RETHINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION:

HOW TO REFORM THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 2, 2002 

Serial No. 107-62 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-135 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

 MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado, Vice Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado SUSAN DAVIS, California 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

RIC KELLER, Florida RON KIND, Wisconsin 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE .......... 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DALE KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE .......... 3

STATEMENT OF W. DOUGLAS TYNAN, Ph.D. DIRECTOR, ADHD AND DISRUPTIVE 

BEHAVIOR CLINIC, A.I. duPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, WILMINGTON, DE........ 6

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. WOLF, Ph.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC 

POLICY, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF GREGORY LOCK, PRINCIPAL, OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 

FAIRFAX, VA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS (NAESP), ALEXANDRIA, VA .............................. 10

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE BEH NEAS, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS, AND CO-CHAIR, TESTIFYING ON 

BEHALF OF, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION TASK 

FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................................................................................... 12

STATEMENT OF LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS, PARENT, AND ATTORNEY, MARYLAND 

DISABILITY LAW CENTER (MDLC), BALTIMORE, MD .................................................... 15

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. 

CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE........................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF W. DOUGLAS TYNAN, Ph.D. DIRECTOR, 

ADHD AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR CLINIC, A.I. duPONT HOSPITAL FOR 

CHILDREN, WILMINGTON, DE .............................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. WOLF, Ph.D., ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................ 79

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GREGORY LOCK, PRINCIPAL, OAK VIEW 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FAIRFAX, VA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS (NAESP), 

ALEXANDRIA, VA .................................................................................................................. 133 
iv

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KATHERINE BEH NEAS, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS, AND CO-CHAIR, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES 

EDUCATION TASK FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................................................. 149

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS, PARENT, AND 

ATTORNEY, MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER (MDLC), BALTIMORE, MD... 159

APPENDIX G – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM LISA GRAHAM 

KEEGAN, ET. AL., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., TO TERRY BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT’S 

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., 

MAY 3, 2002 .............................................................................................................................. 191

APPENDIX H –INCLUDED IN THE PERMANENT ARCHIVE FILE, RETHINKING 

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR A NEW CENTURY, EDITED BY CHESTER E. FINN, JR., ET. 

AL., PUBLISHED BY THE THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION AND THE 

PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 2001.......................... 205

APPENDIX I – INCLUDED IN THE PERMANENT ARCHIVE FILE, FAIRFAX COUNTY 

PUBLIC SCHOOL, FAIRFAX, VA, SAMPLE FORMS AND DOCUMENTS: (1) 

NOTIFICATION TO PARENTS PRIOR TO MEETING FOR INITIAL REFERRAL, (2) 

DOCUMENTS TO FIND A CHILD ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION, (3) 

DOCUMENTS COMPLETED AT LOCAL SCREENING MEETING AND GIVEN TO 

PARENTS, (4) DOCUMENTS COMPLETED AT IEP MEETING, (5) SAMPLE IEP .......... 207

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 209 
1

HEARING ON RETHINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION: 

HOW TO REFORM THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 

____________________

Thursday, May 2, 2002 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Michael N. Castle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Castle, Petri, Souder, Ehlers, Tancredo, Biggert, Platts, Keller, 

Osborne, Wilson, Kildee, Scott, Woolsey, Sanchez, Solis, Davis, Owens, Payne, and Roemer. 

 Staff present: Charles Hokanson, Professional Staff Member; Blake Hegeman, Legislative 

Assistant; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Kate 

Gorton, Professional Staff Member; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Patrick Lyden, 

Professional Staff Member; and, Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator. 

Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education; and Dan Rawlins, Minority 

Staff Assistant/Labor. 
2

Chairman Castle. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Education Reform will come to 

order.

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on how to reform the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and 

the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, 

they may be included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to 

allow Member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 

submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will proceed first with my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 First of all, let me say good morning to all the witnesses. We always appreciate you being 

here. We apologize for the slight delay as we finished up our welfare reform markup earlier today. 

 This is the second in a series of hearings that the Subcommittee on Education Reform will 

conduct on the reform and reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA). Over the next few months, this Committee will explore ways of improving IDEA to 

ensure that no child, regardless of his or her challenges, is left behind as the President and the 

Congress continue their efforts to improve America's schools. 

 While the 1975 legislation was a major milestone in the effort to end the chronic exclusion 

and miseducation of disabled children, it is today a law that will challenge this Congress as we seek 

to provide new opportunities for all children. I believe we must build on the positive changes made 

in the 1997 reauthorization and allow this law to evolve. No longer is it simply enough to provide 

our disabled children access to public schools; now, more than ever, we must do more to see that 

disabled children are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and 

provides them with the tools for later success. 

 It is my hope that these hearings will spur discussion and bring fresh thinking to our 

examination of IDEA. Some of these key issues include: 

x focusing IDEA on the academic achievement of Special Education students; 

x making the federal Special Education program more effective and adding accountability 

measures that mirror those envisioned by the No Child Left Behind Act; 

x examining ways to provide procedural relief without reducing important protections for 

disabled students and their families; 
3

x finding ways to attract and retain Special Education teachers; and doing more to help 

regular education teachers address the needs of the Special Education students in their 

classrooms; 

x promoting early intervention, so that we can provide appropriate interventions and 

maximize the student's later academic success; 

x identifying and eliminating the root causes of over identification, especially among minority 

children;

x ensuring school safety for all students;

x promoting non-adversarial resolutions when disputes arise between parents and teachers; 

x increasing parental involvement in the education of their disabled child. 

 Today, this Subcommittee will explore at least several of these themes, including 

accountability and procedural requirements, and we are fortunate to welcome five witnesses who 

will speak from a number of perspectives, including a pediatric psychologist, an education 

researcher, an elementary school principal, a leader from the disability community, and a parent of 

a disabled child who has also worked as an attorney advocating for parents of Special Education 

students. With their help, it is my hope that Members will better understand these complex issues 

and inform our discussion on the reauthorization. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman Castle. In a moment, I will proceed with the introduction of our witnesses, but I will 

now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Kildee, for whatever 

opening statement he may wish to make. 

 Dale? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DALE KILDEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

Thank you very much. I am pleased to join Governor Castle at what is our second in a 

series of hearings on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. I 

have been working on Special Education for the 26 years I have been in Congress, and before that 

during my time in the Michigan legislature. In Michigan, I sponsored the enactment of Michigan's 

first Special Education law, prior to the federal enactment of IDEA during the 94th Congress. 

Today, we will receive very useful testimony on reauthorizing IDEA, and I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses. 
4

 Prior to the passage of 94-142, the education of disabled children was ignored, prohibited, 

or outright denied. Instead of working to keep disabled children out, schools now seek to educate 

disabled children along with their non-disabled peers. 

 As reauthorization of IDEA gets underway, in this Congress some claim that IDEA is 

broken, that it needs to be completely overhauled and is too complex and difficult to implement. I 

believe that this really isn't correct. It is critical, I think, to remember that many of the problems we 

hear about regarding IDEA are largely implementation problems, rather than problems with the 

statute itself. 

 Certainly Congress will consider legislative changes to IDEA in this reauthorization cycle.

However, we cannot and should not roll back protections for schools and disabled children alike 

simply for the sake of change. Schools have been implementing the 1997 amendments for only 

two years. To constantly subject schools, parents, and teachers to a complete overhaul of this law 

every five years makes it impossible to meet IDEA's requirements. 

