This Commission finds it important to reflect on the basic rights of
children with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive
environment appropriate to the child and his or her educational needs.
We are deeply concerned that many children with severe disabilities,
including those children with autism or emotional disturbance, are
relegated to segregated educational settings simply because of their
disability. Despite decades of successful inclusion of children with
disabilities in regular schools that would not be possible without the
basic protections of IDEA and its predecessors, there are children with
disabilities who are still segregated simply because their disability
creates difficulties in providing integrated educational experiences.

Members of this Commission viewed situations where children with severe
disabilities**---**for no apparent justifiable educational
purpose**---**were separated from the regular school building and
consigned to secondary settings because of their disability. We reaffirm
our commitment to the fundamental belief that children with all types of
disabilities must be included to the maximum extent appropriate in their
school community. We also endorse the basic principles of providing
special education services to children who are removed from their
current educational placement for disciplinary reasons.[^36]

Thus, leaving no child behind also means leaving no children with
disabilities behind. These children include students at high risk of
academic difficulties because of emotional disturbance and those
children with disabilities in foster care or juvenile justice
facilities, from the early elementary grades through high school. We
must raise the bar for these children with disabilities to reach their
potential. Making least restrictive environment a focus on results-based
services will move services for children with disabilities in the most
integrated setting possible.

Each student's IEP should seek to determine the setting or settings that
are most appropriate and effective in achieving positive outcomes and
results, consistent with the least restrictive environment. The
Commission believes that in many states the rate of progress in meeting
the LRE requirement is unsatisfactory. States should be monitored by the
U.S. Department of Education on this requirement. In addition, the
Department should develop more adequate measures of monitoring
compliance on this requirement.

[Improve the IEP Process, Prevent Disputes and Improve Dispute
Resolution]{.underline}

Parent contact with the school special education system begins with a
referral, and then eligibility determination. Once determined eligible,
children and their parents begin the IEP process. This process can be
overwhelming for parents. Therefore, the Commission recommends IDEA
support training for skilled facilitators to run IEP meetings in a way
that gets parents and school staffs to win-win solutions for children.

IDEA should encourage states---perhaps through financial incentives---to
develop early processes for conflict avoidance and reaching agreement on
IEPs. Early processes such as expert IEP facilitation, conciliation,
telephone intermediation and training to increase collaboration and
problem solving skills of school staff and parents can help avoid
expensive disputes and promote efforts to help students. This could
diminish the number of disagreements requiring use of procedural
safeguards and the associated expenditures of time and money.

Where disputes do arise, IDEA must permit parents and schools to enter
binding arbitration and ensure that mediators, arbitrators and hearing
officers are trained in conflict resolution and negotiation. We
recommend IDEA require states to make mediation available anytime it is
requested and not only after a hearing request. Numerous parents,
teachers and school administrators complained during the Commission's
public sessions about the excessive focus on due process hearings and
litigation over special education disputes. Disputes of all sorts divert
parent and school time and money, and waste valuable resources and
energy that could otherwise be used to educate children with
disabilities. Furthermore, the Commission is concerned there is no
reliable national data set available indicating the number of due
process hearing requests and whether that number is rising or falling,
and that conflicts exist among data on dispute results.

More than one school administrator voiced concerns about the growing
threats of litigation when parents and schools cannot agree on the
appropriate level of special education and related services to provide.
These threats create an adversarial atmosphere that severely limits the
ability of parents and schools to cooperate. The threat of litigation
alone has costs for teachers, students and taxpayers: the cost of
attorneys in actual hearings and court actions; the cost of attorneys
and staff time in preparation for cases that do not reach the dispute
resolution system; and the cost of paperwork driven by districts
believing that extensive records help prevent lawsuits. These costs and
the dissatisfaction with the system merit serious reform.

One enlightening witness before the Commission was Jim Rosenfeld,
executive director of the EDLAW Center and the Council of Parent
Attorneys and Advocates, who has spent his career advocating on behalf
of parents in special education suits. Mr. Rosenfeld testified that,

"there should and must be a wide variety of dispute resolution
procedures available for both parents and school districts to use. . . .
One additional dispute resolution procedure might be voluntary but
binding arbitration available only upon the election of both of the
parties. I suspect many parents and schools would be willing to waive
their rights of appeal from such decisions if they were fair, impartial
and fast."[^37]

The Commission agrees and recommends IDEA permit the creation of
voluntary binding arbitration systems. There is simply no reason that
parents and schools should not have the option of waiving---with full
knowledge of the consequences---their right to further procedural
protections and appeals in the IDEA due process system in exchange for a
speedier and more assured resolution.

Binding arbitration, mediation and due process hearing process should be
consistent with the recommendation of witness and parent advocacy
attorney William Desault: use independent people who are trained in
mediation, arbitration and administrative conflict resolution.[^38] Too
many mediators and administrative hearing officers come from an
education background. Instead, the Commission recommends states and
schools take steps to hire these individuals from outside the education
or disability-advocacy communities. More specifically, they should be
trained in mediation, and dispute and conflict resolution. Drawing from
the disability or school communities helps poison the goodwill among the
parties and clearly leads to fewer resolutions in a timely and fair
manner.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The Commission concludes that innovative means of increasing education
system accountability often require what some may argue to be radical
changes. The recommendations outlined here may well be interpreted as
such, and perhaps justly so. Ultimately, efforts to achieve excellence
in special education services must focus on one objective---providing a
free appropriate public education so that children with disabilities may
become self-directed adults able to contribute to their communities to
the maximum extent possible.

# Post-Secondary Results for Students with Disabilities and Effective Transition Services

**[RECOMMENDATION]{.smallcaps}**---**SIMPLIFY** **Federal Transition
REQUIREMENTS in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: These
provisions should provide clear steps for integrating school and
non-school transition services, and closely link transition services to
the goals in each student's individualized education plan.**

**[RECOMMENDATION]{.smallcaps}**---**Mandate Federal Interagency
Coordination of Resources[:]{.smallcaps} Multiple federal policies and
programs must be required to work together to improve competitive
employment outcomes and increase access to higher education for students
with disabilities. An Executive Order mandating existing agency
coordination and pooling of existing funds will improve transition
services. Further, the bridge between federal special education policy
and rehabilitation policy must be strengthened.**

**[RECOMMENDATION]{.smallcaps}**---**Create A Rehabilitation Act
Reauthorization Advisory Committee: The Secretary of Education should
create an advisory committee to examine the reauthorization of the
Rehabilitation Act.**

#### RECOMMENDATION---Support Higher Education Faculty, Administrators and Auxiliary Service Providers to More Effectively Provide and HELP STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES TO Complete a High Quality Post-Secondary Education[:]{.smallcaps} Support and hold accountable all post-secondary institutions receiving federal funding for using evidence-based, best-practice programs and practices. Fund programs to educate post-secondary education personnel about modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities that have been proven to increase graduation rates and entry into the workforce.

The Commission finds students with disabilities are significantly
unemployed and underemployed upon leaving school compared to their peers
who do not have disabilities.[^39] Too many students with disabilities
leave school without successfully earning any type of diploma,[^40] and
they attend post-secondary programs at rates lower than their
nondisabled peers.[^41] Adults with disabilities are much less likely to
be employed than adults without disabilities. Unemployment rates for
working-age adults with disabilities have hovered at the 70 percent
level for at least the past 12 years, which the Commission finds to be
wholly unacceptable. Even when employed, too many adults with
disabilities who are employed earn markedly less income than their
nondisabled peers.[^42] These statistics reflect failures in the present
systems' structures.

To improve the future for many children with disabilities, the
Commission proposes fundamental changes to IDEA and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. To optimize results for children, youth and adults with
disabilities, the Commission recommends that both of these federal
statutes should use similar terminology to allow effective integration
of their services and requirements. The Commission finds that IDEA's
transition regulation requirements should be revised because these
requirements are too convoluted to implement in practical ways. We find
that the overriding barrier preventing a smooth transition from high
school to adult living is the fundamental failure of federal policies
and programs to facilitate smooth movement for students from secondary
school to competitive employment[^43] and higher education.

[Funding and Coordinated Federal Program Services]{.underline}

The Commission finds that several federal programs fail to direct the
necessary resources to increase the successful transition of students
with disabilities.[^44] For instance, IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act's
vocational rehabilitation program have no links based on student
results. While each mandates some level of cooperation, the lack of
post-school data-tracking under IDEA and the lack of a Rehabilitation
Act obligation for active involvement of vocational rehabilitation
counselors in each student's transition planning, contributes to poor
student outcomes. In addition to IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act,
programs authorized under the Higher Education Act do not sufficiently
provide transition services to meet the needs of students with
disabilities. GEAR UP and TRIO's Upward Bound and Talent Search programs
should place a greater emphasis on serving students with disabilities.
These federal programs must be amended to provide funding that is
targeted to direct services for students with disabilities.

The Social Security Act's Ticket to Work Program[^45] must also focus on
helping students with disabilities find employment when they finish
school. Although this new program should help lead to successful
competitive employment for people with disabilities, employment networks
under this program should become closely involved with helping eligible
individuals with disabilities obtain employment after they finish
school.

The Commission finds that if existing federal policies and law were more
effectively implemented, the low rates of individuals with disabilities
obtaining competitive employment or accessing higher education would
dramatically improve. An example of inadequate federal agency
coordination that adversely affects improved outcomes for students with
disabilities is the ongoing lack of coordination between the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, which is
responsible for administration of IDEA, and its Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE), which is responsible for administration of the
adult education sections of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).

Students with disabilities who dropped out of regular high school
between the ages of 16 and 21 are prevented from receiving both adult
education services funded under WIA, and simultaneous special education
support services under IDEA.[^46] This is a significant problem for
students with disabilities who, for whatever reason, leave high school
before earning a regular high school diploma but return to adult
education programs to earn a general education diploma.

WIA[^47] limits adult education to individuals who are not enrolled or
required to be enrolled in a secondary school. Yet, some WIA programs
are themselves secondary, not post-secondary, e.g., GED and pre-college
vocational training programs. Thus, a student cannot be enrolled in a
secondary school and also be enrolled in adult education under WIA, even
if the child\'s IEP team determined it appropriate. Many students with
disabilities who left high school before earning a regular high school
diploma but who are still entitled to a free appropriate public
education under IDEA are barred from receiving the services they need.
This conflict makes no practical sense and demonstrates the classic
barrier in existing federal programs that can easily be corrected to
better serve students with disabilities.[^48]

The Commission recommends the President issue an Executive Order
mandating federal interagency collaboration and directs the use of
existing federal program funds to focus on direct transition services
within the limits of those statutes. Federal programs must be required
to better coordinate their services to focus on reaching people with
disabilities early. The funding for more focused transition services now
exists. Unfortunately, these funds are spread across multiple agencies
and the programs do not target transition services or foster
coordination with other federal programs. We find these programs do not
provide states the flexibility needed to develop comprehensive programs
using federal funds already available. States must be allowed to
coordinate federal funds from the various agencies into specific
transition services that best serve each state's students with
disabilities. To the extent that statutes bar such use of funds,
agencies should be obligated to report on the administrative, regulatory
or statutory barriers that prevent coordination.

The Commission recommends all federal agencies collaborate to resolve
obvious administrative barriers. Further, a portion of federal funds
from each of the federal grant programs that directly impact improvement
in transition should be committed and tied to performance outcomes and
results, i.e., data related to postsecondary education and competitive
employment obtained by students with disabilities who are transitioning
from school to adult activities. This linkage should be consistent with
recommendations in the Finance and Accountability sections of this
report. As with these performance changes to IDEA, other federal
programs can be strengthened together and tied to targeted funds for
clear measurable post-school results.

The Accountability section of this report calls for states to measure,
report and hold local education agencies accountable for students'
post-secondary results under IDEA. In addition, other federal
legislation related to transition services should similarly require
agencies to measure, report and be held accountable for students'
success in competitive employment and post-secondary education.

The Commission finds that increased enforcement by OSERS of interagency
agreements,[^49] which are now required between SEAs and state
vocational rehabilitation agencies under IDEA and the Rehabilitation
Act, will improve coordination and collaboration between these agencies.
In both laws Congress called for schools to work in collaboration with
other agencies to assist students with disabilities in the transition
from school to employment and independent living. The 1998
Rehabilitation Act amendments, at a minimum, required, "consultative and
technical assistance services to assist educational agencies in planning
for the transition of students with disabilities from school to
post-school activities, including employment." The goal of these
provisions is to assure seamless service delivery. This practice is not
occurring with the frequency Congress intended.

