PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL ED

spine 
for Children and Their Families

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCAT

Education

A New Era:

Revitalizing Special 

JULY 1, 20
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education contract No. ED-02-PO-0791

with Diskey & Associates, LLC. C. Todd Jones served as the contracting officer’s technical rep

sentative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of 

Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of an

product, commodity, services or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or inferr

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

C. Todd Jones

Executive Director

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Robert A. Pasternack, Ph.D.

Assistant Secretary

July 2002

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is grant

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S.

Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, A New Era:

Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, Washington, DC, 2002.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, 

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not 

available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 

1-800-437-0833;

or order online at: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/ 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print audio

or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Forma

Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

II
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Letter of Transmittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction to a New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Section 1: Federal Regulations and Monitoring, Paperwork Reduction

and Increased Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Section 2: Assessment and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Section 3: Special Education Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Section 4: Accountability, Flexibility and Parental Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Section 5: Post-Secondary Results for Students With Disabilities 

and Effective Transition Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Section 6: Teacher and Administrator Preparation, Training and Retention . . . . . . . . . .51

Section 7: Special Education Research and Dissemination of Information . . . . . . . . . . .59

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Hearings and Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Executive Order 13227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

CONTENTS
July 1, 2002

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On October 2, 2001, you created the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

(Executive Order 13227) and charged it to prepare and submit a report to you no later than July

1, 2002. 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. 

There is no doubt that the present Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is responsible for many of the current achievements and successes of children with disabilities. But, after six

months of listening to parents, educators and experts, the Commission believes much more remains

to be done to meet the goal of ensuring that all children with disabilities achieve their full potential.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is an historic and bipartisan call to action on behalf of all

children in America’s public schools. In that spirit, the Commission submits this report that we

believe will provide a framework for improving all areas of special education.

We do not presume to hold all of the answers, but we do believe this report provides innovative and fresh approaches to build upon past successes. We hope its suggestions and insights are

viewed as a starting point for an important dialogue as well as a basis for reform.

This report represents the thoughts, recommendations and wisdom—spoken and written—of more

than 100 recognized special education experts, education finance experts, education and medical

researchers, parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities and others with expertise

in the field of special education. In addition, the Commission heard from hundreds of other individuals and organizations at 13 public meetings held in cities nationwide. Interested individuals, including

parents of students with disabilities, also submitted letters and other written comments.

The members of the Commission share your support for the principles embodied in IDEA. This

report incorporates those principles as the basic foundation for each of the recommendations made

in the pages that follow. We hope the report serves as a first step in your work on that legislation.

Each Commission member wishes to thank you for this opportunity to serve you and our

country in this important endeavor to improve the lives of more than six million children with

disabilities and their families. We believe this report provides valuable guidance in creating a

New Era, one that ensures that every child in America’s schools—no matter what their disability—has a chance to live and build a brighter, more hopeful future.

Sincerely,

Terry E. Branstad

Chairman

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

80 F STREET, NW, SUITE 408, WASHINGTON, DC 20208

PHONE (202) 208-1312 VOICE/TDD FAX (202) 208-1593

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

(IDEA) 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.”

INTRODUCTION TO A NEW ERA

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. 

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, almost half of those are

identified as having a “specific learning disability.” In fact, this group has

grown more than 300 percent since 1976.

Of those with “specific learning disabilities,” 80 percent are there simply

because they haven’t learned how to read. Thus, many children

receiving special education—up to 40 percent—are there because they

weren’t taught to read. The reading difficulties may not be their only area

of difficulty, but it is 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 emotionally disturbed

and placed in special education.
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, President Bush 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.

President Bush 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 accountabil

for results.

The President earnestly desires a new era in special education—one that doesn’t seek to me

minimum requirements, but rather embraces increased academic achievement and real results 

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, famili

and communities in an effort to gather insights as well as find better ways to meet the learnin

needs of children with disabilities. 

4 Although it is true that special education has created a base of c

rights and legal protections, children with disabilities remain tho

most at risk of being left behind. The facts create an urgency f

reform that few can de

The Commission heard from hundreds of individuals and organizations at 13 public hearin

and meetings—held in cities throughout our nation. The Commission also invited and receive

hundreds of written comments.

Their voices were heard.

From the parents who are generally satisfied with special education, to the parents and teac

ers 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, th

parents desire maximum input, and educators want to see efficiency melded with compassion a

improved outcomes. The ultimate test of the value of special education is that, once identified,

children close the achievement gap with their peers. That’s what accountability for results is ab

Yet, after hundreds of comments and letters on the real complexities in the system, we foun

common threads among those whose needs were not being met. 
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 families. 

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, individuals 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 dedicated to excellence.

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 provides 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. 

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 presented 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, 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 do not 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 general education students 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.

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
Finding 4: When a child fails to make progress in special education, parents do not have

adequate options and 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 from the public schools’ first mission: educating every child.

Finding 6: Many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validi

As a result, thousands of children are misidentified every year, while many others ar

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 developmen

related to the needs of serving these children. Many educators wish they had better preparatio

before entering the classroom as well as better tools for identifying needs early and accurately. 

8

Finding 8: Research on special education needs enhanced rigor and the long-term coordina

necessary to support the needs of children, educators and parents. In addition, the current syst

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 disabilitie

Too few successfully graduate from high school or transition to full employment and postsecondary 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 scho

and beyond.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATION

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 cl

rooms. What we discovered was that the central themes of the No Child Left Behind Act of 200

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 yea

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 pub

education” for children with disabilities, IDEA will only fulfill its intended purpose if it raises 

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

provides and the outcomes achieved by each child. 
A Final Challenge

Before signing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (since reauthorized as

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), President Gerald R. 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 alongside their nondisabled brothers, sisters

and friends. 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 children with

disabilities and their families. But, we will do so only through a focus on educational 

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.

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.

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, which should be the intent of IDEA. 

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 compliance for process

rather than a more effective and efficient strategy focusing monitoring on compliance for

performance and results.

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 (IEP) 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 should 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 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.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND MONITORING, 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION AND INCREASED FLEXIBILIT
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 ha

led to use of checklists of more than 814 federal monitoring requirements to determine if sch

have implemented all procedural requirements of IDEA. Few of the items on the checklist are

directly related to student performance. The National Council on Disability (NCD), and testim

ny and comments to the Commission, asserted that no state education agency is in complianc

or never has been fully in compliance with IDEA. In fact the assistant secretary for the Office 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Robert Pasternack, Ph.D., testified before the U

Senate on March 21, 2002, that no state is in full compliance with IDEA.2 Ironically, even if a

school complied with the requirements, families and Congress would have no assurance child

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 performan

and on student transition to independence and self-sufficiency after graduating from high sch

Second, there is little demonstrable link between process compliance and student results an

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 chronic

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 wit

disabilities in accordance with IDEA Part B.3 The IDEA statute does not specify that OSEP mu

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 proces

that includes periodic on-site monitoring of states. The OSEP Monitoring and State Improvem

Planning Division (MSIP) is responsible for state plan reviews and approval under IDEA, and 

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 M

division are focused on administrative and regulatory compliance at the expense of assisting s

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 th

reforms may be constrained by current law. The Commission further finds that the OSEP-issu

“IDEA’s requirements ha

created a morass 

paperwork that has little 

do with student achieveme

The ‘regulation heavy’ spec

education system should 

focused less on procedu

and more on achiev

student result

—David W. Peterson, superintend

of the Northern Suburban Spe

Education District, Highland Par

12
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, 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

Number of Months Between 

States and Territories Monitoring and Report Delivery

Connecticut, Mississippi, American Samoa, Northern Marianas 4

Arkansas, South Dakota 7

Missouri, Oregon 8

California 10

Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Utah 12

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+

OSEP MONITORING REPORT DELIVERY TIMES, 1997-2001
information about how much time is spent in the monitoring process and what resources wer

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

actual performance is typically between four and 20 months, with an average of 13.6 months

during the period noted in the chart (p. 13). OSEP’s response shows that considerable resourc

are spent on these activities with questionable results. For example, while one state, Utah, wa

ultimately found to be among the most compliant in the nation, the final report was not issue

by OSEP for a full year from the date the state was monitored.

A final OSEP report can be a useful document for technical assistance purposes if the docu

ment is provided to the state within the promised length of time. Because of the substantial tim

between on-site monitoring and the release of reports, most reports are impractical and provid

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 implemen

tion of federal law and in ensuring children with disabilities and their families are provided w

a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The Commission hear

statements about graduation rates, participation in regular school settings and other quantitati

information from past annual reports to Congress. However, the identification of trends has b

hampered by inconsistent reporting and data formats.

If the culture of monitoring for results is to take hold and the promise of special education 

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 Commissi

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 describe

how each state is performing relative to other states. It should also report state performance o

a variety of results-oriented dimensions.

14

“I reviewed OSEP’s monitoring activities over the past five ye

and found some alarming facts. For example, OSEP’s monitor

division took 20 months completing a follow-up report afte

site visit in Wisconsin. After such an extreme delay, the rep

had lost any impact to amend the state’s behavio

—Commissioner Ed So
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.

OSEP, 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 would be 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’s 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.

“OSEP’s approach to accountability still permits the fox to guard

the henhouse. With the target of the oversight controlling the

front end of its own monitoring process, it is unlikely that many

criticisms will be forthcoming.”

—Patrick J. Wolf and Commissioner Bryan C. Hassel, “Effectiveness and

Accountability (Part 1): The Compliance Model,” in Rethinking Special Education 

for a New Century (2001).
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 ha

been to follow up OSEP monitoring with a focused effort on working with the state to obtain

technical assistance in the areas of non-compliance 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 it

own, to influence improvement.