 To implement this law effectively, school districts and schools need resources. For us here 

in Congress, that means honoring our commitment to fully fund IDEA by providing 40 percent of 

the excess cost of educating a child with a disability. And that goes beyond any authorizing 

language; that means the money must be appropriated, 40 percent of the added cost. And somehow 

we have to craft language, hopefully very, very, soon, so that 40 percent of added cost would not 

just be a promise but will really be something we have delivered. 

 Along with funding, we must ensure a stronger monitoring and enforcement system. We 

should build upon efforts in the 1997 amendments and consider Justice Department enforcement 

and other means to strengthen compliance with IDEA. Coupled with this federal focus is a need 

for states to upgrade their own monitoring and enforcement systems. 

 Lastly, children with disabilities only receive a high education if their teachers and related 

services personnel are well trained and knowledgeable. Too many of our regular education 

teachers do not have sufficient training to provide instruction to disabled children, including how to 

deal with behavioral problems. Too many of our Special Education teachers are leaving the field 

due to frustration, poor working conditions, too much paperwork, and inadequate pay. Our 

reauthorization should focus upon upgrading the quality of our teachers and related service 

personnel, including the conditions under which they work. 

 In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee today. I look 

forward to your testimony. 

 I thank you, Governor Castle. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. We appreciate your opening statement. 

 We will now turn to the introduction of our witnesses. I am going to introduce all of you, 

which will take a moment, and then I am going to explain how we will proceed from there. And I 
5

will go from left to right, and your testimony will go from my left to your right. 

 So we will start with Dr. Douglas Tynan. Dr. Tynan is the Director of the Disruptive 

Behavior Clinic at the A.I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, which I can 

personally testify is a wonderful entity. He also serves as a Clinical Associate Professor of 

Pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson University of Philadelphia. Prior to accepting his current positions, 

Dr. Tynan was on the faculty of George Washington University and Michigan State University. He 

holds a Ph.D. from the State University of New York, University Center at Binghamton. 

Dr. Patrick Wolf is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University's 

Public Policy Institute. He also serves as a faculty associate for the Program on Education Policy 

and Governance at Harvard University, as a member of the National Working Commission on 

Choice in K-12 Education, and is book review editor for the Journal of Public Administration 

Research and Theory. Dr. Wolf earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in Government. 

Mr. Gregory Lock has been the principal at Oak View Elementary School in Fairfax, 

Virginia, since 1991. Prior to that, he served as the principal at Centerville Elementary School and 

as an assistant principal at Kings Park Elementary School. Mr. Lock also has experience as a 

classroom teacher and has a Master of Education degree from Boston College. 

Ms. Katherine Beh Neas is the Assistant Vice President of Government Relations for Easter 

Seals and co-Chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Education Task Force.

Prior to joining Easter Seals, Ms. Neas was Associate Director of the American Association of 

University-Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, which might be the 

longest title of anybody here today. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Georgetown 

University.

 And our final witness this morning will be Ms. Leslie Seid Margolis. Ms. Margolis is the 

parent of a child with a disability and managing attorney of the Schoolhouse Legal Services Project 

at the Maryland Disability Law Center. She has also served as a consultant and adjunct staff 

attorney for the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. Ms. Margolis earned 

her law degree from Stanford Law School. 

 So we have a good, and obviously well educated, group of witnesses, and we are pleased to 

have them here. Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to remind the Members 

that we will be asking questions of the witnesses after the complete panel has testified. In addition, 

Committee rule 2 imposes a five-minute limit on all questions. 

 That is also true of the witnesses. You have a little light system in those two little boxes on 

your table, if you were wondering what they were. For four minutes, I believe, it will be green. 

For one minute, it will be yellow. And hopefully, for no more than a few seconds, it will be red, at 

which point you should be trying to wrap up what you are saying. 

 I understand your desire to try to say everything, but the truth of the matter is that you will 

have a chance during the question-and-answer period to finish anything you thought you did not 

get out or whatever. And we already have your complete statements here for the record, in 
6

addition. So we try to stay as closely as we can, at least, within the time limits involved. 

 We shouldn't be too interrupted by the floor, but there may be occasions where we have to 

take a break in order to go over and cast votes on the floor. You will hear bells, and we will try to 

figure that out when it happens. But at this point, we will assume we can get through the hearing 

without that happening. 

 So with that, I think we are ready to commence. And we will start, as I said, with Dr. 

Tynan. We will work right across from Dr. Tynan, right through to Ms. Margolis, and then we will 

go to the questions and answers. 

Dr. Tynan? 

STATEMENT OF W. DOUGLAS TYNAN, Ph.D. DIRECTOR, ADHD AND 

DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR CLINIC, A.I. duPONT HOSPITAL FOR 

CHILDREN, WILMINGTON, DE 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Douglas 

Tynan; I am the Director of the ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Program at A.I. duPont Hospital 

for Children, and I am a pediatric psychologist. Our practice group evaluates over 500 children per 

year, most of whom receive services under the IDEA or 504 plan through public, private, and 

parochial schools in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. And as such, we are 

uniquely positioned to see how the IDEA is implemented in a variety of school systems. 

 In my career path, I was a Special Educator at a private school in Boston when 

Massachusetts first implemented their Special Education law, Chapter 766, in 1974. And on a 

personal note, I have a nephew, now 30 years old, who was diagnosed with autism at age 3. He has 

benefited greatly from the IDEA programs that he attended in Suffolk County, New York, so I 

know full well how important this program is to families, including my own. 

 As has already been stated, IDEA has been largely successful in opening up educational 

opportunities for children with disabilities, who were denied such opportunities prior to 1973.

Unfortunately, IDEA also has had some unintended negative consequences, which include the 

creation of incentives to define an ever-increasing percentage of school-age children as having 

disabilities, the redirection of financial resources from regular education to Special Education, and, 

for some children, application of what I consider an accommodation philosophy to populations that 

are better served by prevention or intervention strategies. 

 As required by IDEA, the Special Education system is predicated upon first classifying 

students into one or more federally defined categories. Once classified, they are provided Special 

Education services and accommodations. Those children who may not meet a specific school 

district's criteria for eligibility do not have to receive Special Education services, even though they 
7

were initially referred because they had academic difficulties. As a result of this process, two 

distinct classes of students emerge: those classified as disabled to receive services, and those who 

are having problems but not classified, who do not receive services. 

 Currently, more than ten percent of all children in public schools are in the Special 

Education system. Of these, approximately 90 percent have been classified in the areas of learning 

disability, speech and language delays, mild mental retardation or emotional disorders. These are 

the children who are usually included in mainstream classrooms for much of their day. The 

remaining ten percent of children in Special Education fall into categories reflecting a greater 

severity of disability, with more severe handicaps such as moderate to severe mental retardation, 

early infantile autism, sensory handicaps such as blindness or deafness, and severe physical and 

health impairments. These children are often, or usually identified far before school-entry age. 

 The first step in Special Education reform would be to recognize that the system currently 

serves several distinct populations: those with significant, severe mental disabilities, that comprise 

ten percent or fewer of all children; those with milder forms of neurological conditions, such as 

learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, mild mental retardation; and a subgroup that has 

conduct and behavior problems. 