## Advisory Committee to Study the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The testimony of the many experts, parents and individuals with
disabilities who appeared before the Commission compels us to suggest
the creation of an advisory committee to examine the current status of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[^50] We propose that the U.S. Secretary
of Education create an advisory committee to conduct a review of the
issues surrounding that Act. Such a committee can serve two important
functions. First, a review of the information and a close examination of
the issues related to the Rehabilitation Act will provide an opportunity
for federal and state agencies to consider how they can help increase
the numbers of individuals with disabilities who are competitively
employed. Second, the committee would build on the useful suggestions
for improving the delivery of transition services by Rehabilitation Act
funded agencies outlined by this Commission, particularly federally
funded state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Not enough interagency
activity occurs between our schools and vocational rehabilitation
agencies. The benefit will be improved services to students with
disabilities who are transitioning from school to employment or
post-secondary education.

## Transition Services

The Commission finds that transition services are not being implemented
to the fullest extent possible and that meaningful results do not
happen. IDEA's federal requirements are too complex for educators,
students, parents and others, such as vocational rehabilitation program
counselors, to understand what the law requires and when it is required.

To illustrate how confusing the statute, regulations and other
requirements are, an individualized education program needs a "statement
of transition service needs" for all students with disabilities at age
14, while at age 16, a "statement of needed transition services" is
required.

However, neither a reasonably clear explanation is provided explaining
the differences between these two statements, nor is any research-based
evidence supporting the delineation for having one requirement at age 14
and another at age 16. Students about whom these statements are written
*are required* to be invited to the IEP meeting if a purpose of the
meeting will be the consideration of the student\'s transition service
needs, needed transition services or both. At other times, the student
is included on the IEP team, *if appropriate*. However, the Commission
finds that it is *always* appropriate for students with disabilities to
be invited and present at IEP meetings.

In addition, the statute, regulations, and OSEP policy guidance require
a statement of the interagency responsibilities, "if appropriate." These
interagency agreements are supposed to link students to useful services
beyond those provided by the school. However, no explanation is provided
about how school personnel should go about uniting these services with
those provided by the school or how to integrate transition services
provided by outside agencies with the IEP. This confusion helps assure a
disconnect between services and outcomes.[^51]

In testimony before the Commission, one expert provided a striking
example of the lack of implementation that is too common in the delivery
of transition services. Susan Brody Hasazi, Ed.D., stated that in
reviewing a transition plan of a junior high student who had a moderate
hearing impairment, there were no goals, objectives or activities
related to the student's career aspirations listed elsewhere in his IEP.
Instead, the goals that were listed focused on improving his
articulation and offered little in terms of helping the student achieve
his career goals of becoming a merchant marine.[^52]

Hasazi reported this lack of complete transition planning and linkage of
transition services to meet the needs of individual students was not
unusual. Her testimony exemplifies many similar problems brought before
this Commission and reveals that school personnel generally do not know
how to interpret and meaningfully apply the complex transition
requirements. We are also concerned that more effective educator
training to empower their students with essential self-advocacy skills
needs to be done.

The Commission finds that IDEA must be changed to clearly link students'
long-range transition goals to the development of the annual IEP goals,
objectives and activities. While some may argue this requirement is now
in place, our own reading of the transition language in the regulations
leave us confused about what is required, when it is required, who must
be involved, etc. Students and teachers should not need to waste time
interpreting "policy wonk" terms and concepts. They should be working
together to determine how they can best serve young people with
disabilities and their long-term goals.

These changes should redefine transition services as a results-oriented
process focusing on post-school and in-school results including academic
and nonacademic alternatives. The arbitrary age 14/16 distinctions in
IDEA should be replaced with a uniform standard at an appropriate age or
school point readily understandable by teachers and students. Current
requirements mandating interagency agreements must be revised to clearly
describe cooperative and collaborative networking mechanisms between
schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies and other community
organizations charged with providing services to individuals with
disabilities.

While the Commission wholeheartedly supports strong academic achievement
for all students, it recognizes that academic achievement alone will not
lead to successful results for students with disabilities. Students with
disabilities need educational supports and services to promote these
skills throughout their school lives. However, these supports and
services may need to intensify during the transition years. Such skills
include self-determination, self-advocacy, social skills organizational
skills, community and peer connection, communication,
conflict-resolution, career skill building and career development and
computer/technological competency.

## Competitive Employment and Postsecondary Education

The Commission finds that students with disabilities who choose
nonacademic alternatives after completing high school are not provided
adequate preparation and supports to successfully reach their goals.
Only 34 percent of adults with disabilities ages 21 through 64 reported
being employed.[^53] Even more alarming, working-age adults with
disabilities earn significantly less than adults without
disabilities.[^54]

Research suggests that efforts must begin in the early school years to
ease successful transitions to meaningful employment. Opportunities for
career development, including social interactions, must be provided to
all students with disabilities, including minority students with
disabilities, throughout their K-12 educational experiences. Such
preparation will improve their employability.

In addition, the Commission finds that students with disabilities who
elect to continue their education at the postsecondary level rather than
immediately enter the workplace also face significant barriers to
achieving their goals. According to testimony before the Commission,
students with disabilities are less likely than students without
disabilities to complete courses in high school that prepare them to
succeed in college. OSEP's National Longitudinal Transition Study
reported that students with disabilities who remained in high school for
four grades accumulated an average of 12 credits in academic subjects,
compared with 15 academic credits earned by students without
disabilities.[^55]

Moreover, students with disabilities are less likely than their peers to
earn a college degree. Adjustments to college life for students with
disabilities pose challenges. Many college students (with and without
disabilities) are faced with new physical and social environments. These
adjustments are compounded for students with disabilities because they
are faced with architectural barriers and attitudinal misperceptions
about their skills and abilities by faculty, staff and their nondisabled
peers.[^56]

The Commission finds that students with disabilities entering college
are often ill prepared to negotiate the complexities of college life.
Schools and associated agencies can bridge this gap by providing work
experiences, career and academic counseling, job coaching and mentoring
opportunities while encouraging students to enroll in the kinds of
academic courses that will prepare them to succeed in work and college.
The Commission also finds that the Department of Education should
support research to determine factors that help students with
disabilities make the transition into college, as well as model
best-practice programs based on this scientifically based research.

## Students with Disabilities Who Do Not Receive Special Education Services

Not every student with a disability in elementary, middle or high school
receives special education services because his or her disability does
not impair their ability to learn to such a degree that special
education services are necessary. A common example of such a student
would be one who uses a wheelchair for mobility but has no other
physical or mental disability. For students with such disabilities,
basic modifications to the physical accessibility of the school
generally provide the ability to perform well in the regular education
classroom. In these circumstances students with disabilities have
specific civil rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that
require what are known as "504 Plans." These plans usually outline the
modifications and accommodations a student will receive to participate
in their regular classrooms and generally have basic transition
requirements similar to IDEA IEPs.

However, even *three decades* after the passage of the Rehabilitation
Act section 504, little data and research exist about the effectiveness
of 504 Plans and the number of 504 Plan children with disabilities
gaining employment or moving onto higher education. We strongly
recommend that the Rehabilitation Services Administration immediately
begin to work collaboratively with the Office of Special Education
Programs and other agencies to track such data and develop research
priorities to inform these students.[^57]

## The Role of Parental Involvement 

Throughout the course of the Commission's review of the issues related
to federal, state and local special education programs, numerous parents
provided insight into their perceptions of transition services for their
children with disabilities. This input captured the attention of the
Commission and has left a lasting impact upon each Commissioner.
Therefore, the Commission deems it particularly important to devote the
final portion of our report to the issue of parental involvement in the
development and delivery of transition services.

In testimony before the Commission, parents reported a lack of
information regarding the purpose and processes associated with
transition services, including information related to community agencies
and resources. In addition, parents reported that effective strategies
for increasing parental participation were not routinely implemented.
Parents desire relatively simple measures such as receiving information
about the IEP and community resources, creating an atmosphere of open
communication, frequently communicating about school services and
activities, and formally recognizing the valuable role that parents and
students play in the transition process. Parents of children with
disabilities also wanted revised, clear requirements requiring their
full inclusion at all stages of the process---from inception to
implementation of all transition services.

The Commission recognizes that parents and their children are the most
qualified individuals to provide information about the needs, wants and
goals of their child as they transition from school to post-school
activities. Therefore, the Commission recommends that IDEA include
provisions providing for the full participation of students and their
parents in the determination of the type and delivery of transition
services provided. Parents also need support in navigating the
transition from the entitlement model under IDEA to the eligibility
model used by other programs providing post-school services to people
with disabilities.

## Conclusion

The Commission is convinced that dramatic revisions of IDEA's transition
provisions must occur. Once IDEA is reauthorized, the subsequent federal
regulations must provide greater clarity. The regulations must include
steps explaining in plain, uncomplicated language what is required. We
also stress the need for continued data collection and related research
to develop the finest transition-related practices and to develop policy
closely linking the goals of any child's IEP directly with transition
goals. All students with disabilities must be provided support services
in their education that prepares them to succeed in competitive
employment and postsecondary education settings, and their parents must
be full participants throughout this process. The Commission believes
the formation of an advisory committee to assist the Secretary of
Education in establishing recommendations for improving the
Rehabilitation Act will complement these recommendations to create a
smooth transition from secondary school to adult life and excellence in
transition planning and service delivery.

Teacher and Administrator Preparation, Training and Retention

RECOMMENDATION---RECRUIT AND TRAIN HIGHLY QUALIFIED GENERAL AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION TEACHERS: States and districts must devise new strategies to
recruit more personnel who are highly qualified to educate students with
disabilities. State licenses and endorsements for all teachers should
require specific training related to meeting the needs of students with
disabilities, and integrating parents into special education services.
States must develop collaborative career-long professional development
systems that conform to professional standards.

**RECOMMENDATION---CREATE RESEARCH AND DATA-DRIVEN SYSTEMS FOR TRAINING
TEACHERS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION: Formal teacher training should also be
based upon solid research about how students learn and what teacher
characteristics are most likely to produce student achievement.**
**State Education Agencies (SEAs) and institutions that train teachers
and administrators should implement data-driven feedback systems to
improve how well educators educate children with disabilities.**

**RECOMMENDATION---INSTITUTE ONGOING FIELD EXPEREIENCES: Post-secondary
institutions and state and private organizations that train teachers
should require all students to complete supervised practicum experiences
in each year of their training. These practices provides them with a
comprehensive view of the full range of general education, special
education and inclusive settings or service delivery models for students
with disabilities.**

RECOMMENDATION---REQUIRE RIGOROUS TRAINING IN READING: States and school
districts must implement more rigorous requirements for training
educators in scientifically based assessment and intervention in
reading. General and special education teachers must implement
research-based practices that include explicit and systematic
instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension.

RECOMMENDATION---REQUIRE PUBLIC REPORTING: Title II of the Higher
Education Act should require programs for teacher education,
administrative personnel and related services personnel to publicly
report the performance of general education and special education
program graduates relative to educating students with disabilities.

RECOMMENDATION---INCREASE SPECIAL EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES
FACULTY: Institutions of higher education should recruit and train more
fully qualified professors of special education to address the shortage
of special education and related services doctorate holders who are
qualified to teach our nation's future educators and prepare them to
achieve results for diverse learners.

RECOMMENDATION---CONDUCT RESEARCH: The Department of Education in
collaboration with other federal agencies should conduct research to
identify the critical factors in personnel preparation that improve
student learning and achievement in schools. While recent research has
begun to determine critical factors in instruction, more high-quality
research is needed on instructional variables that improve achievement
by students with disabilities.

Our nation is less likely to serve children with disabilities well
because of our failure to appropriately train, recruit and mentor
special education teachers. This will not only undermine our efforts to
increase the achievement of students with disabilities; it will
frustrate our efforts to improve our schools and increase the academic
achievement of *all* children.

In response, the Commission recommends a series of changes to our
teacher education programs for special educators, state licensure
requirements, public accountability data systems and the translation of
research knowledge into real classroom practice. Most notably, the
recommendations will have major implications for general education
teacher training programs, and local school induction programs for all
teachers.