Need for Better Intra-Agency and Interagency Coordination

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 unrelat

to the expected results to be achieved with students. Many federal requirements of schools fro

various programs have a direct effect on planning and implementation of services for students

with disabilities (e.g., No Child Left Behind). The Commission finds that schools are often unne

essarily burdened by these requirements in that no integrated system of accountability has bee

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 for 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 O

and OSEP is not always sufficient and collaborative to ensure that states and local educational

agencies (LEAs) are supported in finding quick resolution and effectively improving results. Th

Commission recommends that the U.S. Secretary of Education ensure all federal requirements 

accountability be integrated into a unified system of accountability throughout the Department

Numerous witnesses testified that conflicting priorities and requirements at the federal leve

confound state and local attempts to provide services and programs that will lead to better res

and outcomes for students with disabilities while resolving conflicts. Federal agencies with

responsibility for educating students with disabilities in special settings (Department of Defen

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 an

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 individu

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)

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 refer

to IEPs as a litigation document rather than an instrument outlining an effective instructional

program for students with disabilities. The original concept of IEPs as an instructional framew

16
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 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 with

disabilities. 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 IEP requirements focus on substantive educational and developmental

outcomes and results. Failure to meet such outcomes and results would be the basis for additional assistance and enforcement under the law to address individual and systemic non-compliance

and achieve excellence in special education.

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 

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 result 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

(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.10 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

“The Commission fully supports retaining the basic rights for

children and their families already in IDEA and section 504.

Preserving these rights in the context of special education

reform is a fundamental recommendation of our work.”

—Commissioner Cherie Takemoto
papers, communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues, supervising paraprofe

sionals and attending IEP meetings combined.

SPeNSE reinforces the Commission’s findings that the federal emphasis on procedural comp

ance requirements trickles down to directly impact the amount of time actually spent providin

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 b

the focus of any federal monitoring activity, what Wolf and Hassel call an obsession with resul

“First and foremost, every element of the system should focus on student learning. Thi

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. Throu

those mechanisms it must create the same obsession in state educational agencies, so th

they in turn structure their funding and oversight of school districts, charter schools an

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 cha

ing the U.S. Department of Education to report back to Congress within 18 months of enactm

on strategic proposals to reduce the current paperwork burden. Recognizing that paperwork i

combination of state, local and federal requirements, the Secretary’s strategic plan must exami

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 reduc

tion. 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 promo

local innovation to reduce paperwork and will also serve as valuable resources for the Secretar

to consider in developing federal strategies to reduce the paperwork burden under IDEA.

Early Childhood Programs

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 were efficacious and cost-effective, scientifica

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 Pa

is often weak. Moreover, services to this population are funded not only through Part C but a

through other federal and state efforts. Testimony to the Commission indicated that coordinat

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 t

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 implemen

ed, with often disappointing results related to compliance.

Despite evidence that early intervention works, this program has been imperfectly implemen

in many states and localities. Multiple agency configurations and competing bureaucratic cultu

have often left families without the services they need at the time when their infants and toddle

can make the most significant gains. The time has come to take advantage of the evidence of ef

tive programs by simplifying bureaucratic structures so that services can be provided as early a

possible to maximize effectiveness for children with disabilities and their families.

18
The Commission recommends that IDEA ensure a seamless system for infants, toddlers, 

children and youth with disabilities, birth through 21, drawing together 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 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.

The Commission finds that the 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 “highincidence” disabilities are closely linked with teacher referral, but make heavy use of psychometRecommendation—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 disabilities.

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.

ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION
ric 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 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There was compelling evidence that children

with these disorders often develop disabilities and require special education services. There ar

objective criteria for identifying students with these disorders. However, the model for identif

tion 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 

report and to other Commission considerations. Economist Julie Berry Cullen, Ph.D., found th

increased funding was not related to the number of children identified with low-incidence

disabilities.12 She found that funding increases for support of special education services did re

in increased identification rates for high-incidence disabilities. However, her preliminary resea

findings indicated that increases in special education funding did not result in improvements 

the quality of special education programs. 

The Commission could not identify firm practical or scientific reasons supporting the curre

classification of disabilities in IDEA. The intent of IDEA is to focus on the effective and efficien

delivery of special education services. The Commission is concerned that federal implementin

regulations waste valuable special education resources in determining which category a child 

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 encou

aged 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, wh

instructional needs are not addressed in the cumbersome assessment process. Thus, the overa

Commission recommendation for assessment and identification is to simplify wherever possib

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 chi

dren can identify those most at risk for later achievement and behavioral problems,13 includin

those most likely to be referred and placed in special education programs.14

Witnesses provided the Commission with compelling evidence indicating how early interven

tion 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 understanda

22

“There is no compelling reason to continue to use IQ tests 

the identification of learning disabilities. And, if 

eliminated IQ tests from the identification of individuals w

learning disabilities, we could shift our focus on to mak

sure that individuals are getting the services that they ne

and away from the energy that’s going into eligibil

determinatio

—Sharon Vaughn, P
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 on minority students in special education, which found that early screening

followed by effective interventions in the classroom prevented many 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 Special Education Finance section of this report.

Evaluation and Assessment

What all eligibility decisions require for children who receive 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

reevaluated every three years to ensure continued eligibility.

“Services first, assessment later.”

—Commissioner Steve Bartlett
Federal statutes mandate timelines for eligibility decisions beginning with notification of th

parents, who must provide permission for the evaluation. For a high-incidence disability, indi

uals 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 c

be devoted to direct services, such as behavioral interventions. The results of these assessmen

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 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.20

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 deter

mine 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 restrictive environment. Since

norm-referenced assessments of achievement and behavior are given to establish eligibility, the

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 an

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 (OHI) category (319 percent), the orthopedic impairment catego

(45 percent) and the specific learning disabilities category (36 percent). Some of the growth in

the 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 i

clinical judgment that has very specific diagnostic criteria. It is widely believed that many chil

dren who are identified through this process are not adequately evaluated. Moreover, in most

24

“The real tragedy is that conceptualizations of LD have n

changed over 30 years despite the completion of significa

research in the past 15 years. What we know from research n

needs to be implemente

—G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D., Jack M. Fletcher, Ph.D., et al., “Learning Disabili

An Evidence Based Conceptualization.” Paper presented at the Rethinking Spe

Education for a New Century Conference, Washington, 
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, is the increased

survival rate of significantly premature infants and the greater recognition of genetic and neurological factors that cause low-incidence disabilities.21 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 impairments should also 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 current 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

“I would like to encourage this Commission to drive a stake

through the heart of this over reliance on the discrepancy

model for determining the kinds of children that need

services. It doesn't make any sense to me. I've wondered for

25 years why it is that we continue to use it and over rely on

it as a way of determining what children are eligible for

services in special education.” 

—Commissioner Wade Horn
assess children for these difficulties prior to the third grade. Experts at the 2001 OSEP Learnin

Disabilities Summit described the enormous variation in how closely schools follow state regu

tions for eligibility in the high-incidence disorders, with teacher referral clearly being the mos

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-inciden

disabilities be simplified. Assessments that reflect learning and behavior in the classroom are

encouraged, with less reliance on the assessment of IQ that is now predominant. A key comp

nent of the identification process, especially to establish education need and make this decisio

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 educa

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 Commiss

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 curren

regulations be modified so that the student’s response to scientifically based instruction is part 

of the criteria for diagnosing the existence of 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 assistanc

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 spe

education should always be monitored to determine whether the child is making progress.

Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Special Education

A particularly disturbing finding is that children of minority status are over-represented in som

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 Nation

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 id

tified for the mental retardation category. In the emotional disturbance category, black student

are about half more likely than white students to be classified in this category. The Commissio

did not find significant evidence for over-representation of minorities in the learning disabiliti

category. The magnitude of the over-representation problem varied across state and local educ

tion agencies within all high-incidence categories. However, the Commission found no consis

evidence for over-representation of minorities in low-incidence categories.

The Commission found that several factors were responsible for this over-representation, inclu

ing the reliance on IQ tests that have known cultural bias. This may result in more minority child

being identified in the mental retardation category as opposed to the SLD category. Minority child

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 behav

or instruct those with learning characteristics that make them “at risk” in general education, mino

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 

26
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 make recommendations to improve teacher preparation concerning this issue in the Teacher and Administrator

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

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

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 annual 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.

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 annual average per-pupil expenditure (APPE) 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). These data should conform to the most current education finance 

information available. 

Once a threshold obligation of definable excess cost is established, incremental increases above

the threshold must be linked to improved results for students with disabilities receiving 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. The antiquated policies also serve as an impediment to the appropriate allocation of resources.

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.

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. Yearend 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. 
Unintended consequences and improper fiscal incentives within IDEA 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 distribution in some small towns of these high-need students with disabilities

creates disproportionate obligations for these localities to provide expensive services. The cost

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 se

What We Know About Special Education Spending

National expenditures for special education services in 1999-2000 totaled an estimated $50 billi

An additional $27.3 billion was spent on regular education services and an additional $1 billion

was spent on other federally funded special needs programs (e.g., Title I, English language learn

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.