 The first group, children who are born with birth defects, serious sensory and physical 

disabilities, and significant cognitive delays, in the majority of these cases these children will have 

been identified as disabled in infancy and the preschool years, are identified by child-find 

programs, and have early intervention programs. We know who they are before they enter the 

school system, and frequently they are receiving services that are mediated by the public schools as 

early as the first year of life. To a large extent, we know their medical, rehabilitation, and 

educational needs, and they certainly need to continue with detailed individual education plans. 

 The second group, and by far currently the largest, is children who have what I would call 

milder forms of neurological dysfunction, which certainly impair their functioning. But the first 

question that needs to be addressed for this group, which includes children with ADHD and 

learning disabilities, is how special is the Special Education they receive? In many cases, the 

answer is not much, except for the fact that they are classified differently from their peers. Thus, 

rather than perpetuating the myth of these students receiving a different kind of instruction, we 

should reconstruct regular education to maintain them more effectively in the classroom by 

teaching reading with proven methods and teaching teachers how to manage behavior more 

effectively.

 The last group is children with behavior problems that have been a problem under the IDEA 

discipline provisions. Students with these types of oppositional and conduct problems are often the 

result of some hearings regarding discipline actions. Effective treatment for these disorders would 

involve alternative schools that are set up to treat these children. I am not suggesting in any way 

that we exclude them from the program. 

 Thank you. 
8

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF W. DOUGLAS TYNAN, Ph.D. DIRECTOR, ADHD 

AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR CLINIC, A.I. duPONT HOSPITAL FOR 

CHILDREN, WILMINGTON, DE – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Tynan. 

Dr. Wolf? 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. WOLF, Ph.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased to speak to you today about how the Special 

Education system might be improved to better promote effectiveness and results-based 

accountability.

 In 1997, you undertook an effort to revise the federal law governing Special Education in 

order to focus more strongly on whether or not the services being provided to students with 

disabilities are actually resulting in greater learning. The '97 amendments to the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act sought to replace a process-focused compliance-driven accountability 

system with a results-focused performance-driven alternative. This change represented movement 

in the right direction. 

 However, a central finding in our research is that the results-based accountability system 

under IDEA of '97 retains virtually all of the onerous procedural requirements of the previous 

system, yet omits components that are essential to holding implementers truly accountable for 

results. Special Education administrators continue to rely upon compliance with procedural rules 

as the yardstick for judging whether or not a local Special Education program is succeeding. 

 The current oversight system for Special Education falls short of achieving true resultsbased accountability, because it neither standardizes certain key requirements regarding the testing 

of students with disabilities, nor holds school systems accountable when they persistently fail to 

achieve results for such students. Undoubtedly, many Special Education teachers and 

administrators are making great strides with their students. However, these successes are happening 

largely in spite of, not because of, the accountability system that is in place. 

 A more complete results-based accountability system in Special Education would have 

certain features. Every student's individualized education program would describe the tests that are 

appropriate to measure the student's educational progress and any accommodations that should be 

made to the testing conditions based on the student's disability. The tests and accommodations for 

each student would be applied consistently, year after year, for all students with non-degenerative 

disabilities.
9

 The process would begin with a set of baseline tests to measure initial levels of ability and 

achievement. Subsequent results would be reported in terms of gains or losses from that baseline. 

Reports also would include narrative from the teachers and aides who are educating the student, in 

order to place the gains or losses in context. Evidence of aggregate declines in the performance of 

the Special Education students in a given district would lead to a state-led intervention involving 

greater resources and supervised programmatic changes, and persistent performance declines would 

provoke tough sanctions, including the transfer of students to neighboring school districts, charter 

schools, or private schools at district expense. 

 Two elements of this proposal stand out. First, using gain scores is critical. Special 

Education students are, well, special. They exhibit various handicapping conditions of varied 

severity that more or less limit their educational ability and achievement. By using the metric of 

student-specific educational gains instead of an arbitrary standard of attainment to evaluate Special 

Education students, the system would automatically control for a number of pre-existing conditions 

that are particular to each student. The use of gain scores also minimizes the incentives for 

classifying a non-disabled student as disabled, since they measure individual progress instead of 

lowering the achievement bar. 

 Second, greater customer choice is likely to enhance accountability in Special Education. 

Experimental customer choice programs such as public housing vouchers have demonstrated that 

choice initiates a flight to quality. The observed behavior of customers who have choices provides 

important feedback to decision-makers, helping them invest more money and effort in what works 

and waste fewer resources on what fails. The power of parents to move their disabled child out of a 

program that is failing and into a more promising alternative improves the educational prospects for 

that child, and motivates more teachers and administrators to achieve positive results for their 

students with disabilities. 

Mr. Chairman, you will notice that several elements of my proposal for Special Education 

are modeled after the “Leave No Child Behind” reforms. That is no coincidence. It would be a 

shame if students with disabilities were left behind as the new federal results-based accountability 

system drives the students in regular education programs to higher levels of achievement. 

 I urge you to give students with disabilities the opportunity to demonstrate their progress 

towards reasonable educational goals. If, instead, we expect little of them, then, unfortunately, we 

are likely to have our limited expectations fulfilled. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that the two book chapters that inform this 

testimony be entered into the record. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. WOLF, Ph.D., ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY 

INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX C 
10

Chairman Castle. Thank you. Without objection, the material you have referenced will be added 

to the record, and we appreciate it, Dr. Wolf. 

Mr. Lock? 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY LOCK, PRINCIPAL, OAK VIEW 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FAIRFAX, VA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

PRINCIPALS (NAESP), ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Good morning, Chairman Castle and Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to come 

before you today representing the National Association of Elementary School Principals as you 

deliberate possible changes when reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

 This morning, I will address the critical issue of paperwork and the time spent by educators 

in meeting the federal requirements to document the process, from the initial teacher referral of a 

student to the final written individualized education plan. 

 Unfortunately for a special class of teachers, time has been eroded by paperwork 

requirements that increasingly take teachers away from the clients they serve, the children whose 

special needs require more, not less, instructional contact time. One of the most valuable things 

you could accomplish in legislating changes to IDEA would be to reduce the administrative burden 

now carried by our school staff so they can spend more time in direct instruction. 

 While recognizing the unique situation that exists in each state and district, I feel that the 

experiences of educators at my school can provide some insights into the impact that IDEA has on 

the time demands on a school's resources. With a student population of more than 715, with a 29 

percent minority representation, in a predominantly upper middle-class community, we are 

currently staffed with five full-time learning disabilities teachers, two teachers for children with 

emotional disabilities, a speech and language clinician, and four Special Education instructional 

assistants. Our student population includes 102 students receiving some Special Education 

services. Furthermore, to enhance inclusion, we will be adding another teacher and instructional 

assistant.

 Itinerant teachers also serve students who need physical and/or occupational therapy.

Finally, to assist one hard-of-hearing student, a full-time sign language interpreter is assigned to 

our building. Thus, the total of current full-time Special Education staff is eight, with six support 

staff and two part-time itinerant teachers. 

 This staffing is an example of the commitment that my school district has made to the 

22,000 Special Education children and parents in our community. We have a well-trained cadre of 

over 2,000 Special Education teachers who work collaboratively in meeting the needs of students, 
11

many of whom receive support from more than one Special Education teacher. 

 For us, the frustrations in trying to provide services to students as required by their IEPs 

arise when paperwork requirements compete with the available instructional time. Attached in my 

testimony is a chart that describes the time each professional spends on a student who qualifies for 

services under IDEA from teacher referral to IEP. The 83.5 hours represent the average minimum 

requirement for each student. This time drain has a negative impact on the teacher and ultimately 

the student, two of our most valuable resources. 