Put simply, too many general education teachers lack the skills to teach
children with disabilities effectively and too many view serving those
children as the responsibility of special education teachers. They lack
those skills because too many teacher colleges and other professional
development programs have failed to provide them that knowledge. Those
teacher preparation programs fail to provide such background because
many faculty lack the valid, scientific knowledge necessary to teach
children with disabilities today. These problems are exacerbated by
shortages of special education teachers, administrators with special
education knowledge, and post-graduate instructors. The Commission
strongly recommends that teacher colleges, state educational agencies
and local schools implement the above recommendations to prevent the
decline in the quality of our nation's teachers.

## The Shortages

There is a shortage of personnel adequately trained to provide special
education and related services to children with disabilities. According
to the U.S. Department of Education funded SPeNSE study[^58] more than
12,000 openings for special education teachers were left vacant or
filled by substitutes in 1999-2000.

The growing shortage of special education teachers alarms this
Commission. Ninety-eight percent of school districts report special
education teacher shortages.[^59] Roughly 10 percent of special
education positions nationally---39,140 positions---are filled by
uncertified personnel who serve approximately 600,000 students with
disabilities.[^60] The proportion of special education positions held by
uncertified personnel is even higher in some states.[^61]

## Teacher Certification and Licensure

These shortage figures only address certification. Certification is not
a direct analog for qualification, and data do not indicate that
certification necessarily provides a qualified teacher. Therefore, we
must provide better indicators of what skills and abilities constitute
competence for a qualified educator to achieve results for a student
with a disability. In addition to the shortage of qualified special
education teachers, the U.S. Department of Education estimates we will
need more than 200,000 new special educators during the next five years,
but colleges and universities have the capacity to prepare only about
half that number.[^62]

### 

## 

## 

This Commission strongly believes in the teaching profession, yet we
find that existing state systems of teacher licensure for special
educators, with their various provisions for alternative, provisional
and emergency certification, must be radically overhauled. Our review of
relevant literature and the testimony provided before this Commission
compel us to call attention to the need for reform in teacher
certification and licensure. If for no other reason, we find no direct
relationship between increased results for children with disabilities
and whether a teacher holds a certification or licensure.

While all 50 States and the District of Columbia require special
education teachers to be licensed, the form and content of that
licensing procedure varies greatly. Whether that license is in addition
to a general education credential varies widely from state to state.
Some states require specialized licenses in individual disability
categories in addition to general educational preparation.[^63] Many
colleges and universities offer baccalaureate programs in special
education and also provide access to the courses that may be required to
fulfill licensure requirements, that variously include, among others,
educational psychology, legal issues of special education and child
growth and development, as well as general knowledge and skills required
to teach children with disabilities.[^64]

State licensure systems cannot ensure mastery of essential content or
skills, largely because their means of assessing mastery are unclear.
Rather, states presume that a teacher who has completed these
requirements and then passed a low-level assessment is competent.

Therefore, we find that existing special education certification must be
more focused on results and measurable qualifications of educators than
now exists. What is particularly disturbing is that this Commission
heard from leading teacher education researchers that no research exists
as to whether certification and years of teaching experience are
reliable predictors of student achievement for students with
disabilities receiving special education. This is an area of research we
desperately need in order to inform the educational community of
evidence-based instructional practices for students with disabilities.

[Teacher Preparation]{.underline}

Although there is currently not enough strong research about the teacher
characteristics that affect student achievement, we do know that certain
factors have a strong effect in producing student achievement. A
synthesis of research shows that:

-   Teachers with higher levels of general verbal ability tend to be
    more effective.

-   Teachers who have developed knowledge of the subject they teach by
    majoring in it in college are more effective, particularly for math
    and science in middle and high school.

-   Teachers who have had intensive professional development in the
    curriculum they are expected to transmit are more effective.

Teacher preparation institutions must move from folk wisdom, weak
research and opinion on what are important characteristics of effective
teachers and begin to focus on helping to strengthen the teacher
competencies that have clear data as producing student gains.

The current system of pre-service and in-service education is not
sufficient to produce personnel who can ensure students with
disabilities achieve satisfactory outcomes. The high rate of attrition
for both general and special education teachers is partly attributable
to this less than robust system. All too often curricula and
methodologies utilized in colleges of education are not empirically
connected to improved student achievement. And, too often professional
development offered to new and veteran teachers is inadequate in
impacting student achievement. The Commission finds that both
pre-service and professional development training must ensure that
instruction in pedagogy is research-based and linked directly to student
learning and achievement.

Many special education programs share attributes of effective general
teacher preparation programs. Moreover, unified teacher education
programs (i.e., integrated special/general education programs) more
closely resemble all the attributes of effective teacher education
programs, and may be better positioned to help students in general and
special education develop the skills noted above.

Early field-based practical experience for teacher education would help
students know what will be expected of them in teaching. The Commission
recommends that college and university teacher training programs provide
exposure to the classroom environment and the practice of teaching early
in the first year of teacher training. Preparation of teachers must be
supervised and relevant with pre-service teachers receiving continual
guidance and feedback as well as induction to the teaching profession. A
principal goal of this experience is the ability to integrate and apply
knowledge productively and reflectively in practice.[^65] The Commission
recommends that this type of practicum experience be integrated into all
college teacher preparation programs.[^66]

Despite chronic shortages in the availability of special education
personnel documented since 1988, the Congress did not adequately address
the issue in the 1997 IDEA reauthorization. Throughout the 1990s,
funding was primarily made available to stimulate innovation. This
reinforces a constant cycle of new versions of practices---often
unvalidated---in personnel preparation without support to the
development and maintenance of effective personnel preparation programs.
The result is low numbers of personnel who are well trained in
scientifically based teaching practices.

Federal funds supporting teacher-training programs must be competitively
awarded to institutions of higher education to develop, maintain and
sustain high quality personnel preparation programs rather than the
current practice of funding different, short-term programs. The
Commission finds that allocating federal funds to invest in teacher
preparation programs demonstrating high levels of effectiveness must
become a priority for the U.S. Department of Education. Supporting an
ever-changing series of "innovative" programs at the expense of
long-term support for quality teacher training programs has not resulted
in sufficient numbers of new special education teachers entering the
classroom.

## Data-Driven Education and Public Reporting

Higher education institutions have trained millions of teachers.
Researchers and policy makers offered innumerable analyses of what leads
to the development of quality teachers. Yet very few higher education
institutions or states have determined exactly which teachers have later
proved to be high quality teachers. Although they would be the primary
beneficiaries of such information, most school districts lack a
sufficiently large pool of data elements---teachers---to make collecting
data relate to the performance of their students worth their while.
State educational agencies and universities could collect the data but
for a variety of reasons do not do so. As a result, local administrators
continue to use qualitative tools and personal experience to guide their
recruitment and induction efforts. State agencies and colleges in turn
lack key knowledge that would help lead reforms in their policies and
teacher training programs. It is important that research efforts focus
on teacher characteristics that improve student achievement.

A solution lies with creating more data and putting that data to use.
The Commission recommends that state and local education agencies enter
into partnerships with universities and colleges to collect data on the
career path of teachers and the aggregate achievement of children. The
data would permit universities to refine their programs based on how
well their teachers later perform. Colleges would abandon practices that
do not work in favor of those that do.

The change would also drive state and local agencies towards quality
programs. Universities that poorly prepare teachers would likely see
their application pools shrink while teachers leaving strong training
programs would find multiple offers for their services. To further drive
college programs towards quality, the Commission recommends these data
be made publicly available by institution. Public scrutiny of
performance will help all stakeholders---deans, university boards, state
licensure authorities and students with tuition dollars---make better
decisions about those institutions.

[Teacher Recruitment and Retention]{.underline}

There is little research about effective strategies to address the
current personnel shortage. As a result, the Commission calls on states
and districts to devise new approaches to recruiting personnel who are
highly qualified to educate students with disabilities. Promising
strategies include:

-   Experimenting with differential pay for educators in shortage
    specialties;

-   Experimenting with performance-based or knowledge-and-skills-based
    pay with the possibility of higher pay for successful special
    educators;

-   Developing high-quality alternative routes into classrooms that
    enable high-potential educators to enter the profession and receive
    on-the-job professional development; and

-   Improving working conditions of special educators by reducing
    paperwork and mitigating the adversarial nature of special education
    (issues addressed elsewhere in this report).

[Professional Development]{.underline}

Teacher preparation must be seen as a career-long continuum of
development.[^67] Professional development does not end with a basic
credential in teacher education. Instead, teacher-preparation must be
seen as a long-term developmental process, beginning with undergraduate
preparation, and continuing with professional development throughout
each educator's career. However, the content of professional development
must always be linked to empirically validated methodologies and content
that is related to improving student achievement.

Experts appearing before the Commission stated that research on the
ability of general education and special education teachers' to
implement research-based practices is consistent with the findings of
research on effective professional development.[^68] However, these data
must be supported with more empirical research to inform our
understanding of what constitutes effective professional development.

Existing continuing education efforts are often inadequate for a number
of reasons, including lack of substantive and research-based content,
the lack of systematic followup necessary for sustainability and the
"one-shot" character of many workshop training programs.[^69] Special
and general educators require continuous opportunities to improve their
ability to provide effective instruction to each student. Professional
educator development should not be conceived as something that ends with
graduation from a teacher-training program.

[Training Teachers to Provide Quality Reading Instruction]{.underline}

The ability to read is the most critical academic skill a child can
learn. As a result, the skills educators need to teach young children
reading is of such profound importance that the Commission believes this
issue merits further discussion. Key to successful preparation of
teachers in reading is aligning the content of coursework with current
research on reading. As such, the Commission is concerned not only about
the quantity of pre-service coursework in reading, but the quality as
well.

The Commission is concerned about the current methods of preparing new
teachers to more effectively teach all children to read. The Commission
is further concerned about the ability of teachers to identify early
those children who may be at-risk of reading difficulties and those
factors associated with potential learning problems, particularly in the
early elementary grades where learning to read directly affects a
child's future academic success.

The Commission finds that in the typical pre-service course of study,
very little time is allocated to preparing teachers to teach reading.
Virtually all states require that K-3 teacher credential candidates do
some course work in the teaching of reading.[^70] Most teachers of the
primary grades take only one course in the teaching of reading, and the
average is only about 1.3 courses per teacher.[^71] The quality of this
coursework is often questionable.

Many researchers who appeared before the Commission, including Sharon
Vaughn, Ph.D., David J. Francis, Ph.D. and Daniel J. Reschly,
Ph.D.,[^72] noted that teacher preparation for the teaching of reading
has not been adequate to bring about the research-based changes in
classroom practices that result in academic success. Therefore, we
recommend SEAs, associations of teacher education, colleges and
universities that provide teacher education and accrediting agencies of
higher education programs must implement more rigorous requirements in
reading assessment and research-based intervention linked to improvement
of student achievement particularly for elementary endorsement.

Teachers must have continuing access to professional development to
serve children likely to or already experiencing reading difficulties.
Teachers of children who are at risk of reading difficulties and
children with learning disabilities need access to the most recent
research to more effectively implement instructional methodologies that
are scientifically based.

[The National Shortage of Special Education and Related Services
Professors]{.underline}

We are concerned about the growing need for special education faculty to
train our nation's future educators. The current annual supply of
special education doctorates cannot fill the annual faculty position
vacancies, and every year approximately one-third of all position
vacancies go unfilled.[^73] As more faculty approach retirement there
are fewer doctoral level candidates to fill present and future openings.
Providing quality faculty in our nation's colleges and universities is
critical to ensuring educators receive the best preparation to enter
classrooms ready to serve children with disabilities.

We must focus on efforts to recruit and train through the doctoral level
a new national cadre of fully qualified special education teacher
educators and researchers. This new cadre should be recruited from the
ranks of practicing special educators with experience in all relevant
special education service delivery models, including inclusive or
collaborative general/special education classrooms. They must be fluent
in research-based best practices of instruction and assistive
technology, and they must be diverse with regard to gender, race and
ethnicity. Special education doctoral personnel preparation programs
must be comprehensive in terms of program offerings and have a minimum
of five full-time special education faculty with doctoral degrees.

[The Importance of Minority Teacher Recruitment]{.underline}

Students in today's classrooms are more diverse in ability, culture,
language and learning needs. All too often, we ask students to move from
place to place to accommodate teacher qualifications, rather than ask
that teachers possess the ability to adapt to the individualized needs
of diverse students. It has also meant that students who do not meet
eligibility requirements have no access to individualized instruction
practiced by many special educators. Instead, they struggle in a
one-size-fits-all educational setting that may not fit their learning
needs. It is time for educational systems to recruit, train and support
teachers who can apply research-based and culturally competent practices
to educating diverse students in their classrooms.