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,

per pupil on regular education services and $165 per pupil on services from other federal,

special needs 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 inclu

ing regular education, special education and other special needs programs combined represen

21.4 percent of the $360.6 billion total spending on elementary and secondary education in t

United States. Total special education spending accounts for 13.9 percent of total spending an

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 with disabilities, the data do not provide any indica

tion of the available revenues that could have been used to offset the reported expenditures. F

example, general education expenditures of $4,394 per special education pupil only accounte

for a portion of the general education revenue available to non-disabled students. The distinct

COMPOSITION OF EXPENDITURES FOR U.S. STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION 1999-2000

Special Education

Spending on Special

Education Students

$50.0 billion

Regular Education

Spending

$27.3 billion

Spending on Other

Special Programs

$1.0 billion

30
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 funding level in reconciling differences between

the House and Senate versions of their originally passed bills. The conferees tied special 

education funding to 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 highincidence disabilities, who constitute most children currently receiving 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 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 postschool results for students with disabilities. 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 in the

No Child Left Behind Act
While the Commission believes that increasing appropriations for IDEA should remain a

federal priority, it recommends keeping funding for this program discretionary. While student

with disabilities receive civil rights-like protections under IDEA, it is incorrect to claim that th

IDEA Part B program is an “entitlement” that should not be subject to the appropriations proc

Like many other critical federal priorities—such as funding for disadvantaged students, health

care research, national defense and homeland security—Congress and the Administration sho

have the ability to determine the appropriate federal funding level for IDEA on an annual basi

Children with Disabilities Who are the Most Expensive to Educate

During Commission hearings, witnesses reaffirmed many of the perceptions associated with es

lating expenditures in special education: The greatest concerns about costs for local districts a

derived from high-need children with significant disabilities who require expensive placement

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 Unite

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 

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.2

Funding for identifiable high-need students would essentially ensure that students with highneed disabilities who require unusually expensive special education services receive such serv

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 agenc

with targeted resources to offset the fiscal impact on local education agencies of providing a fr

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 re

Since cost cannot be used as a basis for denying services needed to provide children with disa

ities a free appropriate public education, concerns about rising special education costs focus o

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, th

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 respons

bility of the district in this regard.28

Ultimately, state and local education agencies are responsible for providing appropriate spe

education and related services. Therefore, states and local districts should be provided with th

opportunity to develop and implement fiscal practices that proactively recognize and deal wit

such circumstances without jeopardizing their entire budgets. 

A relatively small number of children and youth with disabilities (approximately one-half o

one percent) require special education services that can cost more than $100,000 per year. So

states have established extraordinary cost funds to assist local school districts with offsetting t

fiscal impact of these high-cost students. Examples of state reimbursement formulas include:

• Maryland: Costs that exceed three times the average per-pupil expenditure in the distr

• New York: Costs that exceed four times the average per-pupil expenditure in the

district or $10,000, whichever is lower;

• Missouri: Costs that exceed five times the average per-pupil expenditure in the distr

• Utah: Costs exceeding $15,000;

• New Jersey: Costs that exceed $40,000;

32
• Vermont: Costs that exceed $50,000; and

• Washington: Costs that exceed $15,000 when a district can demonstrate that all 

legitimate expenditures are exceeded by all available revenues.

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 high-need children and allow 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 programs to help pay the cost of high-need

children.29 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 to deal with other unanticipated costs of providing special education.30

The Need for More Research

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. 

“We must allow states greater flexibility to financially manage their

short-term and long-term financial responsibility. Federal policy with

respect to IDEA funding must give states more discretionary ability to

direct funds that best serve children with disabilities in their state

rather than a prescribed set of requirements that do not take unique

local conditions and needs into account.”

—Commissioner Douglas Gill
Based on the comments of experts, Commissioners and others, the Commission recommen

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 ident

able outcomes and results;31

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

students;

• Impact of state special education high-need reimbursement models and risk manage

ment pools on service delivery models and settings in special education;

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

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

State and Local Flexibility

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 recomme

IDEA be amended to require that a full 90 percent of Part B state grant funds be passed through t

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 todd

program funds and section 619 preschool funds with Part B to create seamless systems of earl

intervention services. States and local districts should also be allowed to use Part B funds to

provide pre-referral services.

Conclusion

The recommendations proposed in this section of the report represent significant cornerstone

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 argume

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 fis

incentives from public education finance systems. Some examples may include, but are not lim

ed to, finance structures that encourage minority over-identification, cause districts to operate

special education programs solely on the basis of available excess funding, thwart parental

choice, drive special educators from their field and discourage local innovation.

“The federal government should assume a significa

responsibility for funding of the most expensive student

—Commissioner Jay G. Cham

34
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. 

ACCOUNTABILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND 

PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT

Recommendation—Set High Expectations for

Special Education. The No Child Left Behind Act

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, postgraduation 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 to 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; 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 processbased 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

opportunities for parents to make informed 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 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.
We believe the same accountability, flexibility and parental choice concepts embodied in th

No Child Left Behind Act must form the basic blueprint for improving IDEA.

Set High Expectations for Special Education and Hold LEAs Accountab

for Results

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. Witnesse

from a variety of perspectives told us the current approach to accountability in special educati

is too focused on procedural compliance. Though the 1997 IDEA amendments generated mor

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. 

too long, our nation has had low expectations for students with disabilities. Instead, we must in

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 

demonstrate adequate yearly progress for all students with disabilities in reading and mathemati

The Commission’s recommendations build on that strong foundation. IDEA should affirm t

No Child Left Behind Act’s insistence on the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide

assessment and accountability systems. For the small percentage of students for whom alterna

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 asses

ments. The Commission recognizes that measures of progress for students with disabilities wi

require additional assessments and individualized accommodations. But, every student’s progr

must be assessed every year and “counted” in state accountability systems. As Martha L. Thurl

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 

participate in assessments, with accommodations as needed, and for alternate assessme

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 assessment

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 o

than standardized assessments, such as graduation rates, post-graduation outcomes and paren

satisfaction. Consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act, IDEA should mandate that states de

“Special education is in need of fundamental reform. We need 

align the IDEA with those progressive accountability effo

included in President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Ac

—Commission Chairman Terry E. Brans

36
“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 the No Child Left Behind Act. 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 the Act. 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 No Child Left Behind,

states should be required to categorize LEAs based on the level of 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 yearly progress toward goals for students with

disabilities receiving special education services:

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 special

education programs managed by a state-appointed trustee.

3. 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 with disabilities 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 standard 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 high school

diploma, yet demonstrate skills for employment and post-secondary educational opportunities

cannot now enter many employment settings because they do not hold standard 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) for students with disabilities.
Increase Parental Empowerment and School Choice

Each Commission meeting and hearing provided a public comment period for individuals to o

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 th

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 wit

which parents interact, often with great aggravation, to obtain special education services for the

children. The Commission views parental empowerment as essential to excellence in special

education. Increasing parental empowerment coupled with public accountability for results wil

create 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 with disabilit

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 wha

happens when parents and schools disagree about the dispute resolution process. Though the

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, measures of adequate yearly progress and how assessment serves as a dia

nostic 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 th

use in classroom instruction to benefit each student. The Department of Education should

increase support for programs that promote parents’ understanding of their rights and educati

al services under IDEA so they can make informed decisions about their children, particularly

programs that serve families who have not traditionally been informed or involved in their ch

dren’s education.

States and local schools must increase parents’ and students’ flexibility to choose education

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 bro

system if parents are able to more easily choose where their child attends school. Parental cho

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 flexibil

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 off

choices for students in schools that do not make adequate yearly progress. IDEA should include

parallel requirements, mandating that states allow IDEA funds to follow students with disabilitie

when they choose to opt out of chronically failing schools or districts. As funding follows studen

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 program

38
must provide schools with appropriate resources.33 Otherwise, the 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 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 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.34

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’ LEA 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 options that target students with

disabilities, even if these offer relatively restrictive environments, as long as those programs can

appropriately serve these students.

The Commission recommends greater flexibility in using federal funds, allowing 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, ensuring 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 were

separated—for no apparent justifiable educational purpose—from the regular school building
and consigned to secondary settings because of their disability. We reaffirm our commitment t

the fundamental belief that children with all types of disabilities must be included to the max

mum extent appropriate in their school community. We also endorse the basic principle of

providing special education services to children who are removed from their current educatio

placement for disciplinary reasons.36

Thus, leaving no child behind also means leaving no children with disabilities behind. The

children include students at high risk of academic difficulties because of emotional disturbanc

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 disabili

to reach their potential. Making least restrictive environment a focus on results-based services

will move services for children with disabilities to the most integrated setting possible.

Each student’s IEP should seek to determine the setting or settings that are most appropriate an

effective in achieving positive outcomes and results, consistent with the least restrictive environme

The Commission believes that in many states the rate of progress in meeting the LRE requiremen

unsatisfactory. States should be monitored by the U.S. Department of Education on this requirem

In addition, the Department should develop more adequate measures of monitoring compliance w

this requirement.

Improve the IEP Process, Prevent Disputes and Improve 

Dispute Resolution

Parent contact with the school special education system begins with a referral and then eligibi

determination. Once determined eligible, children and their parents begin the IEP process. Th

process can be overwhelming for parents. Therefore, the Commission recommends IDEA supp

training for skilled facilitators to run IEP meetings in a way that gets parents and school staffs 

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 expe

IEP facilitation, conciliation, telephone intermediation and training to increase collaboration a

problem solving skills of school staff and parents can help avoid expensive disputes and prom

efforts to help students. This could diminish the number of disagreements and the associated

expenditures of time and money spent on hearings resulting from perceived violations of IDEA

Where disputes do arise, IDEA must permit parents and schools to enter binding arbitratio

and ensure that mediators, arbitrators and hearing officers are trained in conflict resolution an

negotiation. We recommend IDEA require states to make mediation available anytime it is

requested, and not only after a hearing is requested. Numerous parents, teachers and school

administrators complained during the Commission’s meetings about the excessive focus on du

process hearings and litigation over special education disputes. Disputes of all sorts divert par

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 a

whether that number is rising or falling. 

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 relat

services to provide. These threats create an adversarial atmosphere that severely limits the abil

of parents and schools to cooperate. The threat of litigation alone has costs for teachers, stude

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 th

cost of paperwork driven by districts believing that extensive records help prevent lawsuits.

These costs and the dissatisfaction with the system merit serious reform.

40
One enlightening witness before the Commission was Jim Rosenfeld, executive director of the

EDLAW Center, 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 hearings 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

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.

The Commission finds students with disabilities are unemployed and under-employed 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 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 for individuals with disabilities is the fundamental failure of federal policies and programs to facilitate smooth movement for

students from secondary school to competitive employment and higher education.43

POST-SECONDARY RESULTS FOR STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES AND EFFECTIVE TRANSITION SERVICES

Recommendation—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 IEP.