 The cost associated with the 83.5-hour average is also significant. Based on an average 

salary of $60,000 per year for professional staff, the per-student cost of the initial process of 

identification through the development of the first IEP is nearly $4,000 per student. Multiplied by 

the 22,000 Special Education students in Fairfax County, the total average per-student cost of 

identification through the initial IEP, before any actual special services have begun, is more than 

$86 million. 

 From my desk at Oak View, I do not have the broad picture of IDEA's impact on public 

education across the country. But I do believe the facts of Fairfax County can inform the debate. I 

have brought those compulsory documents that are regularly used for the majority of meetings held 

at Oak View to identify needs and prescribe services under IDEA, as well as an actual IEP. I'm 

also submitting excerpts from a budget document prepared by the Fairfax County Public Schools 

that will help define the many levels and expenses of Special Education services provided by my 

school system. 

 The immediate impact of reduced paperwork requirements for educators will be increased 

instructional contact with children. As a principal, I request that you consider the following nine 

recommendations: 

1. Reduce the number of required times during the school year when the procedural 

safeguards are distributed and explained. The document we provide to parents in 

Fairfax County is 15 pages long. 

2. Provide a list of all the documents that are required for identifying and serving each 

Special Education student. That would help reduce the chances of states requiring 

unnecessary documents. 

3. Standardize sections of the IEP to reduce the time needed before students moving 

between districts or states can be served. 

4. Provide funding for technology to automate the written components of the IEP 

process.

5. Allow for the same classroom accommodations to be used for all regular state and 

county assessments, eliminating the need for additional paperwork or meetings 

when new assessments are added. 
12

6. Consider simplifying the process of amending the IEP during its one-year term, and 

make the amendment process part of the regular communication between teacher 

and parent. 

7. When possible, tie the IEP goals to the annual assessments required under the Leave 

No Child Behind Act, eliminating the short-term objectives that impose a heavy 

time requirement on the teacher. 

8. Consider reducing the time classroom teachers are required to participate in IEP 

meetings. When classroom coverage for both the Special Education and general 

education teachers is needed, resources must be taken from other parts of the 

instructional program. 

9. And finally, consider lengthening the time frame of the IEP, retaining the formal 

process for a child's major transition points. This new approach would allow for a 

more collaborative process for ongoing review of the student's progress. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present 

the principals' viewpoint on this very important topic. It would be my pleasure and that of NAESP 

to provide any additional information you desire. We look forward to working with you and other 

federal legislators on the gamut of issues associated with the reauthorization of IDEA. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GREGORY LOCK, PRINCIPAL, OAK VIEW 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FAIRFAX, VA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 

(NAESP), ALEXANDRIA, VA – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Lock, I believe I have in my hand all the documents that you referenced in 

terms of what you deal with. And we will submit these for the record en bloc as a whole. I think 

each Member has them on their desk, if they wish to examine them. And we thank you for your 

testimony. 

Ms. Neas? 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE BEH NEAS, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS, AND COCHAIR, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS 

WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION TASK FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
13

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Katherine Beh Neas, and I speak to you today 

as one of the four co-Chairs of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Education Task Force.

I am also Assistant Vice President for Government Relations for Easter Seals. 

 The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities is a coalition of nearly 100 national 

organizations representing consumers, advocates, providers, and professional organizations, and we 

are headquartered here in Washington. We advocate on behalf of all people with disabilities, of all 

ages and all types of disabilities and their families. And I appreciate very much the opportunity to 

be with you today. 

 I bring you greetings from one of my friends, Claire Huckel, who is a teacher at the Easter 

Seals preschool program in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. You have a picture of Claire with one of 

her students. When Claire was an infant in the early 1970s, her doctor told her family she would 

probably never feed herself, and might be best placed in a home for children with disabilities. 

 Her family accepted the diagnosis, but not the prognosis. When Claire was 3, she began 

attending the Easter Seals preschool, where she received Special Education and related services.

According to her father, she grew stronger and learned to walk with confidence. At age 6, she was 

ready to enter first grade, and her parents enrolled her in elementary school. Claire was the only 

child with a disability in her class. 

 Claire was a pioneer, one of the few young people with disabilities in her elementary, junior 

high, and high schools. As Claire says, “It wasn't always easy. My mom and I had to work with 

each school and many teachers to explain my disability and help them adapt to my need for 

accessibility.” Claire graduated with honors from high school and college, earning a teaching 

degree and then a master's degree in Special Education. Claire now works at the Easter Seals 

program she attended as a child. “It was my dream,” she said, “to help children like I was. And 

the best part is that my teacher is still there and now is my colleague.” 

 IDEA is a good law that has literally transformed the lives of children with disabilities and 

their families. Over the last 26 years, millions of children with disabilities like Claire have received 

appropriate early intervention, preschool and Special Education, and related services thanks to 

IDEA. The success of IDEA is also evidenced by the following accomplishments. 

 The number of children with developmental disabilities who must live in state institutions 

away from their families has been dramatically reduced. More young children are entering school 

ready to learn. More students with disabilities participate in state and district-wide assessments. 

Effective practices are implemented in schools across the country. More students with disabilities 

are completing high school. And more people with disabilities who want to work are working. 

 Congress significantly reformed IDEA in 1997. For the first time, children with disabilities 

are required to have access to the general curriculum. The vast majority of students with 

disabilities are expected to participate in state and district-wide assessments. These two 

requirements will go a long way to raise expectations for the educational outcomes of students with 

disabilities. It is important to note that we are ending the second full school year during which the 
14

1997 reforms have been available to be implemented in our nation's schools. 

 The No Child Left Behind Act makes many new and necessary reforms to our public 

education system, of which Special Education is a part. The new law requires states to establish a 

single statewide accountability system. States must define adequate yearly progress, to include 

annual statewide measurable objectives for improving achievement for all students, including 

students with disabilities. CCD remains hopeful that student education achievement will continue 

to rise as more schools effectively implement IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act. We urge 

the Committee to give states the opportunity to implement these existing requirements. 

 While there are many schools across the country in which children with disabilities are well 

educated, implementation of IDEA is uneven. Shortages of qualified personnel are critical and 

persistent. Funding for the three state grant programs and the discretionary grant programs have 

never been adequate. IDEA, as reformed in the 1997 amendments, and when fully implemented 

and enforced, provides states and local school systems a framework to improve educational 

outcomes for students with disabilities. 

 Our system of public education is responsible for educating all students, including students 

with disabilities. Only when Special Education and general education work together can we be 

confident that no child will be left behind. To this end, the Committee should build on the policies 

set forth in H.R. 1 and require that all Special Education teachers and other education personnel are 

qualified and certified by 2005. Research has demonstrated that the most significant factor of 

student achievement is the quality of the education personnel. 

 In addition, all IDEA programs, the Part C early intervention program, the Section 619 

preschool program, Part B, the discretionary programs of Part D, must be fully funded. All Part B 

funds must remain in education. Many of our task force members are advocating for indexing Part 

D funding at 10 percent of Part B funding. Many of our task force members also believe that tens 

of thousands of young children with disabilities who could benefit from Part C early intervention 

programs are not being served. 