**\
**The Commission finds that an emphasis in the recommendation to recruit
and retain special educators must focus on reaching out to our nation's
most talented individuals who represent the diversity of children in the
classroom. The student population throughout the nation increasingly is
more diverse, yet the proportion of minority teachers continues to
decrease. In 1993-1994 children who are black made up 16 percent of the
public school population, but only nine percent of the teaching force
consisted of educators who are black.[^74] The Commission is concerned
that not enough people from minority backgrounds and men, in general,
are entering the profession of educating children. Children benefit from
having teachers that include individuals from their own ethnic and
cultural backgrounds. The representation of role models for children to
emulate is an important function educators provide. We are disturbed
that although the diversity of children will continue, the prospects
that teachers will be largely white, middle class, female and
monolingual will continue.[^75]

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The Commission echoes assistant secretary Pasternack in his comments
before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee that, "the successful implementation
of the IDEA is perhaps most critically dependent on the quality of the
people who implement the principles contained in the law---the teachers,
para-educators, related service providers and administrators, in
cooperation with the parents and the students. Unfortunately, many
general and special education teachers, as well as the administrators
and other school personnel who work with them, are often ill prepared to
meet the needs of students with disabilities. We know that much more
needs to be done to better prepare and support all the members of the
learning community in their efforts to educate students with
disabilities."[^76]

The Commission's recommendations will improve the quality and numbers of
individuals entering special education professions. These improvements
are critical elements that will bring about change in how well we serve
children with disabilities in our nation's schools. In sum, we hold that
a national priority to recruit and retain the finest special educators
and related services personnel must be an important component of IDEA.

# Special Education Research and Dissemination of Information

recommendation---Change the Current Grant Review Process TO CREATE
SCIENTIFIC RIGOR: Improve the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) to make participation in review activities an honor, obligation
and a sign of accomplishment among researchers and practitioners. Create
a culture of scientific rigor in OSEP emphasizing the quality of special
education research activities.

**RECOMMENDATION---Improve THE COORDINATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
RESEARCH: Integrate and improve the coordination of all research
activities within the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services. The three offices within
OSERS---the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Office of
Special Education Programs---must collaborate more effectively with each
other and with other federal efforts to improve research related to
individuals with disabilities.**

**RECOMMENDATION---SUPPORT LONG-TERM RESEARCH PRIORITIES:  Focus
research investments on a narrower range of priorities to promote the
development of more powerful and reliable discoveries that will benefit
people with disabilities.**

**RECOMMENDATION---IMPROVE THE IMPACT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: Support
demonstration and dissemination programs in OSERS that focus on the
adoption of scientifically based practices in the preparation of and
continuing education for teachers. Focus on proven, effective practices
that can be implemented, scaled and sustained nationwide.**

In the federal government, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) within the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for
funding coordinated research, personnel preparation, technical
assistance, support and dissemination of information to benefit children
with disabilities of all ages. Much of this coordination and support for
research and other activities is conducted through grants awarded
competitively through a peer review system. OSEP manages that system in
its Research to Practice Division.

OSEP's research charge is broad because it spans the range of issues
affecting the education and development of infants, toddlers, children
and youth with disabilities. In addition, consumers of OSEP's research
efforts include parents and their children with disabilities, teachers,
administrators, technical assistance providers and developers and other
researchers. These activities play a vital role improving the
achievement of children with disabilities, but the impact has been
weakened because of inadequate dissemination efforts. Congress and the
Department of Education reaffirm their support of this important
research and dissemination program. The Commission recommends several
fundamental changes be made to OSEP's research and development efforts.

[Improve the Current Grant Review Process]{.underline}

The Commission finds that OSEP's current process for reviewing grant
proposals and monitoring practices must be improved. The review process
at OSEP appears oriented to completion of an administrative task
designed to allocate resources as opposed to an opportunity to
rigorously evaluate and improve the quality of research. The criteria
applied in the review process must match those of the field for
rigorous, scientifically based special education research.

Many of the nation's leading special education researchers provided
testimony before the Commission expressing concern over OSEP's methods
of conducting peer review of research grant proposals.[^77] In addition,
several members of the Commission have research backgrounds with years
of experience in federal grant application with multiple research
agencies and have supported the entire Commission as it developed its
findings and recommendations.

Peer review at OSEP is based on ad hoc panels assembled from reviewer
lists. The development of a community organized around a set review
process, expectations around a set review process, expectations around
deadlines for review or the need to participate in review, has not
occurred. Thus, OSEP experiences difficulties recruiting reviewers.
Witnesses indicated that reviewers are often not provided the
applications in advance, but are expected to review on the spot at the
review session. Not only does this prevent careful consideration of the
applications, but also written feedback is truncated, inconsistent and
often not helpful to the applicant. As a major function of review is to
provide feedback to the field and upgrade the quality of research
through the review process, OSEP is missing opportunities to enhance the
technical quality of its applications.[^78] This approach also reduces
interest in participating in the review process, contributing to the
difficulties OSEP experiences in attracting reviewers.

Other problems with the process reflect review procedures. OSEP staff
persons that are research managers are also responsible for peer review.
Not only does this create additional work, but it also creates potential
difficulties in separating roles. Review works best when program and
review are separated. The review process requires project staff that has
appropriate professional backgrounds and experiences in research and its
administration, which is not sufficient at OSEP and not apparent in the
contracting organizations. The Commission learned that continuation
grants are rarely allowed at OSEP, so evaluations of progress rarely
figure into the evaluation process. Although OSEP has improved
procedures for review, the Commission found little evidence that the
results of these reviews figured into future funding decisions for the
applicant. Review panels are expected by statute to include researchers,
consumers, practitioners and consumers even though non-researchers may
not be able to address technical aspects of the proposal. Many qualified
researchers do not participate in the peer review process or avoid OSEP
applications because of the perception that the review process is
arbitrary and that OSEP does not select the highest quality grants.

The OSEP review process can be substantially strengthened.[^79] Setting
priorities for research and determining the questions to be addressed in
special competitions should be conducted in collaboration with the
consumers of special education research---culturally diverse families,
individuals with disabilities, service providers, researchers and policy
makers. Researchers with methodological and content area expertise that
matches the purpose of the competition should be specifically recruited
to review research proposals. We propose four broad improvements to
create a culture of rigorous scientific practice:

A.  The Commission recommends that OSEP develop a peer review system
    with a two-tiered level of review, which the Commission finds is
    essential to enhanced research quality at OSEP. A statutory change
    will be needed to effect this change. The first level should be for
    technical quality, significance and innovation and completed by
    members of the research community. The second level should address
    relevance to OSEP priorities, but should occur at the level of the
    assistant secretary for OSERS to ensure the Part D program is
    coordinated with Part B and C (as designed) and that OSEP research
    priorities are coordinated with those of the Rehabilitation Services
    Administration (RSA) and the National Institute on Disability and
    Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).

B.  A national advisory committee analogous to the National Research
    Priorities Board at the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
    Educational Research and Improvement, the National Science Board at
    the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Advisory
    Councils at different National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes
    should be formed. This committee would include practitioners,
    researchers, parents and people with disabilities. It would be
    responsible for helping to establish priorities and agendas and also
    to review research recommended for funding to ensure its relevance
    to people with disabilities. Finally, the Commission notes that
    these concerns about the review process extend to each of the Part D
    programs under National Activities to Improve Outcomes for Children
    with Disabilities.

C.  To facilitate the first level of review, standing panels with fixed
    terms for each of the OSEP Part D programs should be established.
    These committees should operate independently of the OSEP research
    programs through a separate "institute for review." This model is
    like that used by NIH internal review groups that are responsible
    for research generated outside the investigator initiated
    mechanisms, but specific to institute priorities.

D.  Each panel should be chaired by a senior researcher and
    administrated by a doctoral level individual with a background in
    research who is part of the review institute. The administrator will
    be responsible for processing grants, distributing them to reviewers
    in a timely manner and editing reviews into a consistent format
    devoid of ad hominen or impertinent comments. Reviewers will be
    expected to prepare reviews in advance of the meeting that are
    oriented towards identifying the strongest applications and to
    provide reviews that are systematic, thorough and document the
    strengths and weaknesses of the application in attempt to upgrade
    the quality of the research. The goal would be to make participation
    in review an honor, obligation and sign of accomplishment as part of
    the development of a culture of science around Part D programs,
    which presently does not exist. The costs of these changes are not
    significant. Current statutes allow OSEP to spend up to five percent
    in peer review, whereas current expenditures are now about two
    percent.[^80]

The peer review process itself must be organized in a manner that
actively encourages progressive improvement of research proposals
through revision and resubmission based on feedback from the previous
review. Strong peer review results in better science and better, more
accurate scientific information is needed to improve practice. The
review process must promote the long-term programs of research that
support evidence-based practices. A rational system of review that
includes progress reports from previously funded projects and places
newly proposed research in the context of the researcher's record of
empirical work is needed. Specific recommendations are as follows:

> 1\. Provide professional, accurate, timely feedback to applicants. The
> content of the feedback should be substantive and reflect technical
> adequacy of the proposal in precise terms and delineate the importance
> of proposed research within the parameters of the competition.
>
> 2\. Develop a system of grant reviewing that allows for systematic
> revision and resubmission of proposals, particularly in the Field
> Initiated Research competition. Reviewers should be provided
> applications in advance and be expected to prepare reviews that are
> structured to identifying the strongest applications.

3.  Develop standing dates for annual competitions, and predictable
    submission deadlines for special competitions; provide sufficient
    public notice for applicants to prepare relevant and rigorous
    applications.

4.  Time the reviews and notification of applicants about review
    outcomes to coincide with the functional start dates for research
    and training activities. This will allow a more effective and
    manageable flow of subsequent research implementation and personnel
    preparation grant awards.

In sum, evidence-based practice depends on sustained funding for
important, credible and methodologically rigorous research in special
education. A stronger system of peer review can strengthen the methods
and standards for research in special education programs and services.
Ultimately, a stronger peer review process will increase the reliability
and the validity of research outcomes. Credible peer review processes
will have a positive effect on special education research as viewed by
researchers in other disciplines and by other federal and private
funding agencies.[^81]

## Improve Federal Collaboration

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services comprises
the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Office of Special
Education Programs. Each of these agencies administers research and
dissemination activities ranging from rehabilitation engineering
technology for people with severe physical disabilities to infant and
toddler early intervention programs. Yet, little to no coordination or
collaboration exists among these three offices. Many researchers
appearing before the Commission found it difficult to identify recent
collaborative activities of these three offices despite the fact all
three share the same floor of the same building and operate within the
same federal agency under a single assistant secretary. The Commission
encourages each OSERS office to work more closely together and foster a
community of scholars working in tandem across the research activities
occurring within OSERS.

The Commission was able to identify several examples of positive and
productive interactions of OSEP research programs with other federal
agencies that address research on people with disabilities. More than
any other agency, OSEP has advocated including people with disabilities
in the research and other activities, such as the Bureau of Census and
national surveys. It is critical that federal agencies work together to
ensure that common priories are addressed and that duplication of effort
is avoided. In this regard, some glaring examples of lack of interaction
emerged. Despite the importance of research on scaling educational
research, OSEP was not invited to participate in the Interagency
Educational Research Initiative (IERI). This may reflect the perception
of OSEP as an isolated research entity with limited funding. But OSEP
should be aware of these initiatives and pursue participation. Even if
OSEP has limited funds to contribute, they should be at the IERI table
to learn how scaling research occurs in other parts of the government
and to provide input on how their research fits into scaling efforts.

In other instances, OSEP contributes to this perception.[^82] OSEP is
considered to be the primary agency responsible for research on
improving educational results for children with disabilities. Few
agencies, or other offices within the Department of Education, construct
their research efforts specifically to include children with
disabilities or in a way that results for children with disabilities can
be disaggregated. Although the term "educational" may be an important
modifier, this should not be to the exclusion of other educational
relevant programs that address children with disabilities at other
federal research agencies.

Particularly conspicuous is the absence of a relationship with the
Center for Mothers and Children at the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD). This Center includes the Mental
Retardation/Developmental Disabilities Research Branch, which funds 15
national MR/DD research centers as well as significant research programs
in autism and other disabilities. The Center includes the research on
reading and reading disabilities by the Child Development and Behavior
Branch of NICHD, which is also highly relevant to OSEP. There is a large
program involving children with behavior disorders, but no systematic
relationships with National Institutes on Mental Health, where both
organizations would benefit from mutual research efforts on the
prevention of behavior disorders in children.