Recommendation—Mandate Federal

Interagency Coordination of Resources. 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 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—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: Support and

hold accountable all post-secondary institutions

receiving federal funding for using evidence-based

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.
Funding and Coordinated Federal Program Services 

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 ID

and the lack of a Rehabilitation Act obligation for active involvement of vocational rehabilitatio

counselors in each student’s transition planning contribute to poor student outcomes. In additi

to IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, programs authorized under the Higher Education Act do n

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 must also focus on helping students with

disabilities find employment when they finish school.45 Although this new program should he

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 currently obtaining competitive employm

or accessing higher education would dramatically improve. An example of inadequate federal

agency coordination that adversely affects improved outcomes for students with disabilities is 

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 Vocatio

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 an

21 are prevented from receiving both adult education services funded under WIA and simultan

ous 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 standard high sch

diploma but return to adult education programs to earn a general education diploma (GED). 

WIA limits adult education to individuals who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled i

secondary school.47 Yet, some WIA programs are themselves secondary, not post-secondary, e.

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 t

determined it appropriate. Many students with disabilities who left high school before earning 

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 a barrier in existing federal programs that can easily be corrected to

better serve students with disabilities.48

44

“Americans with disabilities should have every freedom 

pursue careers, integrate into the workforce and participate 

full members in the economic marketplac

—President George W. Bush, announcing the New Freedom Initia
The Commission recommends the President issue an Executive Order mandating federal interagency collaboration and direct the use of existing federal program funds to focus on 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 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 post-secondary education and competitive employment obtained by

students with disabilities who are transitioning from school to adult activities. This linkage is

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 and tied

together to target funds to create 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 the success of students with disabilities in competitive 

employment and post-secondary education.

The Commission finds that increased enforcement by OSERS of interagency agreements,

which are now required between state educational agencies (SEAs) and state vocational rehabilitation agencies under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, will improve coordination and collaboration between these agencies.49 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 ensure 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 exam

“Post-school success is the ultimate indicator of school reform.”

—Commissioner Douglas H. Gill, Ph.D.
ination of the issues related to the Rehabilitation Act will provide an opportunity for federal an

state agencies to consider how they can help increase the numbers of individuals with disabiliti

who are competitively employed. Second, the committee would build on the useful suggestion

for improving the delivery of transition services by Rehabilitation Act funded agencies outlined 

this Commission, particularly federally funded state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Not eno

interagency activity occurs between our schools and vocational rehabilitation agencies. The ben

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 comp

for educators, students, parents and others (such as vocational rehabilitation program counsel

to understand what the law requires and when it is required.

To illustrate how confusing the statute, regulations and other requirements are, an individu

ized 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 betw

these two statements, nor is there any research-based evidence supporting the delineation for

having one requirement at age 14 and another at age 16. Students about whom these stateme

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 lin

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 provi

by the school or how to integrate transition services provided by outside agencies with the IEP

This confusion helps ensure 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

“School personnel must be provided clear and concise rules and

regulations outlining how to provide effective and relevant

transition services to students with disabilities seeking to enter th

workforce immediately following high school as well as for stude

planning to attend college. The IDEA’s current requirements are t

complex and do not adequately meet this need.”

—Commissioner Douglas Huntt, P

46
his articulation and offered little in terms of helping the student achieve his career goals of

becoming a merchant marine.52

Hasazi reported that 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 current 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 leaves 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 postschool and in-school results, including academic and non-academic 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 the

acquisition of 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, conflictresolution, career skill building and career development and computer/technological competency. 

Competitive Employment and Post-Secondary Education

The Commission finds that students with disabilities who choose non-academic alternatives after

completing high school are not provided adequate preparation and support 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 foster successful transitions

to meaningful employment. Opportunities for career development, including social interactions,

“I am concerned that we also provide transition services within

the context of each student’s culture. It is important for us to

recognize the values of those students and parents we serve,

especially when we collaborate in providing transition services.”

—Commissioner Katie H. Wright, Ed.D.
must be provided to all students with disabilities, including minority students with disabilities,

throughout their K-12 educational experiences. Such preparation will improve their employabili

In addition, the Commission finds that students with disabilities who elect to continue their

education at the post-secondary 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 (w

and without disabilities) are faced with new physical and social environments. These adjustments 

compounded for students with disabilities because they are faced with architectural barriers and a

tudinal misperceptions about their skills and abilities by faculty, staff and their nondisabled peers

The Commission finds that students with disabilities entering college are often ill prepared 

negotiate the complexities of college life. Schools and associated agencies can bridge this gap 

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 Departmen

Education should support research to determine factors that help students with disabilities ma

the transition into college, as well as model programs based on this scientifically based researc

Students with Disabilities Who Do Not Receive Special 

Education Services

Not every student with a disability in elementary, middle or high school receives special educ

tion services because his or her disability does not impair their ability to learn to such a degre

that special education services are necessary. A common example of such a student would be 

who uses a wheelchair for mobility but has no other physical or mental disability. For student

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 an

accommodations a student will receive to participate in 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 da

and research exist about the effectiveness of 504 Plans and the number of 504 Plan children w

disabilities gaining employment or moving on to higher education. We strongly recommend t

the Rehabilitation Services Administration immediately begin to work collaboratively with the

“Parents of children receiving special education must 

provided every opportunity to contribute to the type and ext

of transition services provided to their children and this sho

be reflected in the IDEA’s regulation

—Commissioner William Berdine, Ed

48
Office of Special Education Programs and other agencies to collect such data and develop

research priorities to inform federal policy on how to improve services for 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

ensuring 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 the children 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 post-secondary 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.

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. 

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 DataDriven 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

Experiences. 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 provide 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 better 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.
Put simply, too many general education teachers lack the skills to teach children with disab

ties effectively, and too many view serving those children as the responsibility of special educa

tion 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 preven

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 s

ices to children with disabilities. According to the U.S. Department of Education-funded SPeN

study, more than 12,000 openings for special education teachers were left vacant or filled by

substitutes in 1999-2000.58

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 certified personnel. Certification is not a direct analog for

qualification, and data do not indicate that certification necessarily provides a qualified teache

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 sho

age of qualified special education teachers, the U.S. Department of Education estimates we wi

need more than 200,000 new special educators during the next five years, but colleges and

universities currently have the capacity to prepare only about half that number.62

This Commission strongly believes in the teaching profession, yet we find that existing stat

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 th

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 hol

certificate or license.

“Consistently, the single biggest factor affecting academ

progress of populations of children is the effectiveness of 

individual classroom teacher—period. The sequence of teach

that a child has will add more to their own personal academ

achievement than probably any other single facto

—William L. Sanders, P

52
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

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; and

• Teachers who have had intensive professional development in the curriculum they are

expected to teach 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 for 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 develop

“[H]igher education ought to be driven by empirical results

related to changes in children’s competencies rather than

philosophically driven. I think much of higher education is

driven by a set of premises about what children ought to be like

rather than what works with kids.”

—Daniel J. Reschly, Ph.D. 
ment offered to new and veteran teachers is inadequate in impacting student achievement. Th

Commission finds that both pre-service and professional development training must ensure th

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 educ

tion programs) more closely resemble all the attributes of effective teacher education program

and may be better positioned to help students in general and special education develop the sk

noted above. 

Early field-based practical experience for teacher education would help students know wha

will be expected of them in teaching. The Commission recommends that college and universi

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 

relevant, with pre-service teachers receiving continual guidance and feedback as well as induc

tion into the teaching profession. A principal goal of this experience is the ability to integrate 

apply knowledge productively and reflectively in practice.65 The Commission recommends tha

this type of practicum experience be integrated into all college teacher preparation programs.6

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 reinfo

a constant cycle of new versions of practices—often unvalidated—in personnel preparation witho

support for 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 instituti

of higher education to develop, maintain and sustain high-quality personnel preparation program

rather than the current practice of funding different short-term programs. The Commission finds 

allocating federal funds to invest in teacher preparation programs demonstrating high levels of eff

tiveness must become a priority for the U.S. Department of Education. Supporting an ever-chang

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 cl

room.

Data-Driven Education and Public Reporting

Higher education institutions have trained millions of teachers. Researchers and policy maker

offered innumerable analyses of what leads to the development of quality teachers. Yet, very fe

higher education institutions or states have determined exactly which teachers have later prov

to be high-quality teachers. Although they would be the primary beneficiaries of such informa

tion, most school districts lack a sufficiently large pool of data elements—teachers—to make

collecting data related to the performance of their students worth their while. State educationa

agencies and universities could collect these data but, for a variety of reasons, do not do so. 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 knowledg

that would help lead reforms in their policies and teacher training programs. It is important th

research efforts focus on teacher characteristics related to improving 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 a

colleges to collect data on the career path of teachers and the aggregate achievement of childre

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 toward quality programs. Universities th

poorly prepare teachers would likely see their application pools shrink while teachers leaving str

54
training programs would find multiple offers for their services. To further drive college programs

toward 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

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

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 follow-up necessary for

sustainability and the “one-shot” character of many workshop training programs.69 Special and

general educators require continual 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.

“We know that ongoing professional development is essential

for educators to remain current in their teaching methods. As

an urban school district administrator, I know the value and

importance of this.”

—Commissioner Paula C. Butterfield, Ph.D.
Training Teachers to Provide Quality Reading Instruction

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 are of such profound importance that the

Commission believes this issue merits further discussion. Key to successful preparation of teac

ers 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 readin

but the quality as well.

The Commission is concerned about the current methods of preparing new teachers to mo

effectively teach all children to read. The Commission is further concerned about the ability o

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 alloc

ed to preparing teachers to teach reading. Virtually all states require that K-3 teacher credentia

candidates do some course work in the teaching of reading.70 Most teachers of the primary gra

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., 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.72 Therefore, we recommend that SEAs, associa

tions of teacher education, colleges and universities that provide teacher education and

accrediting agencies of higher education programs implement more rigorous requirements in

reading assessment and research-based intervention linked to improvement of student achieve

ment, particularly for elementary endorsement.