 And finally, Mr. Chairman, the task force understands that the Committee is committed to 

increasing educational outcomes for students with disabilities served by IDEA. In reauthorizing 

the law, the task force urges the Committee to analyze carefully each issue of concern to determine 

whether the concern results from a problem with the current statute or a problem of inappropriate, 

ineffective, or incomplete implementation of the current statute. Such an analysis should give you 

the determination of whether changes are required to enhance implementation of the current law, or 

whether requirements of the statute need to be changed. 

 We have provided a set of guiding principles to assist you in your review of this, and thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KATHERINE BEH NEAS, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS, AND CO-
15

CHAIR, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH 

DISABILITIES EDUCATION TASK FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Neas, for your testimony. We look forward to having further 

discussions with you in a few minutes. 

 And Ms. Margolis will be our clean-up hitter. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS, PARENT, AND ATTORNEY, 

MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER (MDLC), BALTIMORE, MD 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Leslie Seid 

Margolis, and I am the parent of a nearly eight-year-old child with lissencephaly, a rare genetic 

brain development disorder that results in significant physical and cognitive disabilities. Despite 

the severity of my daughter Pazya's disabilities, she currently is fully included in a regular first 

grade class in a Baltimore City public school. 

 I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the IDEA. My perspective is based 

not only on my experiences as a parent of a child who benefits tremendously from the IDEA, but 

also in my professional status as a managing attorney at the Maryland Disability Law Center, 

Maryland's protection and advocacy agency, where I have worked on Special Education issues 

since 1985. 

 As a parent, and as somebody who has spent a good deal of time thinking about the IDEA 

professionally, I want to make several points today. First, the IDEA is an essential statute. It is not 

a law that needs to be dismantled or amended beyond recognition. It is, rather, a statute that needs 

to be fully implemented. Second, effective implementation of the IDEA depends on meaningful 

monitoring and enforcement by the Office of Special Education Programs, by states, and by local 

school systems. 

 Let me expand on these points. More than 25 years after enactment of the IDEA, we still 

struggle to ensure that it is implemented at all, let alone effectively, for students in every school 

district in the country. In attempting to answer the question of why this is so, many people 

erroneously conclude that there's a problem with the statute itself. In fact, however, much of the 

lack of implementation of the IDEA is attributable to inadequate monitoring and enforcement at the 

state level, and to a federal monitoring system that sweeps too broadly, focuses too much on 

procedures and too little on substance, fails to produce timely monitoring reports, and engages in 

enforcement action only rarely and inconsistently. 

 The problems with federal monitoring have been persistent and pervasive enough that 

several years ago a number of advocates, later joined by state Special Ed directors, OSEP staff, and 

others, worked together to develop a focused monitoring and enforcement framework that, if 
16

implemented, could affect significant change. The current draft of that proposal is attached to my 

testimony. 

 As we have conceptualized focused monitoring, a broad group of people would identify a 

few significant priorities, those aspects of the IDEA that, if implemented, would truly make a 

difference for students with disabilities. And it is those priorities that would then be monitored 

using a data based and verifiable system with provision of supports and capacity building to school 

systems, and when necessary, a utilization of sanctions. 

 I am concerned that OSEP may lack the ability or the will to make this system real. I 

understand that OSEP must function in a world that is full of political pressure and fraught with the 

tension that comes from the need to have a cooperative relationship with the very agencies for 

which OSEP is charged with oversight responsibilities. However, OSEP must use its enforcement 

authority.

 The answer to lack of implementation of the IDEA is not dismemberment of the IDEA. It 

is, rather, enforcement. It is unconscionable to acknowledge, as OSERS' previous assistant 

secretary did, that parents have been the primary enforcers of the IDEA, and then fail to act to 

change that situation. Parents rightfully have, and must retain, the ability to participate in the 

decisions that affect their children's education and to challenge those decisions when they wish to 

do so. But parents should not be responsible for the enforcement role that rightfully belongs to the 

Department of Education, to states, and to local school systems. 

 I know that several options are being considered to address IDEA enforcement issues, such 

as transferring enforcement responsibility to the Department of Justice or to the Office of Civil 

Rights. While there is certainly a role for the Department of Justice in enforcement, I do not 

believe that wholesale transfer for either of these options would effectively ensure implementation 

of the IDEA. 

 What is needed, I think, is a clear directive from Congress to the Department of Education 

that the Department of Education use the enforcement authority it already has. Perhaps this would 

happen if the same staff at OSEP did not have responsibility both for technical assistance and for 

enforcement. Or perhaps consideration should be given to creation of an Office of the Inspector 

General for IDEA enforcement purposes. 

 I do believe that if OSEP adopted a true focused monitoring system, enforcement 

responsibility would be easier to exercise, because the parameters of OSEP intervention would be 

clearly defined and because all decisions would be based on verifiable data. 

 My daughter is one of the children for whom the IDEA was enacted. I have no doubt that if 

she had been born 25 years earlier, the doors to the schoolhouse would have been slammed firmly 

in her face. Instead, thanks to the IDEA, she has had the opportunity to attend preschool, 

kindergarten, and first grade with children who do not have disabilities, children who have 

exhibited gentleness and enthusiasm with her, and children who consider her their friend. She in 

turn has had the benefit of specialized services and a stimulating environment with children who 
17

make her happy. 

 I devoted my professional life to the IDEA for many years before I became a parent. My 

commitment to ensuring the fulfillment of the promise of the IDEA has only increased since I 

became a parent. I urge the Members of this Committee to promote effective monitoring and 

enforcement of the IDEA rather than promoting changes to the IDEA itself. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LESLIE SEID MARGOLIS, PARENT, AND 

ATTORNEY, MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER (MDLC), 

BALTIMORE, MD - SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Margolis, and I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

 We will now turn to the Members for the question-and-answer period. Let me remind you 

that there are five of you and perhaps you will get asked half a question apiece; you probably can't 

all comment on everything that happens. 

 I will yield first to myself for five minutes. So let me just start by saying that I agree with 

what Ms. Neas said, that IDEA is a good law that has transformed students and families. I do not 

have a problem with that. But even when you have good laws, which have helped transform 

individuals and given them opportunity, there still could be aspects about them that could be better. 

And that is really what we are trying to deal with. 

 We hear, not just complaints, but have statistical evidence of concerns about paperwork, 

which we have heard about here today. The whole question of over identification, the whole legal 

component, and how that works, the expense of all this in various aspects, some of which is 

anecdotal, some of which is perhaps a little beyond anecdotal, needs to be explored. And these are 

the kinds of things I think we should be looking at. So that is what I am looking for. 

 With that, let me start with Dr. Tynan and ask you what specific reforms to IDEA will help 

the Special Education system empower students to overcome their learning disabilities by 

equipping them with coping and compensatory mechanisms? That is sort of a broad question. 

Perhaps you could answer it a little more succinctly than my question? 

Dr. Tynan. Yes, thank you. I believe, in terms of children with learning disabilities, Dr. Reid 

Lyon at National Institute of Child Health and Development who hasn’t testified yet before this 

Committee, has written extensively about the need for teaching reading effectively in the early 

grades, in other words early identification of children who are experiencing reading problems. We 

can identify children in first grade who are having a hard time with reading. 

 Under the current learning disabilities classification in the IDEA, that is a system that waits 

for the child to fail. They have to fall behind a certain amount, and their achievement scores have 
18

to fall either one standard deviation or 20 points below the IQ score before they would formally be 

classified. It varies from district to district. And I agree with Dr. Lyon's suggestion that we teach 

and identify children with reading problems early, and institute some compensatory reading 

strategies.