OSEP should systematically seek relationships and opportunities for
interactions with and joint funding of its priorities with other federal
research agencies. Similar expectations should be established for these
agencies to interact with the office. People with disabilities should be
included in all federal research programs whenever feasible and OSEP
should continue to work towards this goal.

[Invest in Long-Term Research Priorities]{.underline}

Inevitably, OSEP is faced with converging constituencies and a finite
level of resources. A focus on priorities resulting in research
activities with a potential for large-scale implementation and
sustainability will more effectively combine resources for the maximum
result. Furthermore, we recognize the importance of directing funds to
support our recommendations. Thus, we find it important to continue to
support investments in IDEA Part D research activities, and to
appropriately balance federal spending on research with spending on IDEA
State Grants. IDEA Parts B and C must be guided by research, and
continued investments are required to support foundational research to
validate systems and programs that will facilitate bringing those
findings to national scale and sustain their use over time.

[Create a Community of Scholars within OSEP]{.underline}

The Commission recommends OSERS, and more specifically OSEP, increase
the number of research scholars within its organization so a culture of
scientific rigor can be supported and sustained. OSEP has too few
seasoned researchers with the skills important to relate the effects of
proposals to long-term implications. We support the idea of creating
fellowship opportunities for those with newly granted doctorates and for
senior researchers to serve within OSEP to increase the interactions
between those truly conducting research and those administering research
at the federal level.[^83]

A growth in research skill and competence must occur at OSEP. The
intellectual capital of the agency is a cornerstone of future success.
OSERS must be provided the flexibility to change the present focus to
one defined by one of academic stimulation. This comports with the goal,
supported by the Commission, of building infrastructures in federal
education agencies that promote collaborations among researchers, policy
makers and practitioners.[^84]

[Improve Development and Dissemination of Research Findings]{.underline}

Bridging the gap between research and practice will be a continuing
challenge. Practices must continue to improve so children, their parents
and their teachers have access to effective practices and instructional
methods. A disturbing finding by this Commission is that we do not yet
know the best methods of research dissemination. We have no research to
show which methods prove more effective in reaching the consumers. As a
result, we can only now make three recommendations.

First, the Department of Education and other appropriate agencies should
undertake systematic research efforts on effective dissemination
practices and systematic efforts to bring to scale practices that are
identified as effective. Both of these activities should be focused on
speeding dissemination. Absent such reliable information, we support
building a bridge to finally resolve much of the current gap between
valuable research findings and those who use knowledge.

Second, OSEP should be given funds to develop two missing components of
its dissemination activities. One is a synthesis center; the other
involves scaling centers focused on implementation of major innovations.
These efforts should parallel and enhance the efforts of the Interagency
Educational Research Initiative.

Third, federal law should be amended to address the federal government's
primary means of development of research and technical assistance---its
regional education laboratories (RELs) funded under the U.S. Department
of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and its
special education regional resource centers (RRCs) administered by OSEP.
These institutions should both be obligated to improve their
responsiveness to state identified needs. The Commission recommends that
RELs be obligated to include special education practices within the
scope of their work. RRCs should be obligated to work closely with RELs
or possibly be merged with them. RRCs and RELs should be held to more
rigorous performance standards in technical assistance and research
activities. The Department should also focus on ensuring that the
quality of these institutions is more uniform, so that the least of them
rise to the quality of the best of them.

The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
(NICHCY) should be restructured to address multiple topics with
aggressive, strategic dissemination. It should link to empirically
validated practices developed not only in OSEP, but also in other
federal research agencies. Materials should be largely devoted to the
dissemination of scientifically based practices based on empirical
syntheses of research. There should be less emphasis on distributing
information about the law and how to comply with it, and more emphasis
on "what works" and outcomes.

The Commission found little value in continued support for the
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse, which is
jointly sponsored by OSEP and OERI given the wide availability of other
library-based databases and search engines. The material is largely
redundant.

State Improvement Grants, Personnel Preparation Grants and Parent
Training and Information Centers should be linked with the research
efforts and conceptualized as opportunities to either prepare teachers
and researchers for careers involving people with disabilities based on
scientifically-based practices or opportunities to disseminate
scientifically-based information on research-based practices to parents
and schools. Presently these activities are poorly linked to research.
IDEA should be amended to allow the Secretary to devote a percentage of
each program's respective budgets to program evaluation and research on
how to best establish these types of programs.

The Model Demonstration Projects should be expected to generate
peer-reviewed publications and other examples demonstrating that they
are research oriented. At times, it was unclear whether the purpose of
these projects was research or dissemination.

[The Importance of Institutions of Higher Education in the Research
Process]{.underline}

We cannot overlook the crucial importance of our nation's institutions
of higher education as partners in the production of research and as
instruments of effective information dissemination not only to training
future educators, researchers and related services professionals but
also to state and local education agencies. Special education research
and related research comes primarily from our nation's colleges and
universities. Overall, investing in institutions of higher education
must be made to expand and strengthen the special education research
capacity by:

1)  ensuring the production of more doctorates in special education;

2)  providing incentives to doctorates (perhaps through post-doctoral
    fellowships) to do research in higher education; and

3)  developing more research institutes that address core questions at
    great depth over a long period of time, e.g., the relationship
    between teacher quality and student achievement.

We are also concerned with the increasing need for individuals trained
at the doctoral level in special education and related services. Today,
there are not enough individuals who hold doctorates in special
education to adequately train special educators or to conduct the
research needed to advance services for children with disabilities. This
shortage in special education faculty requires our attention and leads
us to suggest that specific efforts must be made to encourage the most
talented special educators to pursue doctorates in special education.
Incentives for prospective special educators to enter doctoral programs
should include graduate fellowships or other stipends similar to those
offered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration to train
vocational rehabilitation counselors. The need for highly trained
special educators we discuss in our Personnel Preparation section of
this report cannot be met if our nation's colleges and universities have
insufficient highly qualified doctoral level faculty to train students.

The recommendations set forth here reflect our belief that improving
research is integral to improving our teacher training programs.
Colleges and universities, Centers for Excellence in developmental
disabilities and other university-affiliated programs are essential
partners in supporting continued improvements in special education.

[The Importance of Research in the Implementation of IDEA]{.underline}

It is recommended that OSERS collect and analyze data, which can inform
the Department of Education and the public about the relationship
between factors relevant to the implementation of IDEA and student
outcomes and results. These factors include for example, student
achievement and learning, and post-school outcomes.

[Conclusions]{.underline}

The figure at (left/right/above/below) provides a schematic of a
proposed research to dissemination model that may be helpful in thinking
about the relationship of research to practice. This figure shows a
continuum from practice-oriented research in the field-initiated program
that moves into model dissemination projects and then to large scaling
centers that bridge the gap between research and dissemination. On the
dissemination side, there are RRCs and NICHCY. Intermediate is the
synthesis center. Presently OSEP funds directed activities at a 2:1
ratio over field-initiated research. The field-initiated component
should be increased so that it is comparable with the model
demonstration projects, which are uneven in quality. Field-initiated
research should be oriented to new ideas, which is vital to innovation,
while model demonstration projects should be research oriented, but
focused on initial applications in a manageable number of schools. OSEP
should fund fewer of these activities and focus them on small-scale
implementation of promising practices or synthesis of research around
key areas. Scaling centers would need large budgets and would be
oriented towards implementation of the most significant findings; rarely
would more than one to three be in operation at any point in time. The
synthesis center would monitor all research findings at OSEP and other
areas, feeding these results to the dissemination components. To
facilitate development of this capacity, a significant increase in Part
D funding is strongly encouraged.

# Research Dissemination

**Field-Initiated Model Demo Scaling RRCs NICHCY**

**Synthesis**

**[Special Education Research Agenda]{.underline}**

The Commission recommends that the Federal government undertake and
support research in the following areas, as requested by the President
in section 3(b)(3) of Executive Order 13227:

1.  Implementation of models for response to intervention

2.  Implementation of continuous progress monitoring; additional
    research extending these methods to middle and high school,
    significantly impaired students, and in areas beyond reading (e.g.,
    math and behavior); development of national norms.

3.  Development of assessment methods that are based on universal
    assessment; alternate assessments; evaluation of methods for
    assessing adequate yearly progress for students with disabilities.

4.  Parent-based early childhood interventions linked with NICHD
    research on the development of and intervention with high-risk
    infants and preschoolers.

5.  Scalability and sustainability research linked with IERI.

6.  Learning disabilities in older children and in areas other than
    reading linked to NICHD research.

7.  Development and adaptation of instructional methods for children
    with low incidence disabilities linked to NICHD research.

8.  Costs of special education, including data collection in the
    following areas:

    a.  Data collection and analysis of true excess special education
        costs;

    b.  Use of a census based formula for distribution of special
        education funds;

> b\. Determination of the costs and necessary resources for student
> achievement of identifiable outcomes and results;
>
> c\. Influence of eligibility parameters and uses of other federal
> funds for high need students;

d.  Impact of state special education high need reimbursement models and
    risk management pools on service delivery models and settings in
    special education;

e.  Influence of pooling Part C and Section 619 funds on early
    intervention success; and

f.  Impact of fiscal reforms in special education on the general
    education program.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  Adaptation of instructional methods that promote inclusive
    educational practices.

10. Instructional methods for students with autism linked to NICHD/CDC.

11. Evaluations of parent training and information programs.

12. Professional development research including:

    a.  Identification of the critical factors in personnel preparation
        that improve student learning and achievement in schools, and
        the instructional variables that improve student learning;

    b.  Determination of whether teacher certification or years of
        expertise contribute to student achievement

    c.  Identification of what teacher characteristics affect student
        achievement, and what factors have a strong effect in producing
        student achievement;

    d.  Identification of effective strategies to address the current
        personnel shortage; and

    e.  Determination of the best means of professional development for
        general education and special education teachers that leads to
        effective implementation of research-based practices.

13. Identification of the factors that help students with disabilities
    make the transition into college, and model best-practice programs
    utilizing that scientifically based research.

14. Collection and analysis of data on students served under "504 plans"
    including the effectiveness of 504 Plans and the number of 504 Plan
    children with disabilities gaining employment or moving onto higher
    education.

15. Collection and analysis of data on due process and dispute
    resolution.

# REFERENCES

# 

**Federal Regulations and Monitoring, Paperwork Reduction and Increased
Flexibility**

*Back to school on Civil Rights: Advancing the federal commitment to
leave no child behind* (January 25, 2000). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2000.

Hassel, B.C. & Wolf, P.J. (2001). Effectiveness and accountability (Part
2): Alternatives to the compliance model. In Finn, E., Rotherham, A.J.,
& Hokanson, C.R. (Eds.), *Rethinking special education for a new
century.* Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy
Institute.

Hess, F.M. & Brigham, F.J. (2001). How federal special education policy
affects schooling in Virginia. In Finn, E., Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson,
C.R. (Eds.), *Rethinking special education for a new century.* Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education Fact Sheet (January 7,
2002). http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense

*Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in special
education*. (2002). Mary Ann Byrnes, Editor.

*Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities: The good
news and the work ahead.* Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum
and Center on Education Policy. (2002).
[www.aypf.org](http://www.aypf.org/).

Wolf, P.J., & Hassel, B.C. (2001). Effectiveness and accountability
(Part 1): The compliance model. In Finn, E., Rotherham, A.J., &
Hokanson, C.R. (Eds.), *Rethinking special education for a new century.*
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

# Assessment and Identification

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4a.

Coyne, M.C., E.J. Kame'enui, & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Prevention and
early intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. *Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice* 16:62-73.

Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz L., Liberman,
I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Fowler, A.E., & Shaywitz, B.A.
(1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of
discrepancy and low achievement definitions. *Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86*, 6-23.

Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for prevention and
intervention of mathematics difficulties. *Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice* 16:85-95.

Graham, S., Harris, K.R. & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and
intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning
disabilities. *Learning Disabilities Research and Practice* 16:74-84.

Gresham, F.M. (2002). Response to treatment. In R. Bradley, L.
Danielson, & D. Hallahan, *Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice.* Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Horn, W.F., & Tynan, D. (2001). *Time to make special education "special
again" in Rethinking Special Education for a new century*. Published by
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

Kavale, K.A., & Reese, L. (1992). The character of learning
disabilities: An Iowa profile. *Learning Disability Quarterly, 15*,
74-94.