Teachers must have continuing access to professional development to serve children likely 

face or already experiencing reading difficulties. Teachers of children who are at risk of readin

difficulties and children with learning disabilities need access to the most recent research to m

effectively implement instructional methodologies that are scientifically based. 

The National Shortage of Special Education and Related 

Services Professors

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 ann

al faculty position vacancies, and every year approximately one-third of all position vacancies 

unfilled.73 As more faculty approach retirement, there are fewer doctoral level candidates to fil

present and future openings. Providing quality faculty in our nation’s colleges and universities 

critical to ensuring educators receive the best preparation to enter classrooms ready to serve c

dren with disabilities. 

We must focus on efforts to recruit and train through the doctoral level a new national cadr

of fully qualified special education teacher educators and researchers. This new cadre should b

recruited from the ranks of practicing special educators with experience in all relevant special

education service delivery models, including inclusive or collaborative general/special educati

“Teachers must have a deep understanding of the what, the h

and the why of language and literac

—National Research Council, 19

56
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

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, students

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

The Commission echoes Assistant Secretary Pasternack in his comments before the U.S. 

Senate Subcommittee.

“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.

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, developers and other researchers. These activities play a vital role in

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

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

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. 
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 th

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 

major function of review is to provide feedback to the field and upgrade the quality of researc

through the review process, OSEP is missing opportunities to enhance the technical quality of 

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 for reviewing proposals submitt

OSEP staff persons who are research managers are also responsible for peer review. Not only d

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 

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 fo

review, the Commission found little evidence that the results of these reviews figured into futu

funding decisions for the applicant. Review panels are expected by statute to include research

consumers, practitioners and parents of students with disabilities, even though non-researche

may not be able to address technical aspects of the proposal. Many qualified researchers do no

participate in the peer review process or avoid OSEP applications because of the perception th

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 i

collaboration with the consumers of special education research—culturally diverse families, 

individuals with disabilities, service providers, researchers and policy makers. Researchers wit

methodological and content area expertise that matches the purpose of the competition shoul

be specifically recruited to review research proposals. We propose four broad improvements to

create a culture of rigorous scientific practice:

1. The Commission recommends that OSEP develop a peer review system with a twotiered 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 le

should be for technical quality, significance and innovation, completed by members 

the research community. The second level should address relevance to OSEP priori

but it should occur at the level of the assistant secretary for OSERS to ensure the Pa

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)

2. A national advisory committee analogous to the National Research Priorities Board 

the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvemen

the National Science Board at the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Nation

Advisory Councils at different National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes should 

formed. This committee would include practitioners, researchers, parents and peop

with disabilities. It would be responsible for helping to establish priorities and agen

and also to review research recommended for funding to ensure its relevance to peo

60
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.

3. To facilitate the first level of review, standing panels with fixed terms for each of the

OSEP Part D programs should be established. These panels 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.

4. 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 grant applications, distributing them

to reviewers in a timely manner and editing reviews into a consistent format devoid of

ad hominem or impertinent comments. Reviewers will be expected to prepare reviews

in advance of the meeting that are oriented toward identifying the strongest applications and to provide reviews that are systematic, thorough and document the strengths

and weaknesses of the application in an 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 statute allows 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. More accurate scientific information is

needed to improve practice. The review process must promote 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 resear

outcomes. Credible peer review processes will have a positive effect on special education resea

as viewed by researchers in other disciplines and by other federal and private funding agencie

Improve Federal Collaboration

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services comprises the Rehabilitation Servi

Administration, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Office 

Special Education Programs. Each of these agencies administers research and dissemination ac

ities ranging from rehabilitation engineering technology for people with severe physical disabi

ties 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 sam

federal agency under a single assistant secretary. The Commission encourages each OSERS off

to work more closely together and foster a community of scholars working in tandem across t

research activities occurring within OSERS. 

The Commission was able to identify several examples of positive and productive interactio

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 disabilitie

in the research and other activities, such as the Bureau of Census and national surveys. It is cr

cal that federal agencies work together to ensure that common priorities are addressed and th

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 reflec

the perception of OSEP as an isolated research entity with limited funding. But, OSEP should 

aware of these initiatives and pursue participation. Even if OSEP has limited funds to contribu

they should be at the IERI table to learn how scaling research occurs in other parts of the gov

ment 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 chi

dren with disabilities can be disaggregated. Although the term “educational” may be an impor

modifier, this should not be to the exclusion of other relevant education programs that addres

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 fu

15 national MR/DD research centers as well as significant research programs in autism and oth

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 

large program involving children with behavior disorders, but no systematic relationships with

National Institute of 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 jo

funding of its priorities with other federal research agencies. Similar expectations should be est

lished for these agencies to interact with OSEP. People with disabilities should be included in a

federal research programs whenever feasible and OSEP should continue to work towards this g

62
Invest in Long-Term Research Priorities

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

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 required to relate the effects of

research to long-term improvement in results for children with disabilities. 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 academic stimulation. This comports with the goal, supported by

the Commission, of building infrastructures in federal education agencies that promote collaboration among researchers, policy makers and practitioners.84

Improve Development and Dissemination of Research Findings

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 consumers. As a result, we can now make only three recommendations:

1. 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 resolve much of the current gap between valuable research findings and those who use knowledge.

“Unless the broad array of issues related to scalability and

sustainability are deliberately and aggressively addressed,

the lofty vision and goals inherent in the No Child Left

Behind Act will not be realized.”

—Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.
2. OSEP should be given funds to develop two missing components of its disseminati

activities. One is a synthesis center; the other involves scaling centers focused on

implementation of major innovations. These efforts should parallel and enhance th

efforts of the Interagency Educational Research Initiative.

3. Federal law should be amended to address the federal government’s primary means 

development of research and technical assistance—its regional education laboratori

(RELs) funded under the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, and its special education regional resource centers (RR

administered by OSEP. These institutions should both be obligated to improve thei

responsiveness to state-identified needs. The Commission recommends that RELs b

obligated to include special education practices within the scope of their work. RRC

should be obligated to work closely with RELs or possibly be merged with them. R

and RELs should be held to more rigorous performance standards in technical assis

tance and research activities. The Department should also focus on ensuring that th

quality of these programs is more uniform, so that the least of them rise to the qual

of the best of them.

The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY) shoul

be restructured to address multiple topics with aggressive, strategic dissemination. It should li

to empirically validated practices developed not only in OSEP but also in other federal researc

agencies. Materials should be largely devoted to the dissemination of scientifically based princ

ples derived from empirical syntheses of rigorous research. There should be less emphasis on

distributing information about the law and how to comply with it, and more emphasis on “wh

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 scientific

based practices or opportunities to disseminate scientifically based information on research-base

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

budget 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 publicatio

and others demonstrating that they are research-oriented. At times, it was unclear whether the

purpose of these projects was research or dissemination.

“As a state superintendent, I know how important it is to rece

accurate information based on quality research findings to bet

serve children with disabilities. Federal research activities m

provide the ability to scale on local and state level

—Commissioner Nancy Grasmick, P

64
The Importance of Institutions of Higher Education in the 

Research Process

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

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 Teacher

and Administrator 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

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

The figure on page 66 provides a schematic of a proposed research-to-demonstration-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 are 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 la

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 disseminatio

components. To facilitate development of this capacity, a significant increase in Part D funding 

strongly encouraged. 

Special Education Research Agenda

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 me

ods to middle and high school, significantly disabled students, and in areas beyond reading

(such as 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 disabili

4. Parent-based early childhood interventions linked with NICHD research on the developme

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 disa

ties linked to NICHD research. 

ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL FOR RESEARCH TO DISSEMINATION

Research Dissemination

Field-Initiated Model-Demo Scaling RRCs NICHCY

Synthesis

▲

▲

66
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;

c. Determination of the costs and necessary resources for student achievement of identifiable

outcomes and results;

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

e. Impact of state special education high-need reimbursement models and risk management

pools on service delivery models and settings in special education;

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

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

9. Adaptation of instructional methods that promote inclusive educational practices. 

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

11. Evaluation 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 contributes 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 lead to effective implementation of research-based practices.

13. Identification of the factors that help students with disabilities make the transition into

college, and model 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.
Arends, R.I., and Ragazio-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.

Back to School on Civil Rights: Advancing the Federal Commitment to Leave No Child Behind. 2002.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Boone, R. 1992. Involving Culturally Diverse Parents in Transition Planning. Career Development

in Exceptional Individuals 15: 205-221.

Boudah, D.J., Logan, K.R., and 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., and McCallum, C.L. 2002. Critical Features of Special

Education Teacher Preparation: A Comparison with Exemplary Practices in General Teacher

Education. Paper presentation for the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. by Charlene F., 526 U.S. 66, 199 S.Ct. 992 (1999).

Chambers, J.G., Parrish, T., and Harr, J.J. March 2002. What Are We Spending on Special Education

Services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance Report #1, American Institutes for Research.

http://seep.org.

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

Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H.C. 1998. State Policy and Classroom Performance: Mathematics Reform in

California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 842). 

Coyne. M.C., Kame’enui, E.J., and Simmons, D.C. 2001. Prevention and Early Intervention in

Beginning Reading: Two complex systems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16: 62-73. 

Darling-Hammond, L. 2000. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A review of state policy

evidence. Evidence Policy Analysis Achieves 8. 

DeStefano, L., and Wemuth, T.R. 1992. IDEA (P.L. 101-476): Defining a Second Generation of

Transition Services. 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. April, 2001. Educating Exceptional

Children: A Statistical Profile. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Fideler, E., Forster, E., and Schwartz, S. 2000. The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and

Supply in the Great City Schools. The Urban Teacher Collaborative.

Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., Francis,

D.J., Fowler, A.E., and 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., and Fuchs, D. 2001. Principles for Prevention and Intervention of Mathematics

Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16: 85-95. 