 I know in the state of Iowa, they do not do the same sort of testing they do in most other 

states. I believe they have some type of waiver, and they really do work on the reading problems 

early, to identify the children early. 

 With children in the other category, the group I work with the most, children with attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, I think training teachers in all areas of education, both regular and 

Special Education and behavior management, is essential. Teachers are not required to learn how 

to manage behavior effectively. It is not a requirement for teacher certification. So teacher 

certification is not going to help this issue. 

Dr. George Sugai's positive behavioral intervention support program, which was a program 

funded by the Department of Education, is an excellent example. Brian Touchette, with the 

Delaware State Department of Education, heads a teacher training program. Currently I think it 

trains teachers in 12 school districts. I am currently doing a program where I am basically 

volunteering my time to do the same thing in the Catholic schools. 

 So, two steps to help that huge group of children with learning disabilities and ADHD, 

which overlap quite a bit, would be teaching teachers to manage behavior and doing a better job 

with reading. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Tynan. Mr. Lock, I am going to ask you a question. You may 

not know the answer to this. If you don't, just tell us you don't. 

 You have submitted a lot of paperwork here. We always hear about paperwork, but we are 

happy to see it. Maybe you are not, but we were happy to see it in the Committee. But where does 

this paperwork burden come from? When you go to schools, they get a little confused about this, 

but does it come from federal law, federal regulations? Does it come from state law and/or 

regulations? Does it come from local district or local school requirements? Do you have any feel 

for that? 

 I mean, everyone, virtually everyone complains about it. Everyone complains about the 

IEPs and the amount of time, and the way they take away from the kids. But sometimes it becomes 

confusing to me as to whether it is coming from us here at the Federal Government or a more 

localized circumstance. 

Mr. Lock. Well, Mr. Castle, being at the bottom of the food chain and having to implement the 

laws that have been made, and also in talking with our district Special Education administrators, 

my sense is that all of the paperwork that you have before you is required by federal regulations. 

 It is not clear to me, and I just don't have the background to be able to say that in my own 

state of Virginia, how much of the regulations are a part of what Virginia requires, and how much 
19

of that is derived from the Federal Government. 

Chairman Castle. You have never actually analyzed it as to where it really comes from? 

Mr. Lock. No, sir, I haven't. 

Chairman Castle. You just know it is there. 

Mr. Lock. I just know that in the book, I have to fill out the paper and I just go through it page by 

page.

Chairman Castle. Okay.

I actually wanted to ask questions of everyone, but I won't have a chance. But Ms. Neas, if 

I could ask this question. You sort of touched on this a little bit in your testimony. But what 

strategies do you recommend that we, the Subcommittee and the Full Committee, consider to 

ensure access to early intervention services for all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and 

their families? 

 I notice in your success story about your friend, you referred to the fact that help started at 

the age of 3. I happen to believe all that is very important as well, and I was wondering if you had 

any further thoughts on that? 

Ms. Neas. I do. And one step you have already taken two weeks ago in the passage of the Keep 

Children Safe Act is the added provision that would require Child Protective Services to develop 

policies with the state early intervention programs, so that children that are part of the child abuse 

system are referred to determine whether or not they have a disability, whether or not they might be 

able to benefit from IDEA. 

 One of the reasons we wanted to see that change happen was many of these children don't 

live with their families. They might be with an aunt and uncle or a grandparent. And they may 

have no idea what system or services are out there, and so trying to help those families make 

connections with this is one step that I hope will happen by the end of this Congress. 

 The other thing is simply having enough resources at the state level. In some of the states 

we have been working with, the people who are responsible for finding children have many, many 

other responsibilities. And many of them don't have the training in child development to know 

when a child is at risk for developmental delay and who might benefit. 

 We are certainly doing a lot of work with health care centers, with Head Start programs, to 

try to find them, also at WIC offices and wherever you find children. We've actually even done 

screenings at Wal-Marts and Dollar General stores, places where young children go, to try to get 

them information about these programs. Not everyone is eligible, but at least the families have the 

information. They can figure out if maybe this is something that might be helpful to them, and then 

take the steps necessary to determine if they are eligible. 
20

Chairman Castle. Thank you very much, Ms. Neas, I appreciate it. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lock, first of all, my three children attended schools 

in Fairfax County, a very good school system. They went there from first grade through 12th 

grade; that started about 26 years ago. 

 Let me ask you this question. You talked about paperwork, and we all worry about that. 

But in my own state, I can go from one school district to another and find a different IEP, for 

example, for two students with basically the same disability. One will have an IEP of 25 pages, 

and one will have an IEP of two pages. Both meet the federal standards. And I think I am joining 

in the Chairman's question trying to determine how much of this paperwork is generated by state 

education authorities (SEAs) or local education authorities (LEAs), and how much really is a 

federal requirement. You say those who report to you feel that they are basically federal 

requirements, yet my experience has been that very often it is the states that pile on the paperwork. 

Mr. Lock. One of the issues that we have at the local school, and I face this a lot, is we have a 

tremendously mobile society in Fairfax County and this area, with a lot of students coming and 

going, transitioning. 

Mr. Kildee. There is no school district, probably in the country, more mobile than Flint, Michigan. 

Mr. Lock. Well, the problem that we face as students come and go is that we do see a lot of IEPs 

that come in that were written in other districts. It could be in Arlington or Falls Church, it could 

be Flint, Michigan. It becomes necessary for us at that point to take a look at the packet that we 

request from the previous school if the parent does deliver it to us and go through that document 

and pull out the information. Generally, we are looking for the information about the child’s 

eligibility for whatever services that they were receiving. We look at the next component of the 

IEP, which would be the kinds of services, the amount of time being provided, and the different 

resources that that district had to provide the services. 

 And then we have to convene our own IEP, and rework it into what we are able to provide 

in Fairfax County based on the child's eligibility and all the testing that was done previously. Now, 

we don't have to go through the entire process, but one thing that would certainly help in the 

amount of time that it takes for us to provide continuous services to a child coming in is to have 

standardized parts of the IEP so that whether a child is coming from across a county line or coming 

from a different part of the country, there are those standardized pieces in place that we could 

incorporate into our own IEP, thereby speeding up the process. 

 The guidelines are really specific about the number of days that we have to complete the 

whole process, from referral all the way to IEP completion. And it is a fairly lengthy process. But 

also, one of the purposes of this Committee is to reduce the amount of paperwork that we go 

through; some kind of standardization in terms of what is required within a child's IEP, I think, 

would be very helpful. 

 Again, I wish I could answer that question, and perhaps receiving testimony from some of 

the states that take the federal guidelines and turn them into state rules would probably be 
21

beneficial to the Committee. I honestly don't know where that change would occur. 

Mr. Kildee. And I didn't mean to diminish the mobility of Fairfax County, because I know my two 

sons and daughter went to school with students from about every state in the Union and many 

countries. So I know that is a fact there. 

Ms. Neas, could you comment on where most of the paperwork is generated or demanded 

from this? Federal or state? 

Ms. Neas. I am pleased to have that question, Mr. Kildee. I think, in looking at Mr. Lock's 

testimony, one of the things that I came away with was how much of that was the result of sound 

educational practice; I mean, of them doing what they should be doing. And IDEA requires an 

individualized program for each child, and that means that people have to figure out what that is. It 

isn't just if a child has a disability, that they are automatically going to have a certain set of needs. 