Kellam, S.G., Rebok, G.W., Mayer, L.S., Ialongo, N., & Kalodner, C.R.
(1994). Depressive symptoms over first grade and their response to a
developmental epidemiologically based preventive trial aimed at
improving achievement. *Development and Psychopathology*, *6*, 463-481.

Lerner, J. (1989). Educational intervention in learning disabilities.
*Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry*,
*28*, 326-331.

Lyon, G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. *The future of children:
Special education of students with disabilities*. 6:56-76.

Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Wood, F.B.,
Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2000). *Learning disabilities: An evidence
based conceptualization*. Papper presented at the Rethinking Special
Education for a New Century Conference, Washington, DC.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
*Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instructions.* (NIH Publication
No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Research Council. (2002). *Minority students in special
education and gifted education.* National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (1998). *Preventing reading difficulties in
young children.* National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council (2002). *Scientific research in education*
Washington DC: National Academy of Science Press.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). *Diffusion of innovations* (4^th^ Edition). New
York: Free Press

Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H. III, & Parker, C. Special education in
transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming.
Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D. III, & Grimes, J.P. (Eds.). Longmont, Co:
Sopris West.

Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E.
& Shaywitz, B.A. (in press). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications
of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. [American Educational Research
Journal]{.underline}.

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education Fact Sheet (January 7,
2002). <http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense>

# Special Education Finance

*Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. by Charlene F.*, 526
U.S. 66, 119 S.Ct. 992 (1999).

Chambers, Jay G., Parrish, Tom and Harr, Jenifer J., *What Are We
Spending on Special Education Services in the United States,
1999-2000?*, Advance Report #1, American Institutes for Research, March
2002. See [http://seep.org](http://seep.org/).

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

# Accountability, Flexibility and Parental Empowerment

[Center for Education Reform: Charter school highlights and
statistics]{.underline} (2002). See
http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm.

*Honig v Doe*, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct. 592 (1988).

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

# Post-Secondary Results for Students with Disabilities and Effective Transition Services

*Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities: The good
news and the work ahead.* Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum
and Center on Education Policy. (2002).
[www.aypf.org](http://www.aypf.org/) or www.ctredpol.org.

Boone, R. (1992). *Involving culturally diverse parents in transition
planning*. Career Development in Exceptional Individuals, 15, 205-221.

DeStefano, L., & Wemuth, T.R. (1992*). IDEA (P.L. 101-476): Defining a
second generation of transition services*.

Furney, K.S., Hasazi, S.B., & DeStefano, L. (1997). *Transition
policies, promises, and practices: Lessons from three states*.
Exceptional Children, 63, 343-356.

Gresham, F.M. (2002). Response to treatment. In R. Bradley, L.
Danielson, & D. Hallahan, *Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice.* Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Hasazi, S.B., Furney, K.S., & DeStefano, L. (1999). *Implementing the
IDEA transition mandates*. Exceptional Children, 65, 555-567.

Henderson, C. (1995). *College freshman with disabilities: A statistical
profile*. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

Justesen, T.R., & Justesen, T.R. (2000). *Helping more students with
disabilities prepare for college: a review of research literature and
suggested steps GEAR UP grantees can take*. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Gaining Early Awareness
and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP),
www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/gearup/technical.html

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (in press).
Discussion paper. *Current challenges face the future of secondary
education and transition services for youth with disabilities in the
United States*. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on
Community Integration.

National Council on Disability. (2000). *Transition and post-school
outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps to post-secondary
education and employment.* Washington, DC: NCD.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). *The
Report of the National Reading Panel: An Evidence-Based Assessment of
the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for
Reading Instruction.* Bethesda, MD: The NICHD.

National Organization on Disability. (1998). *N.O.D./Harris 2000 survey
of Americans with disabilities*. Washington, DC: N.O.D. & Louis Harris &
Associates.

National Research Council. (2002). Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. *Minority students in special and gifted
education*. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. section 794.

Smith, D.S., Pion, G., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar, P., Rosenberg, M. (2001).
*The study of special education leadership personnel: With particular
attention to the professoriate.* Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University,
Gainesville: University of Florida, & Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1997) *Survey of income and program participation*.
www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Education, NCES.

*The condition of education 2001*. Washington, DC: USED, 2001.

*The condition of education 2000*. Washington, DC: USED, 2000.

*The condition of education 1999*. Washington, DC: USED, 1999.

*The condition of education 1998*. Washington, DC: USED, 1998.

U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (1998). *Dropout rates in the United
States*. www.ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Education, OSERS (n.d.). IDEA 25^th^ Anniversary Web
Site. www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA25th/.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) (n.d.). Data Analysis System,
<https://www.ideadata.org/index.html> .

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

*Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*. Washington, DC: USED,
2001.

*Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac*t. Washington, DC: USED,
2000.

Wehman, P. (1992). *Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for
young people with disabilities*. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co.

# Teacher and Administrator Preparation, Training and Retention

Arends, R.I. & Rigazio-DiGilio, A.J. (2000). *Beginning teacher
induction: Research and examples of contemporary practice.* Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan-United States Teacher
Education Consortium.

Boudah, D.J., Logan, K.R., & Greenwood, C.R. (2001). The research to
practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice.
*Teacher Education and Special Education*, 24(4), 290-303.

Brownell, M.T., Ross, D.D., Colon, E.P., & McCallum, C.L. (2002).
Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison
with exemplary practices in general teacher education. Paper prepared
for the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (1998a). *State policy and classroom
performance: Mathematics reform in California.* (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 418 842).

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. *Education Policy Analysis Archieves,
8,* hhtp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (2001, April).
*Educating exceptional children: A statistical profile.* Arlington, VA:
The Council for Exceptional Children.

Fideler, E., Forster, E., & Schwartz, S. (2000). *The urban teacher
challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools.* The
Urban Teacher Collaborative.

Goodlad, J. (1997). Producing teachers who understand, believe, and
care*. Education Week* 16(48): 36-37.

Harmon, J., Hendrick, W., Martinez, M., Perez, B., Strecker, S., Fine,
J.C., et al. (n.d.). *Features of excellence of reading teacher
preparation programs.* Unpublished manuscript.

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

Joyce, B., Wolfe, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). *The self-renewing school*.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R., & Deshler, D. (2000). *Bright futures for
exceptional learners: An agenda to achieve quality conditions for
teaching and learning.* Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Learners.

Little, J. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of
educational reform. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, 15,
129-151.

Moskowitz, J., & Stephens, M. (Eds.) (1996). *From students of teaching
to teachers of students: Teacher induction around the Pacific Rim*.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education for Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997). *America's teachers:
Profile of a profession, 1993-94*. Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

National Research Council. (1998). *Preventing reading difficulties in
young children*. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Rosenberg. M.S., & Sindelar, P.T. (2001). *The proliferation of
alternative routes to certification in special education: A critical
review of the literature.* Unpublished manuscript, Arlington, VA.

Smith, D.S., McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders, S. (2002)*. The supply
and demand of special education teachers: The nature of the chronic
shortage of special education teachers.* Unpublished manuscript,
Vanderbilt University at Nashville, TN and University of Florida at
Gainesville, FL.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). *A national plan for improving
professional development*. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
442 779).

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). *Twenty-third annual report to Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act*. Washington, DC: USED, 2001.

U.S. Department of Education study SPeNSE, Study of personnel needs in
special education, Fact Sheet. (n.d.). http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of
the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological
perspective on inquiry. *Review of Educational Research,* 68(2),
130-178.

Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). *Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.*
Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

# 

# Special Education Research and Dissemination of Information

Individual with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L.
105-17). (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (Congressional Record 1997).

National Research Council. (1998). *Preventing reading difficulties in
young children*. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

*Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*. Washington, DC: USED,
2001.

**[GLOSSARY]{.underline}**

**Average Per Pupil Expenditure (APPE).** The expenditure per pupil for
the cost of general education defined in 34 CFR 300.702.

**Adequate Yearly Progress.** As defined by each State under section
1111(b)(2) of NCLB, "adequate yearly progress" is the measure of yearly
progress of the State and of all public schools and school districts in
the State toward enabling all public school students to meet the State's
academic content and achievement standards.

**Charter School.** A nonsecterian, tuition-free, public elementary or
secondary school that is exempt from significant state or local rules
that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools.
Charters are created by a developer as a public school or adapted by a
developer from an existing public school, and are operated under public
supervision and direction. They operate under state charters law in
pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the
school\'s developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering
agency. All charters have a written performance contract with a public
chartering agency that includes a description of how student performance
will be measured pursuant to State assessments that are required of
other schools. Charters also comply with federal civil rights laws and
IDEA, and applicable Federal, State, and local health, safety, and audit
requirements. (NCLB sec. 5210(1)).

**Corrective Actions.** Generally defined as any step or activity that a
State or entity must complete in order to correct identified
non-compliance with the law; under NCLB, it is a term of art defined in
section 1116(b)(7).

**Excess Costs.** The costs that exceed the average annual per‑student
expenditure in a local educational agency during the preceding school
year for an elementary or secondary school. (34 CFR 300.184(b)).

**Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA).** Public
Law 101‑476. Amended the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA), Public Law 94‑142. The Act ensures that all children with
disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education
that includes special education and related services designed to meet
their unique needs.

**Individualized Education Program (IEP).** A written statement for a
child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a
meeting in accordance with the provisions of IDEA.

**Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI).** A federal
partnership that includes the U.S. Department of Education\'s Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, and the National Science Foundation. IERI
works to implement rigorous educational research in mathematics,
reading, and the sciences by supporting a program of research addressing
the scaling of educational practices validated in more traditional
research studies. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/IERI/

**Local Educational Agency (LEA).** A public board of education or other
public authority legally constituted within a State for either
administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function
for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for a
combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State
as an administrative agency for its public elementary or secondary
schools. (34 CFR 300.18).

**Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP).** One of two
divisions within OSEP. MSIP carries out activities related to the IDEA
formula grant programs. MSIP is responsible for review of state
eligibility documents, and for monitoring OSEP\'s formula grant programs
to ensure consistency with federal requirements and to ensure that
States and other public agencies continue to implement programs designed
to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities. Additionally, MSIP leads OSEP\'s technical assistance to
the states through the Regional Resource Centers, and the State
Improvement Grant program and the General Supervision Enhancement Grant
program.

**National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
(NICHCY).** A national information, dissemination and referral center
that provides information on disabilities and disability-related issues
for families, educators, and other professionals. NICHCY's focus is
children and youth (birth to age 22). http://nichcy.org/

**National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).**
One of the 27 components of NIH. NICHD administers a multidisciplinary
program of research, research training, and public information on
reproductive biology and population issues; on prenatal development as
well as maternal, child and family health; and on medical
rehabilitation. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/

**National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR).** One of three components of OSERS at the U.S. Department of
Education. NIDRR generates, disseminates, and promotes new knowledge to
improve the options available to individuals with disabilities. It
conducts programs of research to maximize the full inclusion, social
integration, employment and independent living of individuals with
disabilities. NIDRR's focus includes research in areas such as
employment; health and function; technology for access and function; and
independent living and community integration.
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/

**National Institutes of Health (NIH).** An agency of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Public Health Service. NIH is
the steward of medical and behavioral research for the nation. Its
mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature
and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to
extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.
http://www.nih.gov/

**No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).** Public Law 107-110. President Bush
signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB is
the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) since ESEA was enacted in 1965. It redefines the federal role in
K-12 education and will help close the achievement gap between
disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. It is based on four
basic principles: stronger accountability for results, increased
flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an
emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.

**Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).** A program
office of the U.S. Department of Education that provides national
leadership for educational research and statistics. OERI conducts
research and demonstration projects funded through grants to help
improve education; collects statistics on the status and progress of
schools and education throughout the nation; and distributes information
and providing technical assistance to those working to improve
education. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/

**Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).** The
program office within the U.S. Department of Education focused on
improving results and outcomes for people with disabilities of all ages.
OSERS supports parents, individuals, school districts, and states in
three main areas in three offices: special education (OSEP), vocational
rehabilitation (RSA), and research (NIDRR). OSERS also provides funds to
programs that offer information and technical assistance to parents of
children with disabilities, as well as members of the learning community
who serve these individuals. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/

**Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).** One of three components
within OSERS at the U.S. Department of Education. OSEP is dedicated to
improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with
disabilities ages birth through 21 by providing leadership and financial
support to assist states and through them, local school districts. OSEP
administers IDEA. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/

**Orthopedic Impairment (OI).** A severe orthopedic impairment that
adversely affects a child\'s educational performance. The term includes
impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g., clubfoot, absence of
some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis,
bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (e.g.,
cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause
contractures) (34 CFR 300.7(c)(8)).