REFERENCES
Furney, K.S., Hasazi, S.B., and DeStefano, L. 1997. Transition Policies, Promises, and Practices

Lessons from Three States. Exceptional Children, 63: 343-356.

Goodlad, J. 1997. Producing Teachers Who Understand, Believe, and Care. Education Week

16(48): 36-37.

Graham, S., Harris, K.R., and Larsen, L. 2001. Prevention and Intervention of Writing Difficu

for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16: 74-84.

Gresham, F.M. 2002. Response to Treatment. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., and Hallahan, D.,

Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Washington, DC: USED.

Harmon, J., Hendrick, W., Martinez, M., Perez, B., Strecker, S., and Fine, J.C. (n.d.). Features 

Excellence of Reading Teacher Preparation Programs. Unpublished manuscript. 

Hasazi, S.R., Furney, K.S., and DeStefano, L. 1999. Implementing the IDEA Transition Manda

Exceptional Children 65: 555-567.

Hassel, B.C. and Wolf, P.J. 2001. Effectiveness and Accountability (Part 2): Alternatives to the

Compliance Model. In Finn, C. E., Rotherham, A.J., and Hokanson, C.R., (eds.) Rethinking Sp

Education for a New Century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Instit

Henderson, C. 1995. College Freshman with Disabilities: A Statistical Profile. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education.

Hess, F.M., and Brigham, F.J. 2001. How Federal Special Education Policy Affects Schooling in

Virginia. In Finn, C. E., Rotherham, A.J., and Hokanson, C.R., (eds.), Rethinking Special Educa

for a New Century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

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

Horn, W.F., and Tynan, D. 2001. Time to Make Special Education “Special” Again. In Finn, C.

Rotherham, A.J., and Hokanson, C.R. (eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. (P.L. 105-17). 20 U.S.C. 14

et seq. 

Joyce, B., Wolfe, J., and Calhoun, E. 1993. The Self-Renewing School. Alexandria, VA: Associati

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Justesen, T.R., and Justesen, T.R. 2000. Helping More Students with Disabilities Prepare for Colleg

Review of Research Literature and Suggested Steps GEAR UP Grantees Can Take. U.S. Department 

Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/gearup/technical.html.

Kavale, K.A., and 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., and 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: 463-48

Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R., and Deshler, D. 2000. Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners: An Agenda 

Achieve Quality Conditions for Teaching and Learning. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Learner

70
Lerner, J. 1989. Educational Intervention in Learning Disabilities. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 28: 326-331.

Little, J. 1993. Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15: 129-151.

Lyon, G.R. 1996. The Future of Children: Special Education of Students with Disabilities.

Learning Disabilities 6: 56-76.

Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A., and Olson, R.

2002. Learning Disability: An Evidence Based Conceptualization. Paper presented at the Rethinking

Special Education for a New Century Conference, Washington, DC.

Moskowitz, J., and 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 AsiaPacific 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, USED. 

_____. 1998. Dropout Rates in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, USED.

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. 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 Instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Organization on Disability. 1998. N.O.D./Harris 2000 Survey of Americans with

Disabilities. Washington, DC: N.O.D. and Louis Harris and Associates.

National Research Council. 2002. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

_____. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

_____. 2002. Scientific Research in Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

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

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rosenberg, M.S., and Sindelar, P.T. 2001. The Proliferation of Alternative Routes to Certification in

Special Education: A critical review of the literature. Unpublished manuscript. 

Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H. III, and Parker, C. Special Education in Transition: Functional Assessment

and Noncategorical Programming. Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D. III, and Grimes, J.P. (eds.) Longmont,

CO: Sopris West.
Smith, D.S., McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., and Saunders, S. 2002. The Supply and Demand of Special

Education Teachers: The Nature of the Chronic Shortage of Special Education Teachers. Vanderbilt

University, Nashville, TN, and University of Florida at Gainesville, Gainesville, FL. Unpublish

manuscript.

Smith, D.S., Pion, G., Tyler, N.C., Sindelar, P., and Rosenberg, M. 2001. The Study of Special

Education Leadership Personnel: With Particular Attention to the Professoriate. Vanderbilt Universi

Nashville, TN, University of Florida at Gainesville, Gainesville, FL, and Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, MD.

Sparks, D., and Hirsh, S. 2000. A National Plan for Improving Professional Development. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 442 779).

Taking sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Special Education. 2002. Mary Ann Byrnes

The Condition of Education 2001. 2001. Washington, DC: USED.

The Condition of Education 2000. 2000. Washington, DC: USED.

The Condition of Education 1999. 1999. Washington, DC: USED.

The Condition of Education 1998. 1998. Washington, DC: USED.

Twenty-Five Years of Educating Children with Disabilities: The Good News and the Work Ahead. 200

Washington, DC: USED. http://www.aypf.org or http://www.ctredpol.org.

Twenty-Third Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act. 2001. Washington, DC: USED.

Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act. 2000. Washington, DC: USED.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. Survey of income and program participation. http://www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (n.d.). Data

Analysis System. http://www.ideadata.org.

_____. (n.d.). IDEA 25th Anniversary Web Site. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/.

_____. January 7, 2002. Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education Fact Sheet.

http://www.spense.org/.

Wehman, P. 1992. Life Beyond the Classroom: Transition Strategies for Young People with Disabiliti

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., and Moon, B. 1998. A Critical Analysis of the Research on Learn

to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry. Review of Educational Rese

68(2): 130-178.

Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. 2001. Teacher Preparation Research: Current

Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 

Wolf, P.J., and Hassel, B.C. 2001. Effectiveness and Accountability (Part 1): The Compliance

Model. In Finn, C. E., Rotherham, A.J., and Hokanson, C.R., (eds.), Rethinking Special Educatio

for a New Century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

72
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 February 25, 2002, in Houston, TX, 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 February 25, 2002, in Houston, TX, transcript pages 205-300.

10) See Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education Fact Sheet dated January 7, 2002. 

See http://www.spense.org.

11) Wolf and Hassel, p. 322.

12) Cullen provided testimony before the Commission on April 16, 2002, in New York, NY.

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 March 6, 2002, in Denver, CO, 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.

ENDNOTES
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 20

See 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 an

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 APPE. IDEA section 602(7) specifies the following definitio

for 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 prece

ing 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

(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 cos

expenditure on a general education student with no special needs.

27) See Testimony before the Commission by Julie Cullen, New York, NY, 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.C

992 (1999).

29) A “safety net” is a state-based program allowing local districts or education service agencie

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 expenditur

are reimbursed and at what level. Reimbursement would be discretionary based on demon

strations of need in addition to the other criteria—costs above an established level from a

local or regional available revenues for the student, and weighed against all legitimate exp

ditures 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 dis

tionary 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 som

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-pupi

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, 

not complicated by the unnecessary calculations currently imposed by IDEA.

33) See Commission meeting held April 9, 2002, in Coral Gables, FL, transcript pages 86-142

34) See Center for Education Reform: Charter School Highlights and Statistics (2002).

http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm.

35) The “least restrictive environments” provision improvements are more fully described in t

mony provided on April 16, 2002, in Brooklyn, NY, by Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, Ph.D.,

director of the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion at the Gradua

School and University Center at the City University of New York. 

74
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, and 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, and Briel, 2001; Hurst and 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 losing their Medicare Part A health care

coverage. However, recent changes to the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement

Act expanded Medicare Part A for Social Security Disability Insurance recipients who obtain

employment from the previous four years to eight and one-half 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’s 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, TN, 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://www.spense.org.

59) ERIC, 2001; Fideler, Foster, and Schwartz, 2000.

60) Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress (USED, 2001).
61) Smith, McLeskey, Tyler, and Saunders, 2002.

62) Kozleski, Mainzer, and 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 Parr

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 gra

ates relative to educating students with disabilities. In those circumstances where a license 

certification has been granted to a teacher or specialist who has not completed an approve

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 develop

and reported publicly.

67) National Research Council, 1998.

68) Testimony provided on March 6, 2001, in Denver, CO, by Thomas M. Skrtic, Ph.D., chair 

the Special Education Department, University of Kansas, and Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D., of 

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 develo

ment training in transition issues is severely lacking.

70) National Research Council, 1998.

71) Goodlad, J., “Producing Teachers Who Understand, Believe, and Care,” Education Week

16(48): 36-37 (1997).

72) Testimony provided before the Commission on February 25, 2002, in Houston, TX.

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. The Hearings and Witnesses section lists all experts appearing before the Commissi

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 Sm

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.

76
Adequate Yearly Progress. As defined by each state under section 1111(b)(2) of the No Child

Left Behind Act, “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.

Average Per-Pupil Expenditure (APPE). The expenditure per pupil for the cost of general

education, defined in 34 CFR 300.702.

Charter School. A nonsectarian, 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 charter laws 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. (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 the No Child Left Behind Act, 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)).

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.

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. 

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).

GLOSSARY
Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP). One of two divisions within OSEP. M

carries out activities related to the IDEA formula grant programs. MSIP is responsible for revie

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 con

ue to implement programs designed to improve results for infants, toddlers, children and you

with disabilities. Additionally, MSIP leads OSEP's technical assistance to the states through the

Regional Resource Centers, the State Improvement Grant program and the General Supervisio

Enhancement Grant program.

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). A nati

al information, dissemination and referral center that provides information on disabilities and

disability-related issues for families, educators and other professionals. NICHCY’s focus is chil

dren 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 tra

ing and public information on reproductive biology and population issues; on prenatal develo

ment as well as maternal, child and family health; and on medical rehabilitation.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). An agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Huma

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 beha

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/.

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). One of three comp

nents 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 are

such as employment; health and function; technology for access and function; and independe

living and community integration. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Public Law 107-110. President Bush signed the No Child 

Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002. The Act is the most sweeping reform of the Elementa

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since ESEA was enacted in 1965. It redefines the federa

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 

results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents and an emphasis 

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 statis

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 th

nation; and distributes information and provides technical assistance to those working to

improve education. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/.

78
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 that 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/.