 And while I appreciate that there are only 24 hours in a day and that people are working 

hard, I think that some of the things in that paperwork are the result of sound educational practice 

to determine that kids are getting the services and supports that they need, and that their teachers 

are getting the services and supports that they need. 

 So I think there are two ways to look at this issue. One is, is it just paperwork? And I think 

all of our offices would demonstrate that we are all drowning in paperwork, and I think that is true 

in the education profession as well. But what is the difference between what you don't need and 

things that are really critical for sound educational performance? 

Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, I will probably come back to a second round of questions. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.

I yield five minutes of time for questioning to Mr. Keller. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a brief statement, and then I am going to ask a 

few questions about the paperwork issue. 

 I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on IDEA or Special Education, and so to educate 

myself a little bit, I decided to go into my district and teach two Special Education classes at two 

different schools. I taught classes at Lake Silver Elementary School, which is our main magnet 

school where special-needs children go, and Edgewater High School, our largest high school in 

Orlando, Florida, in the downtown area. And what I learned from that experience is there are 

essentially three problems, according to the teachers and administrators: paperwork, discipline, and 

the fact that we are paying to the tune of $110,000 per year for some students, whereas the average 

student only costs $5,500 per year. 

 Paperwork was the biggest and by far most complained-about issue. The teachers who I 

worked alongside of spent an average of two hours per day on paperwork, and then one day over 

the weekend. And it is not just IEPs, but just silly stuff. For example, they had to fill out 
22

paperwork saying we are proving that we are offering you this summer class and you have elected 

not to take it. Well, you and I know that if you were in high school and there was a calculus class, 

if you want it, you sign up for it. You don't have to fill out paperwork proving they have offered all 

these classes and you have declined them. 

 Also, those teachers, as Mr. Castle was saying, were confused. They didn't know if the 

paperwork was coming from the Federal Government, the state government, or the local school 

district. All they knew is they were spending their weekends doing paperwork, and they were 

spending a lot of time pushing a pencil when they should be teaching. 

 The other problem was discipline. And I asked, “What kind of discipline problems?” They 

said, the kids bring guns to school, and if they are special-needs, they can't expel the child. All 

they can do is suspend him for ten days. There was extreme pornographic and profane language 

used sometimes; they can't do anything more. And they felt that some of these children were 

purposefully being disrespectful to the children because they knew they could get away with it. 

And that was causing some resentment among the other children. 

 And then finally, as I mentioned, some parents are demanding the Rolls-Royce treatment 

for their children; round-the-clock nurses and a special van. And they are paying $110,000 for 

certain children, and mainly for fear of litigation. 

 So I want to address the paperwork issue, Mr. Chairman. One thing that has become 

apparent here from our witnesses is that we need some sort of study by the Department of 

Education to tell us what the burdens and regulations are that are causing all of these problems and 

all of this time. And maybe we should consider a wholesale repeal of these regulations and start 

again.

 So let me begin with you, Dr. Wolf. If you had a magic wand, and your task was to reduce 

the paperwork to one hour a day during the planning period, what would you do if you were a 

Member of Congress? 

Dr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Keller. Basically, I think my read on the paperwork problem is reflected 

in the comment you made about fear of litigation. I suspect that a lot of the paperwork that reaches 

the average Special Education teacher and administrator is a trickle-down result. I mean, you start 

with a series of requirements in IDEA '97, and states take a look at that, and maybe there is some 

ambiguity regarding them, and just to be on the safe side, to protect themselves against litigation, 

they formulate a long list of specific requirements that they place on the local school district. And 

then that whole process repeats itself. 

 I don't mean to dodge the question, but instead of focusing on a specific regulation, I would 

urge this Committee to seriously consider reducing the number of requirements in the legislation, 

and also, if possible, to increase their specificity, so that there isn't a lot of ambiguity that courts 

could interpret in different ways and that would encourage lawsuits. And hopefully that would 

result in the administrators lower down in the hierarchy being less concerned about the long list. 
23

 A good example is Baltimore, where litigation was required to actually get full 

implementation of the IDEA act. And when you combined the court-ordered paperwork 

requirements and procedures, with the response from local administrators, it resulted in 350 

auditable standards that were placed upon local administrators. And they had to check the boxes 

on all 350 of those every time. 

 So I think a lot of the problem comes with the combination of the legal rights and the risk of 

litigation with a large number of requirements and some ambiguity regarding those requirements. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you. I would love to have your other comments, but my time is up, so I will 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Before I yield to Mr. Scott, I am going to take the Chairman's prerogative to 

editorialize for a minute about the exchange that just took place. 

 I really do feel that somebody should be looking at the amount of paperwork, even this 

Committee or perhaps somebody beyond it, perhaps a broad group that would include lawyers and 

advocates and everybody else. And I do understand that when you are dealing with children with 

disabilities, I think you need an individual education plan. You are going to need probably more 

intensive paperwork than you would for the average student. 

 But having said that, I have heard this complaint so often, from so many people over the 

course of a couple decades now in government, that I believe there is some justification for the fact 

that we are spending the time of too many individuals and too many dollars on this. And some of it 

is probably as procedural as the dickens. 

 Now, I couldn't begin to tell you what is and what isn't, or where it comes from or where it 

doesn't. I don't have that knowledge. But the problem is, for us as a Committee, we don't have a 

good resource that we could go to, to really separate the wheat from the chaff and tell us what is 

right and what is wrong. And I would like to have that done. I am not asking questions. Mr. Scott 

will be asking the questions. 

 But I just point that out. It is a concern that I have, and by the way, if we get through this 

hearing, you are free to write to us or comment otherwise on some of these things, because there 

are legitimate questions that we do need to try to get answers to as we go through the legislation. 

 But let me yield five minutes of questioning to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. 

Ms. Neas, we heard a suggestion, I think, that you can't discipline students. When we 

started out with IDEA, many disabled students were getting no services at all. And with a 

cessation policy, there is a significant financial incentive on the school system not to provide 

services. The present law prohibits them from ceasing services. And I guess my question is, first, 

can you, in fact, remove a student from the classroom for disciplinary reasons, and why should we 

require a continuation of services for a child that has been removed, even when the child ends up in 
24

another classroom, another school, at home, or even in prison? 

Ms. Neas. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

First of all, IDEA at this moment in time allows any school personnel to remove any child 

for up to ten days, just like they could do for any other student. There is nothing in the law that 

prohibits a child that does something, violates his school code of conduct, from being immediately 

removed. The rules are for how long based on the violation, but absolutely, schools can remove a 

child today, at any time, when they violate the school code of conduct. 

 Why do you continue services for children with disabilities? Our research has shown that 

when kids don't get their services continued, they usually drop out. These kids usually don't come 

back to school, and they usually get into more trouble if that is what their problem is. All kids get 

into trouble when they aren't connected with the education system; our kids seem to fall farther 

behind. And it is also important to continue educating services wherever they may be. 

 One of the things that we want to say about the whole issue of discipline is if a student is 

posing a discipline problem, there is something probably wrong with that child's intervention 

program, and you need to look and see why it is happening and what can be done to accommodate 

it? A child may not fit in a particular classroom, and so maybe there are other supports or some 

other place where that child could be successful. The current law already allows for all those 

questions and that dialogue to take place. 

Mr. Scott. And we have found that those who do not receive services are much more likely to end 

up in prison? 

Ms. Neas. Absolutely. 