**Other Health Impairment (OHI).** Having limited strength, vitality or
alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli,
that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational
environment, that: 1) is due to chronic or acute health problems such as
asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead
poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia;
and 2) adversely affects a child\'s educational performance (34 CFR
300.7(c)(9)).

**Part B.** Part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
providing formula grant assistance to State Education Agencies for the
education of children with disabilities ages three through 21.

**Part C.** Part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
providing funds to State Lead Agencies to assist in the provision of
early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities,
ages birth through two.

**Part D.** Part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
assists SEAs and others in reforming and improving their systems for
providing educational, early intervention, and transitional services,
including systems for professional development, technical assistance,
and dissemination of knowledge about best practices, to improve results
for children with disabilities.

**Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).** The component under
OSERS that oversees formula and discretionary grant programs that help
individuals with physical or mental disabilities to obtain employment
and live more independently through the provision of such supports as
counseling, medical and psychological services, job training, and other
individualized services. RSA's primary formula grant program provides
funds to state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to provide
employment-related services for individuals with disabilities, giving
priority to individuals who are significantly disabled.
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/RSA/

**State Educational Agency (SEA).** The State board of education or
other agency or officer primarily responsible for the supervision of
public elementary and secondary schools in a State. In the absence of
this officer or agency, it is an officer or agency designated by the
Governor or State law (34 CFR 77.1).

**Specific Learning Disability (SLD).** A disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do
mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that
are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantage (34 CFR 300.7(c)(10)).

**Section 619.** One of the formula grants programs under Part B of IDEA
administered by OSEP, Section 619 serves children ages three through
five.

**Title I.** Title I refers to the first title of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, and includes programs aimed at disadvantaged
students. Title I Part A provides assistance to improve the teaching and
learning of children in high-poverty schools to enable those children to
meet challenging State academic content standards and academic
achievement standards. (20 USC 6311 et seq.).

**Vocational Rehabilitation (VR).** A state-supported program of
services funded under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that
assists individuals with disabilities who are pursuing meaningful
careers. VR assists those individuals to secure gainful employment
commensurate with their abilities and capabilities through local job
searches and awareness of self-employment and telecommuting
opportunities.

[BIOGRAPHIES]{.underline}

[Commissioners]{.underline}

**Governor Terry Branstad** served four consecutive four-year terms as
the chief executive of the state of Iowa. He completed his term of
office in January of 1999. In 1989 he served as chairman of the National
Governors Association and led the historic Education Summit in
Charlottesville, VA. Branstad was also chairman of the Republican
Governors Association (1997), and the Education Commission of the States
(1998). Governor Branstad has also had careers as a farmer and as an
attorney.

**Adela Acosta** is principal of the Cesar Chavez Elementary School in
Prince George\'s County, MD. From 1978 to 1989, Acosta was a senior
program specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice where she dealt
with multicultural and desegregation issues in schools. For the past
decade, Acosta has worked as a teacher, assistant principal, and
principal.

**Steve Bartlett** is president of the Financial Services Roundtable. He
served as mayor of Dallas from 1991 to 1995 and, from 1983 to 1991, as a
representative to the U.S. Congress. As ranking Republican member of the
Subcommittee on Select Education, he provided leadership on disability
matters and many other education issues.

**William Berdine, Ed.D** is a professor of special education and chair
of the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling in
the University of Kentucky College of Education. He also serves as the
president of the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education.

**Paula Butterfield, Ph.D.** is the chief academic officer and deputy
superintendent of Pittsburgh (PA) Public Schools. Prior to serving in
Pittsburgh, Butterfield was a superintendent for 10 years in Mercer
Island, WA, and Bozeman, MT. Butterfield began her career in education
as a social studies teacher, a reading specialist and special education
teacher. She was named Montana Superintendent of the Year in 1998.

**Jay Chambers, Ph.D.** is a senior research fellow and director in the
education program at the American Institute for Research, where he
oversees projects on the economics of education and school finance. He
also serves as president-elect of the American Education Finance
Association and director of the National Special Education Expenditure
Project.

**Alan Coulter, Ph.D.** is an associate professor in the Department of
Interdisciplinary Human Studies and the School of Allied Health
Professions at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center. A
psychologist by training, he is also the program director for
interdisciplinary training and school-age programs at the Human
Development Center. He was president of the National Association of
School Psychologists in 1983-84 and received its award for child
advocacy.

**Floyd Flake, D.Min.** is the pastor of Allen A.M.E. Church in Jamaica,
NY, and president of Edison Charter Schools. Flake serves as a senior
fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Social and Economic Policy and as
a columnist for the *New York Post*. He is a member of the board of
directors of the Fannie Mae Foundation. Between 1987 and 1997 he served
as a Democrat Representative to the U.S. Congress.

**Thomas Fleming** is special assistant to the provost at Eastern
Michigan University. A preacher and educator, Fleming was selected as
the Michigan Teacher of the Year in 1991 and was the National Teacher of
the Year in 1992.

**Jack Fletcher, Ph.D.** is a professor in the Department of Pediatrics
and associate director of the Center for Academic and Reading Skills at
the University of Texas Houston Health Science Center. A child
neuropsychologist by training, Fletcher has researched many aspects of
development of reading, language and other cognitive skills in children
with disabilities over the past 20 years.

Doug Gill, Ph.D. has served as the Washington director of special
education since 1990. During the past 30 years, he has been a special
education teacher at the elementary and secondary school levels. He was
also an instructor at Georgia Southern University and the University of
Georgia. Prior to 1990, Gill was director of the Pierce County (WA)
Cooperative, an award-winning model that demonstrated improved
post-school outcomes for special education students enrolled in
vocational education programs.

**David Gordon, Ph.D.** is the superintendent of the Elk Grove (CA)
Unified School District. He has also worked as a special education
teacher and served with the California Department of Education.

**Nancy Grasmick, Ph.D.**, a special education teacher and principal, is
Maryland's state superintendent of schools. Grasmick worked as
supervisor of special education for the Baltimore County Public Schools
for six years and later as assistant and associate superintendent.
Grasmick received the 2000 Outstanding Advocate Award from the National
Association of School Psychologists and the President\'s Award from the
National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children. In
2000 she was awarded the prestigious McGraw Prize in Education.

**Stephen Hammerman** is vice chairman of the board of Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. Hammerman serves on the boards of the National Organization
for Disability and the National Center on Disability Services. He has
also served as a director of the New York Stock Exchange, chairman of
the National Association of Securities Dealers board of governors, and
director of the Securities Investors Protection Corporation.

**Bryan Hassel, Ph.D.** is president of Public Impact, an education
policy consulting firm. Hassel conducts research and consults nationally
on charter schools, the comprehensive reform of public schools, and
special education.

**Douglas Huntt, Ph.D.** is a commissioner for the Ohio Rehabilitation
Services Commission and is the executive director for Assistive
Technology of Ohio. From 1991 to 1997, Huntt chaired the Ohio
Governor\'s Council on People with Disabilities.

**Michael Rivas** is the owner of MJR Group in San Antonio, TX, a
design, consulting and construction management company. He is the parent
of an autistic child.

**Cheryl Takemoto** is the executive director of the Parent Education
Advocacy Training Center in Springfield, VA. She is the parent of a
child with a visual impairment, cognitive disabilities, and other health
needs.

**Katie Wright, Ed.D.** is a writer for the *St. Louis ARGUS Newspaper*
in St. Louis, MO. She has worked as an elementary school and special
education teacher, a director of special education, a learning
specialist at St. Louis University, and an interim and assistant
superintendent of schools in Illinois District 189. She also holds the
National Council of Negro Women Illinois and National Black Women
Leadership Award.

## **Ex-Officio Members**

**Beth Ann Bryan** is senior advisor to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod
Paige. Bryan served as education policy director for then Texas Governor
George W. Bush during the first year of his administration in 1995.
Thereafter, she was an advisor to the Governor\'s Business Council and
was a key leader in the Governor\'s Reading Initiative. She also served
as program director for the First Lady\'s Family Literacy Initiative for
Texas. From 1985 until 1989, she served as city council member and mayor
pro tem for the City of West University Place, TX.

**Ed Sontag, Ph.D.** is assistant secretary for Administration and
Management at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Previously he served as the HHS deputy chief of staff for Management and
Operations. Prior to joining HHS, Sontag was an advisor to Wisconsin
Governor Tommy G. Thompson.

**Robert Pasternack, Ph.D.** is the assistant secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services at the U.S. Department of
Education. Previously, he was state director of special education for
the New Mexico State Department of Education. He has worked with
students with disabilities and their families for more than 25 years.

**Reid Lyon, Ph.D.** is a research psychologist and the chief of the
Child Development and Behavior Branch within the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health.
Before joining the NIH on a full-time basis in l991, Lyon served on the
faculties of Northwestern University (1980-83) and the University of
Vermont (1983-91). He has taught children with learning disabilities,
worked as a third grade classroom teacher, and served as a school
psychologist for 12 years in the public schools. Lyon has authored,
co-authored, and edited over 100 journal articles, books, and book
chapters addressing learning differences and disabilities in children.
He also serves as an advisor to President Bush on child development and
education research and policies.

**Wade Horn, Ph.D.** is the assistant secretary for Children and
Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Previously
he was president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. From 1989-1993,
Horn was the commissioner for Children, Youth and Families and chief of
the Children's Bureau in HHS. He also served on the National Commission
on Children from 1990-1993, and the National Commission on Childhood
Disability from 1994-1995.

**[Commission Staff]{.underline}**

**Todd Jones** serves as executive director of the President\'s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education. He also serves as deputy
assistant secretary for enforcement in the U.S. Department of
Education\'s Office for Civil Rights. Prior to joining the
administration, Jones was the first president of the National Education
Knowledge Industry Association. Previously, he was a staff attorney for
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the
Workforce. During that period he was the chief Republican staff
negotiator for House and Senate Members on the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.

**Troy Justesen, Ed.D.** serves as deputy executive director of the
President\'s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Previously,
he served as a policy analyst in the director\'s office of the U.S.
Department of Education\'s Office of Special Education Programs. In the
mid-1990\'s, Justesen worked at the U.S. Department of Justice on
enforcement issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. He
has also served at the Utah State University-University Center for
Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and
Service.

**Linda Emery** is senior policy advisor for the President\'s Commission
on Excellence in Special Education. Prior to this appointment, President
Bush appointed Emery to be special assistant to the assistant secretary
for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. She has also worked
as a budget analyst at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
the Budget. In both the Reagan and Bush administrations, Emery worked as
deputy director for Congressional Affairs for the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency. Previously she served as a legislative assistant to
Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles. Emery began her career as a special
education teacher.

**Kathleen Blomquist** serves as the Commission\'s director of media
relations. Prior to joining the staff, Blomquist worked as director of
advance for the Schundler for Governor campaign in New Jersey.
Previously, Blomquist was a lead press advance representative for
Bush-Cheney 2000. Prior to the presidential campaign, Blomquist was a
member of Burson-Marsteller\'s New York public affairs practice. She
also worked as a writer for the U.S. Army public affairs office in
Giessen, Germany, and for the *National Review*.

**Marissa Muñoz** is the confidential assistant to the President\'s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Previously, Munoz was
employed in the Office of Presidential Personnel at the White House
where she assisted in the appointments\' process of boards and
commissions. Prior to moving to Washington, DC, Munoz worked on George
W. Bush\'s Presidential campaign and as a staff member in former
Governor Bush\'s office of Constituent Services.

**Sambia Shivers-Barclay** serves as the special assistant to the
executive director of the President\'s Commission on Excellence in
Special Education. She has worked on the staff at Gallaudet University.
She has also served as program analyst/interpreter for the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs.

The Commission wishes to specifically acknowledge the technical
assistance of Tracy R. Justesen in legal and content research during the
development of this report. We are grateful to the US Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, for detailing Tracy to provide this
valuable assistance.

[^1]: American Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education Policy, 2002.

[^2]: See testimony of Robert Pasternack, Ph.D., assistant secretary,
    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, March 21,
    2002, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
    and Pensions.

[^3]: See 20 USC section 1411(a)(1).

[^4]: See 20 USC section 1412.