Section 619. One of the formula grants programs under Part B of IDEA administered by OSEP,

Section 619 serves children ages three through five. 
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 manife

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 problem

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)).

State Educational Agency (SEA). The state board of education or other agency or officer prima

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).

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 impr

the teaching and learning of children in high-poverty schools to enable those children to mee

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 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that assists individuals with disabilities who are pursuing mean

ingful careers. VR assists those individuals to secure gainful employment commensurate with

their abilities and capabilities through local job searches and awareness of self-employment an

telecommuting opportunities.

80
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE)

First Meeting

January 15, 2002

Hotel Washington

Washington, DC

Presentations:

The Honorable Terry E. Branstad, chairman, PCESE

Gloria Mounts, Committee Management, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs,

United States Department of Education

The Honorable Roderick Paige, United States Secretary of Education 

Sergio Kapfer, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Education 

C. Todd Jones, executive director, PCESE

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

Second Meeting

February 25-27, 2002

The Warwick Hotel

Houston, TX

The Honorable Terry E. Branstad, chairman, PCESE

Presentations: 

Daniel Reschly, Ph.D., chair, Department of Special Education, and professor of education and

psychology, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D., professor and director of the Texas Center for Reading and Language

Arts, College of Education, University of Texas at Austin 

David J. Francis, Ph.D., professor of psychology and director, Texas Institute for Measurement,

Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston

Lawrence C. Gloeckler, deputy commissioner for Vocational and Educational Services for

Individuals with Disabilities, New York State Education Department

James E. Comstock-Galagan, Southern Disability Law Center, Bay St. Louis, MS

Gene Lenz, senior director, Division of Special Education, Texas Education Agency

The Honorable Roderick Paige, United States Secretary of Education 

Professional Development Task Force Public Hearing

March 6, 2002

Hyatt Regency

Denver, CO

Chair: Paula Butterfield, Ph.D.

Presentations: 

Rebecca M. Walk, state director of special programs, Wyoming Department of Education

William L. Sanders, Ph.D., manager, Value-Added Assessment and Research, SAS in School, Cary, NC

TASK FORCE HEARINGS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
Frederick M. Hess, Ph.D., assistant professor of education, and government and foreign affa

University of Virginia

Thomas M. Skrtic, Ph.D., chair and professor, Department of Special Education, University 

Kansas

Mary T. Brownell, Ph.D., associate professor of special education, University of Florida

Mark L. Batshaw, M.D., chief academic officer, National Children’s Hospital, Washington, D

Joyce F. Bales, Ed.D., superintendent, Pueblo School District No. 60, CO

G. Thomas Bellamy, Ph.D., interim vice chancellor for academic affairs, University of Colora

at Colorado Springs

Beth Schaffner, director of technical assistance and curriculum, Peak Parent Center, Inc.,

Colorado Springs, CO

Rebecca L. Hamilton, Ph.D., senior program officer, Literacy Plus, Pittsburgh Public Schools

and project research consultant and graduate instructor, University of Pittsburgh

Accountability Systems Task Force and Public Meeting

March 13, 2002

Embassy Suites Hotel Des Moines – On The River

Des Moines, IA

Chair: The Honorable Steve Bartlett

Presentations: 

Brian McNulty, Ph.D., vice president, Field Services, Mid-continent Research for Education 

Learning, Aurora, CO

Gerald Tindal, Ph.D., head and professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Technolo

and Administration; co-director, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon

Elizabeth Anne Giovannetti, managing director, Special Education Services, New American

Schools, Washington, DC

Martha A. Brooks, Ed.D., director, Exceptional Children and Early Childhood Group, Delaw

Department of Education

Patricia L. Maichle, Delaware parent

Polly Adam-Fullbright, school psychologist and program consultant, Deaf and Hard of Hear

Program, Des Moines Public Schools

Martin Cavanaugh, chief of staff, Elk Grove Unified School District, CA

Sue Gamm, chief specialized services officer, Chicago Public Schools

Lizanne DeStefano, Ph.D., director and associate dean for research, Bureau of Educational

Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Paul Marchand, assistant executive director for policy and advocacy and director of the

National Governmental Affairs Office, The Arc of the United States

Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D., director, National Center on Educational Outcomes, University o

Minnesota

Daniel Wiener, assessment coordinator for special populations, Massachusetts Department o

Education

Finance Task Force and Public Meeting

March 21, 2002

W Los Angeles Westwood

Los Angeles, CA

Chair: Douglas Gill, Ph.D.

82
Presentations: 

Bill Freund, senior budget analyst, Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee,

Olympia, WA

Stephen Chaikind, Ph.D., professor of economics and finance, Gallaudet University,

Washington, DC 

Jack Daray, Ph.D., consultant, Daray and Associates, Olympia, WA

Paul M. Goldfinger, vice president, School Services of California, Inc., Sacramento, CA

Eric Hanushek, Ph.D., professor of education, Stanford University

Steve Johnson, assistant superintendent, Bozeman Public Schools, MT

Thomas Parrish, Ed. D., director, Center for Special Education Finance, Palo Alto, CA

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

Third Meeting

April 9-10, 2002

Hyatt Regency Coral Gables

Coral Gables, FL

Chair: The Honorable Terry E. Branstad, chairman, PCESE

Presentations:

Diane Emery, parent and public relations coordinator, The Cushman School, Miami, FL

Carol C. Lang, parent from The Cushman School

Catherine Jean Wooley-Brown, Ph.D., state charter school coordinator, Florida Charter School

Resource Center at the At-Risk Institute, College of Education, University of South Florida

Stephen V. Bird, Ph.D., parent of a child with a severe disability, Boone, NC

Caroline M. Hoxby, Ph.D., professor of economics, Department of Economics at Harvard

University and director, Economics of Education Program for the National Bureau of

Economic Research

Diane Cossin McCain, director, Choice Office, Florida Department of Education 

John L. Winn, deputy secretary for accountability, research, and measurement, Florida Board of

Education

Santiago Garcia Jr., parent with a disability, Homestead, FL

Alice Harris, a parent and the executive director and founder, Parents of Watts Working with

Youth and Adults, Inc.

The Honorable Elizabeth Coulson, Illinois state representative and member of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Appropriations Committee

Susan Thomas, high school teacher of students with learning disabilities, Arlington, VA

Linda Johnson, director, The Cushman School

Irwin Kurz, deputy superintendent, Office of Leadership Development, New York City Board

of Education

Crisha Scolaro, parent and founder of Pepin Academy, Tampa, FL

Jo Ann Shaw, principal, Pepin Academy

Barry Morris, Ph.D., curriculum specialist, Pepin Academy

Laura Whiteside, parent, Pepin Academy

Mary Ellen Russell, assistant secretary for Catholic Schools Parental Rights Advocacy, United

States Conference of Catholic Bishops 

Rabbi Ezra Levy, administrator of the Middle School, Kesher School

Robin M. Wilkins, director of special education, Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School 

Bonnie Schaeffer, parent from the Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School

Miriam Brinley, freshman with a disability at St. Mary’s College, St. Mary’s City, MD

Nicholas King, 16-year-old student from Temple Terrace, FL
Caitlin Whiteside, 11th grade student with a disability from the Pepin Academy

Josh Kemp, 19-year-old student in transition, Portland, OR

Assessment and Identification Task Force and Public Hearing 

April 16, 2002

Court Room at Borough Hall

Brooklyn, NY

Chair: Jack Fletcher, Ph.D.

Presentations:

Marty Markowitz, Brooklyn Borough president

Harold Levy, chancellor, New York City Schools

Frank Gresham, Ph.D., professor of education, University of California at Riverside

James E. Ysseldyke, Ph.D., associate dean for research and professor, School Psychology

Program, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota

Gwendolyn Cartledge, Ph.D., professor, School of Physical Activity and Educational Service

College of Education, Ohio State University

Howard Abikoff, Ph.D., professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, New York University

School of Medicine

Julie Berry Cullen, Ph.D., assistant professor of economics, Department of Economics,

University of Michigan

Joseph H. Wehby, Ph.D., assistant professor of education, Department of Special Education,

Peabody College, Vanderbilt University

The Honorable Lenny T. Winkler, Connecticut state representative, Groton, CT

Research Agenda Task Force and Public Hearing

April 18, 2002

Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

Nashville, TN

Chair: Nancy Grasmick, Ph.D.

Presentations:

Lynn Fuchs, Ph.D., professor, Department of Special Education, Peabody College, Vanderbi

University

Douglas Fuchs, Ph.D., professor, Department of Special Education, Peabody College,

Vanderbilt University.

Susan B. Hasazi, Ed.D., director, Doctoral Degree Program in Educational Leadership and

Policy Studies, College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont

Paul H. Wehman, Ph.D., professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,

Virginia Commonwealth University

Don Bailey, Ph.D., professor, Department of Special Education, University of North Carolina 

Chapel Hill

Mark Wolery, Ph.D., professor, Department of Special Education, Peabody College, Vanderb

University

Wayne Sailor, Ph.D., professor of special education and senior scientist, Beach Center on

Disability, University of Kansas

Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D., professor of special education and director, Institute for Research 

Learning Disabilities and the Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas

84
Donald Lee MacMillan, Ed.D., professor and graduate advisor, Department of Education,

University of California, Riverside

Ann Kaiser, Ph.D., professor, Department of Special Education, Peabody College, Vanderbilt

University

System Administration Task Force and Public Hearing

April 23, 2002

The U. S. Grant Hotel

San Diego, CA

Chair: Adela Acosta

Presentations:

Margaret J. McLaughlin, Ph.D., associate director, Institute for Study of Exceptional Children

and Youth, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland 

Edward Lee Vargas, Ed.D., superintendent, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, City of

Industry, CA

Batya Elbaum, Ph.D., associate professor, Department of Teaching and Learning and

Department of Psychology, and director, School of Education Center for Research, University

of Miami

Donnalee Ammons, chief executive officer, Success Institute, Boosier City, LA

S. James Rosenfeld, visiting clinical professor of law, Seattle University School of Law 

William Dussault, vice president, Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys

J. Ronald Lally, co-director, Center for Child and Family Studies at WestEd, San Francisco, CA

Laurie Powers, Ph.D., associate professor of pediatrics, public health, and psychiatry, and codirector, Center on Self-Determination, Oregon Health and Science University 

Dixie Jordan, director, Families and Advocates Partnership for Education, Riverton, WY

Carol Topinka, director of special services, Milwaukee Public Schools

Judy Elliott, Ph.D., assistant superintendent for special education, Long Beach Unified School

District, CA

The Role and Function of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the

Implementation of Special Education Task Force and Public Hearing

April 26, 2002

Wyndham Washington

Washington, DC

Chair: W. Alan Coulter, Ph.D.