[^5]: See Commission meeting held in Houston, TX, February 25, 2002,
    transcript pages 206 and 251.

[^6]: The Commission recommends that the current method required by the
    Secretary for a state to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
    Secretary, that the state has in effect policies and procedures to
    ensure that it meets each of the conditions as specified in the
    statute, be replaced by requiring that states provide an assurance
    that such policies and procedures are in effect.

[^7]: Commission letter requesting information from OSEP dated February
    8, 2002. Letter from Commission Deputy Executive Director Troy R.
    Justesen, Ed.D., to OSEP Acting Director Patricia Guard.

[^8]: However, OSEP has consulted with the Department of Justice on
    several occasions regarding issues in a particular state.

[^9]: See Commission meeting held in Houston, TX on February 25, 2002,
    transcript pages 205-300.

[^10]: See Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education Fact Sheet
    dated January 7, 2002. See http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu.spense.

[^11]: Wolf and Hassel, p. 322.

[^12]: Cullen provided testimony before the Commission on April 16,
    2002, in New York City.

[^13]: Coyne et al., 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Gresham, 2001;
    Langenberg, 2000.

[^14]: National Research Council, 2002.

[^15]: Lerner, 1989; Kavale & Reese, 1992.

[^16]: National Research Council, 2002.

[^17]: Kellam et al., 1994.

[^18]: Moderate and severe mental retardation is usually identified on
    the basis of the genetic or neurological disorder that causes it and
    as such, is covered under the other health impaired category.
    Children with mild mental retardation are most often identified on
    the basis of test scores. The needs of these two populations may be
    very different. See Commission meeting held in Denver, CO, on March
    6, 2002, testimony of Mark L. Batshaw, M.D., pages 183-231.

[^19]: An exception is developmental delay, which is used in only a few
    states and then is typically assessed like the high-incidence
    disabilities.

[^20]: Among the reports we reviewed are *Rethinking Special Education
    for a New Century* published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and
    the Progressive Policy Institute in 2001; *Minority Students in
    Special and Gifted Education* published by the National Research
    Council in 2002; and papers presented at the White House Summit on
    Early Childhood Cognitive Development in 2001.

[^21]: See footnote 18.

[^22]: Stuebing, et al. (in press).

[^23]: The Commission recommends that current federal regulations for
    the identification of children as having mental retardation indicate
    clearly that IQ tests may be subject to cultural bias and that other
    methods for identification, such as direct classroom observation and
    assessments of adaptive behavior, are essential for the
    identification of children as having mental retardation.

[^24]: The Commission greatly appreciates the assistance of the American
    Institute for Research support in allowing the Commission to cite
    the above information. See Chambers, Jay G., Parrish, Tom and Harr,
    Jenifer J., *What Are We Spending on Special Education Services in
    the United States, 1999-2000?*, Advance Report #1, American
    Institutes for Research, March 2002. See
    [http://seep.org](http://seep.org/) for more specific data about
    special education finance.

[^25]: Total current spending is equal to total spending less the
    amounts expended on school and district facilities (e.g., school
    buildings and district offices).

[^26]: The law and the regulations specify how APPE is to be calculated
    and its calculation excludes certain sources of federal and state
    funding from total educational expenditures prior to final
    determination of annual per pupil expenditure. IDEA section 602(7)
    specifies the following definition for average per pupil expenditure
    (APPE):

    > \(7\) EXCESS COSTS‑ The term 'excess costs' means those costs that
    > are in excess of the average annual per‑student expenditure in a
    > local educational agency during the preceding school year for an
    > elementary or secondary school student, as may be appropriate, and
    > which shall be computed after deducting---
    >
    > \(A\) amounts received---
    >
    > \(i\) under part B of this title;
    >
    > \(ii\) under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
    > Education Act of 1965; or
    >
    > \(iii\) under part A of title VII of that Act; and
    >
    > \(B\) any State or local funds expended for programs that would
    > qualify for assistance under any of those parts.

    The purpose of these calculations was presumably an attempt to
    estimate the baseline cost or expenditure on a general education
    student with no special needs.

[^27]: See Testimony before the Commission by Dr. Julie Cullen, New York
    City, April 16, 2002, discussing the types of categorical referrals
    that do drive placement.

[^28]: See *Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. by Charlene
    F.*, 526 U.S. 66, 119 S.Ct. 992 (1999).

[^29]: A "safety net" is a state-based program allowing local districts
    or education service agencies to seek reimbursement for appropriate
    costs, or a percentage of costs above a certain cost threshold or in
    a certain category of expenditures (such as out-of-district
    placement costs). The safety net program is managed by a board or
    official who decides whether expenditures are reimbursed and at what
    level. Reimbursement would be discretionary based on demonstrations
    of need in addition to the other criteria---costs above an
    established level from all local or regional available revenues for
    the student, and weighed against all legitimate expenditures
    associated with the student's appropriate program.

[^30]: A "risk management pool" is a nonprofit insurance cooperative
    among local districts or education service agencies that performs
    the same function as a safety net without the discretionary
    component.

[^31]: This component of the research will be important in helping OSEP
    refine the concept of "excess cost" as distinguished from
    "additional expenditure." This should also include some
    collaboration with NCES as to how one might improve upon data
    collection on school spending and school revenues to provide a
    better estimate of the average annual per pupil expenditure for a
    general education student with no special needs.

[^32]: These percentages should be applied against the total state
    appropriation of Part B funds, and not complicated by the
    unnecessary calculations currently imposed by IDEA.

[^33]: See Commission meeting held in Miami on April 9, 2002, transcript
    pages 86-142.

[^34]: See [Center for Education Reform: Charter school highlights and
    statistics]{.underline} (2002).
    http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm.

[^35]: The least restrictive environments provision improvements are
    more fully described in testimony provided on April 16, 2002, in
    Brooklyn, New York by Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, Ph.D., Director of the
    National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion at the
    Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New
    York.

[^36]: See *Honig v Doe*, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct. 592 (1988), which we
    hold as a fundamental principle of special education for children
    with disabilities who are removed from a current educational
    placement.

[^37]: See Commission meeting held in San Diego, CA on April 23, 2002,
    transcript page 141.

[^38]: Ibid, pages 157-161.

[^39]: Trupin, Sebesta, Yelin, & Laplante, 1997; National Organization
    on Disability, 2000; Zemsky & Odell, 1994; McNeil, 2000.

[^40]: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of
    Education, 1996.

[^41]: Getzel, Stodden, & Briel, 2001; Hurst & Smerdon, 2000; Stodden,
    2001.

[^42]: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation,
    1997.

[^43]: This Commission wishes to be clear about our use of the term
    "competitive employment." Our view is that employment be in the same
    settings and under the same circumstances as that of people without
    disabilities, with or without reasonable accommodations.

[^44]: The Commission heard considerable anecdotal evidence that a lack
    of health care coverage discourages people with disabilities from
    seeking employment. More individuals with disabilities want to work,
    but hesitate because of a fear of loosing their Medicare Part A
    health care coverage. However, recent changes to the Ticket to Work
    and Workforce Incentives Improvement Act expanded Medicare Part A
    for Social Security Disability Insurance recipients who obtain
    employment from the previous four years to 8½ years.

[^45]: See the Ticket To Work And Work Incentives Improvement Act of
    1999.

[^46]: Children in foster care have drop out rates twice their peers and
    are less likely to graduate from high school. They have high rates
    of emotional and behavioral problems yet often do not receive mental
    health services.

[^47]: See WIA section 203(1).

[^48]: This matter is either a statutory conflict or an issue of
    interpretation by the OVAE office. If it is an issue of
    interpretation, an Executive Order directing interagency
    coordination will lead to the matter being resolved by changes in
    administrative practice. If it is a statutory issue, the Executive
    Order will lead the offices to identify the need for WIA to be
    amended to allow IDEA eligible students who drop out of school to
    access adult education services. In either event, the example
    demonstrates the value of such an Executive Order.

[^49]: The statutory provisions governing this agreement are found in
    sections 612(a)(11-12) of IDEA and sections 101(a)(8)(B) and
    101(a)(11)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act.

[^50]: The 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act were enacted as
    Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220).

[^51]: For example, one OSEP funded study reviewed IEPs and transition
    plans in nine school districts and found that the long-term
    transition goals were, for the most part, not related to the annual
    goals on the student's IEP (Hasazi, S.B., Furney, K. and Destefano,
    L., 1999).

[^52]: See Testimony provided by Susan Brody Hasazi, Ed.D., before the
    Commission on April 18, 2002, in Nashville, Tennessee, transcript
    page 58.

[^53]: N.O.D./Harris 2000 Survey of Americans with Disabilities.

[^54]: Ibid.

[^55]: NLTS, 1993. See also the Accountability section of this report.

[^56]: Justesen & Justesen, 2000.

[^57]: While the Commission recognizes that the U.S. Department of
    Education's Office for Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing
    section 504, RSA would likely be the appropriate agency to collect
    and analyze this data with OSEP.

[^58]: SPeNSE, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education, sponsored
    by OSEP, included telephone interviews with a nationally
    representative sample of local administrators, special and general
    education teachers, speech-language pathologists and
    paraprofessionals in spring and fall 2000. For more information, see
    http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu.spense.

[^59]: ERIC, 2001; Fideler, Foster, & Schwartz, 2000.

[^60]: Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress (USDE, 2001).

[^61]: Smith, McLeskey, Tyler, & Saunders, 2002.

[^62]: Kozleski, Mainzer, & Deshler, 2000; Smith et al., 2002.

[^63]: Thomas Parrish, et al. note the current trend in special
    education licensure is, "moving toward licenses in fewer and broader
    categories...." For the most part, special education licensure,
    "maintains a separate set of competencies linked to disability
    type...." See Parrish, Thomas B., et al., *Funding Special
    Education* (1999), pages 52-53.

[^64]: See Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.htm.

[^65]: National Research Council, 1998.

[^66]: Title II of the Higher Education Act should be amended to require
    teacher education programs to publicly report the competence of
    general and special education program graduates relative to
    educating students with disabilities. In those circumstances where a
    license or certification has been granted to a teacher or specialist
    who has not completed an approved program of study in a college or
    university subject to Title II, a competency assessment comparable
    to that required for college and university program graduates must
    be developed and reported publicly.

[^67]: National Research Council, 1998.

[^68]: Testimony provided in Denver, Colorado, on March 6, 2001, by
    Thomas M. Skrtic, Ph.D., Chair of the Special Education Department
    University of Kansas and Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D., of the University
    of Florida; and Rebecca L. Hamilton, Ph.D., University of
    Pittsburgh. See transcript pages 89-130.

[^69]: For example, we find that few preservice teacher education
    programs even offer elective courses focusing on transition
    services. We are concerned that quality professional development
    training in transition issues is severely lacking.

[^70]: National Research Council, 1998.

[^71]: Goodlad, J., "Producing Teachers Who Understand, Believe, and
    Care," [Education Week]{.underline} 16(48): 36-37 (1997).

[^72]: Testimony provided before the Commission on February 25, 2002, in
    Houston, Texas.

[^73]: Smith, et al., 2001.

[^74]: National Center for Education Statistics, 1997.

[^75]: Melnick and Pullin, 1999.

[^76]: Testimony of Robert Pasternack, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary,
    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, March 21,
    2002, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
    and Pensions.

[^77]: Among those experts providing testimony before the Commission
    were Lynn Fuchs, Ph.D., Susan Brody Hasazi, Ed.D., Paul Wehman,
    Ph.D., Doug Fuchs, Ph.D., Don Bailey, Ph.D., Mark Wolery, Ph.D.,
    Wayne Sailor, Ph.D., Don Deshler, Ph.D. and Donald Lee MacMillian,
    Ed.D. Appendix \_\_\_ lists all experts appearing before the
    Commission.

[^78]: See NRP Report.

[^79]: These improvements were most clearly outlined by Ann P. Kaiser,
    Ph.D., who appeared before the Commission on April 18, 2002, in
    Nashville, TN. See Transcript pages 267-381.

[^80]: OSEP staff that is now responsible for carrying out this review
    process internally could be redirected to other activities.

[^81]: See National Research Council. Improving student learning: A
    strategic plan for education research and its utilization, 1999*.*

[^82]: Letter from Commission Executive Director C. Todd Jones to OSEP
    Director Stephanie Smith Lee, dated February 8, 2002, requesting
    information from OSEP.

[^83]: See National Research Council. Improving student learning: A
    strategic plan for education research and its utilization, 1999*.*

[^84]: Ibid.