Presentations:

Alice D. Parker, Ed.D., assistant superintendent of public instruction and director of special

education, California Department of Education

Barbara Gantwerk, director, Office of Special Education Programs, New Jersey Department of

Education

Thomas Hehir, Ed.D., director, School Leadership Program, Harvard University Graduate

School of Education

Paula Goldberg, executive director, Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights (PACER),

Center Minneapolis, MN 

Leslie Seid Margolis, managing attorney, School House Legal Services Project, Maryland

Disability Law Center, Baltimore, MD

Richard "Dick" D. Komer, senior litigation attorney, Institute for Justice, Washington, DC
Philip J. Burke, Ph.D., professor and chair, Department of Special Education, University of

Maryland

Susan Fowler, Ph.D., dean and professor, College of Education, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

Martin Gould, Ed.D., senior research specialist, National Council on Disability

Transition Task Force and Public Hearing

April 30, 2002

Washington Hilton

Washington, D.C.

Chair: Douglas Huntt, Ph.D.

Presentations:

Carl Suter, director, Council of State Administrators for Vocational Rehabilitation 

Jane Everson, Ph.D., associate professor/program director, Human Development Center,

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center and community development specialist

Center for Disability Resources, University of South Carolina School of Medicine

Frank Rusch, Ph.D., professor, College of Education, Children’s Research Center, University 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Paul Wehman, Ph.D., professor, Department of Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Speci

Education, Virginia Commonwealth University and director, Virginia Commonwealth

University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports

Margo Vreeburg Izzo, Ph.D., program manager, Nisonger Center, Ohio State University

Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D., director and professor, Center on Disability Studies/University

Center on Excellence, College of Education, University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Andrea Sobel, Ed.D., independent education consultant, Annandale, VA

Catherine Healy, Kennedy fellow, Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department o

Labor

Deborah Leuchovius, national coordinator of technical assistance on transition and vocation

rehabilitation, Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights (PACER) Center,

Minneapolis, MN

Andrew K. Block, Jr., legal director, Just Children Project, Legal Aid Justice Program,

Charlottesville, VA

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

Fourth Meeting

May 30-31, 2002

Capital Hilton

Washington, DC 

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

Fifth Meeting

June 13-14, 2002

Washington Hilton

Washington, DC

86
Commissioners

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 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,

TX, from 1991 to 1995 and, from 1983 to 1991, as a representative to the U.S. Congress. As

ranking 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 Representative

to the U.S. Congress.

BIOGRAPHIES
Thomas Fleming is special assistant to the provost at Eastern Michigan University. A preache

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 t

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 develo

ment of reading, language and other cognitive skills in children with disabilities over the past 

years.

Doug Gill, Ph.D., has served as the Washington state director of special education since 1990

During the past 30 years, he has been a special education teacher at the elementary and secon

ary school levels. He was also an instructor at Georgia Southern University and the University 

Georgia. Prior to 1990, Gill was director of the Pierce County, WA, Cooperative, an awardwinning model that demonstrated improved post-school outcomes for special education stude

enrolled in vocational education programs.

David Gordon, Ph.D., is the superintendent of the Elk Grove, CA, Unified School District. H

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 superin

tendent of schools. Grasmick worked as supervisor of special education for the Baltimore Cou

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. Hammerma

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, chairma

the National Association of Securities Dealers board of governors and director of the Securitie

Investors Protection Corporation.

Bryan Hassel, Ph.D., is president of Public Impact, an education policy consulting firm in

Charlotte, NC. Hassel conducts research and consults nationally on charter schools, the comp

hensive reform of public schools and special education.

Douglas Huntt, Ph.D., is a commissioner for the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission an

is the executive director for Assistive Technology of Ohio. From 1991 to 1997, Huntt chaired 

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 

Springfield, VA. She is the parent of a child with a visual impairment, cognitive disabilities an

other health needs.

Katie Wright, Ed.D., is a writer for the St. Louis ARGUS Newspaper in St. Louis, MO. She h

worked as an elementary school and special education teacher, a director of special education

learning specialist at St. Louis University, and an interim and assistant superintendent of scho

in Illinois District 189. She also holds the National Council of Negro Women Illinois and

National Black Women Leadership Awards.

88
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.

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, 1990-1993,

and the National Commission on Childhood Disability, 1994-1995.

G. 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 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.

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.

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.

Commission Staff

C. 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-1990s,

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 

the assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. She has also worked 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 

the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Previously, she served as a legislative assistan

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 t

staff, Blomquist worked as director of advance for the Schundler for Governor campaign in N

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, Muñoz was employed in the Office of Presidential Personnel at 

White House where she assisted in the appointments’ process of boards and commissions. Pri

to moving to Washington, DC, Muñoz worked on George W. Bush’s Presidential campaign and 

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 Preside

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 i

legal and content research during the development of this report. We are grateful to the U.S.

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, for detailing Justesen to provide this valuable assistan

90
Executive Order on Excellence in Special Education

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States

of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Policy.

The education of all children, regardless of background or disability, while chiefly a State and

local responsibility, 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. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) is a landmark statute that asserts the rights of all children with disabilities to a free,

appropriate public education. My Administration strongly supports the principles embodied in

the IDEA and the goal of providing special education and related services to children with

disabilities so that they can meet high academic standards and participate fully in American society. It is imperative that special education operate as an integral part of a system that expects

high achievement of all children, rather than as a means of avoiding accountability for children

who are more challenging to educate or who have fallen behind. 

Section 2. Establishment.

There is established a President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (the

“Commission”). The Commission shall be composed of not more than 19 members to be

appointed by the President from the public and private sectors, as well as up to 5 ex officio

members from the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The members

may include current and former Federal, State, and local government officials, recognized special

education experts, special and general education finance experts, education researchers, 

educational practitioners, parents of children or young adults with disabilities, persons with

disabilities, and others with special experience and expertise in the education of children with

disabilities. The President shall designate a Chairperson from among the members of the

Commission. The Secretary of Education shall select an Executive Director for the Commission. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13227—THE PRESIDENT’S

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATIO
Section 3. Duties and Commission Report.

(a) The Commission shall collect information and study issues related to Federal, State, and lo

special education programs with the goal of recommending policies for improving the edu

tional performance of students with disabilities. In furtherance of its duties, the Commissio

shall invite experts and members of the public to provide information and guidance. 

(b) Not later than April 30, 2002, the Commission shall prepare and submit a report to the

President outlining its findings and recommendations. The report shall include, but need 

be limited to: 

1. An examination of available research and information on the effectiveness and cost 

of special education and the appropriate role of the Federal Government in special

education programming and funding. The examination shall include an analysis of 

the factors that have contributed to the growth in costs of special education since 

the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (a predecessor 

of IDEA); 

2. Recommendations regarding how Federal resources can best be used to improve

educational results for students with disabilities; 

3. A recommended special education research agenda; 

4. An analysis of the impact of providing appropriate early intervention in reading

instruction on the referral and identification of children for special education; 

5. An analysis of the effect of special education funding on decisions to serve, place, o

refer children for special education services and recommendations for alternative fu

ing formulae that might distribute funds to achieve better results and eliminate any

current incentives that undermine the goals of ensuring that children with disabilit

receive a high-quality education; 

6. An analysis of, and recommendations regarding, how the Federal Government can

help States and local education agencies provide a high-quality education to studen

with disabilities, including the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel and

the inclusion of children with disabilities in performance and accountability system

7. An analysis of the impact of Federal and State statutory, regulatory, and administrative

requirements on the cost and effectiveness of special education services, and how these

requirements support or hinder the educational achievement of students with disabilit

8. An assessment of how differences in local educational agency size, location, demographics, and wealth, and in State law and practice affect which children are referre

to special education, and the cost of special education; and 

9. A review of the experiences of State and local governments in financing special 

education, and an analysis of whether changes to the Federal “supplement not

supplant” and “maintenance of effort” requirements are appropriate. 

Section 4. Administration, Compensation, and Termination.

(a) The Department of Education shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide administrative

support and funding for the Commission. In addition, appropriate Federal agencies may

designate staff to assist with the work of the Commission. To the extent permitted by law,

Federal Government employees may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursemen

to the Federal agency. 

(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation but, while engaged in the w

of the Commission, members appointed from among private citizens of the United States sh

be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law 

persons serving intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the exten

funds are available for such purposes. 

92
(c) The functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are applicable

to the Commission, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the

Department of Education in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the

Administrator of General Services. 

(d) The Chairperson may from time to time prescribe such rules, procedures, and policies relating to the activities of the Commission as are not inconsistent with law or with the provisions

of this order. 

(e) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its final report, unless extended 

by the President. 

GEORGE W. BUSH 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

October 2, 2001.

Amendment to Executive Order 13227 

Executive Order

Amendment to Executive Order 13227

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States

of America, and in order to extend the reporting date of the President’s Commission on

Excellence in Special Education, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13227 of October 2,

2001, is amended by deleting “April 30, 2002” in section 3(b) of that order and inserting in lieu

thereof “July 1, 2002”.

GEORGE W. BUSH 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 6, 2002.