Mr. Scott. And so we end up spending more in the long run. 

 One part of IDEA that is often overlooked is Part C. In fact, Ms. Neas, it ended up at the 

end of your statement and I am not sure anybody else even mentioned it. Can you explain why 

services are important at ages 1 and 2 instead of waiting till 5 years old to provide services? 

Ms. Neas. Absolutely. For anyone who has been a parent for the first time, I always say they don’t 

give you an owner's manual. When you bring the baby home from the hospital they just say, 

“Okay, you have to figure it out, mom.” 

 For families with a kid with special needs, they need extra help figuring out what it means 

for that child, and what it means for that child to learn to hold their bottle by themselves, or learn to 

sit up, or learn to roll over. And all those things need to happen before children can do the next set 

of things that they need to do. Until you can help families facilitate the development of their 

children, those children are going to go to school having greater health care needs. You know, if a 

child with cerebral palsy doesn't get physical therapy, and their whole body curls up like a ball, the 

only way that you are going to get them to be able to use their arms and legs and be productive is 
25

probably by surgery, as opposed to having physical therapy when they are very young. 

 How do you include a child with a significant disability in the regular course of your family 

life, going to church, or going to Grandma's for Sunday dinner? Those are all the things that are 

really important that the early intervention system helps families do; helping families learn to be 

families. 

Mr. Scott. Now, on a cost-benefit basis, do we get more bang for the buck for the marginal 

students? I mean, for a couple of hundred dollars, can we get services that are significantly 

meaningful? 

Ms. Neas. Absolutely. I think you get services for a very young child so that they gain the skills 

that they need to go to the next level of development. We see lots of kids who get early 

intervention services who go to regular preschool. They don't need Special Ed preschool; they can 

go to Head Start, they can participate in their neighborhood childcare program. They don't need 

extra services. If they didn't have anything, when they showed up at kindergarten for the first day, 

they would be woefully behind their peers. 

Mr. Scott. And I just want to make a comment, Mr. Chairman that many of these services can be 

done in group settings. So parental training and that kind of thing is relatively inexpensive 

compared with $100,000 per student and can do so much. So I would hope, Mr. Chairman that we 

would look at Part C particularly for additional funding. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Scott. By the way for reference, we have broken the threshold 

of $200,000 per student now. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Margolis, first of all, you seem to be stressing early intervention and early childhood 

learning. How do we find the zero to three, and the three to five year old children for educational 

purposes? I think that P.L. 94-142 applies to ages 3 to 21, is that correct? 

Ms. Margolis. In terms of finding the children, it is really important that school systems have 

child-find programs in place as required by the IDEA, and figure out how to do television 

announcements and newspapers ads. 

 We have seen in Maryland that getting children identified at an early age has not been 

nearly as much of a problem as some resistance on the part of some school systems to identify 

older children, who have a history of behavior issues. We see in our discipline project, cases come 

to us for disciplinary reasons. When we look at those cases, often they are children who have not 

been identified despite repeated suspensions for maybe 40, 50 days a year for four or five years in a 

row. And the school system either has refused to go through the evaluation process or has found 

that they don't have disabilities, and then later they are identified, but they have lost a number of 

years of their lives.
26

So it is the identification. I see an issue with identification at a later age, more than a 

problem at an early age, at least in my state. 

Mrs. Biggert. Would you like to say something? 

Ms. Neas. We are doing a lot of work with childcare providers across the country to help them 

understand the developmental needs of kids with special needs. Many of the children that we see 

have been kicked out of a number of childcare centers for behavior, or they weren't included in the 

first place because the center didn't think that they could accommodate them. 

 I think we have a bridge to build between the generic early childhood community and the 

Special Ed early childhood community. We are hoping to see this happen this year with the 

reauthorization of the childcare and development block grants and with IDEA, in order to have 

some corresponding links especially between the training resources for childcare providers and 

how to spot a potential disability. The final link would be the steps to take to get that family hooked 

into that 800 number, where to call, and what to do. That would help a lot. 

Mrs. Biggert. Both of you are saying that we miss a lot of young children that should be included 

in this. My experience and what people have said to me is that sometimes the schools actually 

place children there that shouldn't be. I know there was the story of one child who after five years 

in placement, was discovered to have no learning disability and had not achieved their potential 

once they were removed from that. 

 Is that a problem? I see a couple heads nodding here. Dr. Wolf, and Dr. Tynan? 

Dr. Wolf. Yes, ma'am, it is a problem. And we can see how the incentives push in that direction in 

some cases, particularly under a strong results-oriented accountability system like the No Child 

Left Behind system. It does create some incentives for local districts, if a child is not performing 

well, to assume that it is because of a disability, and then exempt them from testing and 

accountability requirements. And that is why I think it is particularly important that the 

accountability provisions in IDEA should track those of the regular education programs as much as 

possible, to remove that incentive to mislabel children who are struggling as disabled. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Dr. Tynan? 

Dr. Tynan. Yes, we also know statistically that African American children are twice as likely to be 

classified as mentally retarded and more likely to be classified as learning disabled, and some 

parents feel that this is a new form of segregation. I know in the Wilmington area, many African 

American families prefer to send their children to parochial schools or Christian schools to avoid 

that whole issue, and these children are educated quite well in those private school settings. 

 In my own practice in the last year, I have seen three or four children, all African American, 

referred for “hyperactivity,” and when I test them I find out they are gifted intellectually, a thought 

that never occurred to the teacher as this little boy was buzzing around the room. So identification 

is a problem, and good early screening and assessment are problems, and there are some biases still 
27

out there. 

Mrs. Biggert. And do you think that we have not made the identification process precise enough? 

Should be alternatives if you have a child that is very rambunctious? There are some teachers who 

say, “I just don't want to deal with this.” 

Dr. Tynan. Exactly. Teachers need to be trained to manage behavior more effectively, and to 

appropriately look at things more in terms of developmental stages. That would be the first step. 

Again, a lot of teachers in the K through 3 are wonderful, but some of them don't appreciate the 

range of developmental behaviors you can see in children that age. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am really thrilled to have five experts on IDEA in front of me, because it is a very 

complicated subject. I don't profess to be that familiar with it, other than to say that I have some 

employees and friends who have children who have had problems, and who have suffered trying to 

get their children identified within the system. And so I can understand, as a parent, some of the 

concerns and the problems that exist there. 

 I also, of course, have school districts that are pulling their hair out with respect to how to 

get this done, and why it is costing so much money. I truly believe, to go back to something that 

Dr. Wolf said about paperwork and litigation that the reason we see so much paperwork is because 

people are afraid. 

 In my district there are similar cases, speaking of $100,000. I have a kid in my district that 

has to be flown to Wyoming to go fishing every weekend, according to his little IPA plan, because 

that is what is going to be the best thing to make him move forward and is the right thing for him. 

In that particular case, we are talking about a quarter of a million dollars. Believe me that is not the 

least expensive of the ones that I see out in Orange County California. 

 First, I would like to ask Ms. Margolis, as a parent, what do you think would be a limit on 

the amount of money that we should spend on a child if a child has some sort of a problem? Do 

you think it would be unfair to say that we shouldn't spend more than $100,000 considering that we 

are only paying $5,500 for a regular kid? No kid is “regular” anymore in the classroom, by the 

way. I have a mom who teaches, so I know that. But as a parent, what would you say to something 

like that? 

Ms. Margolis. I would be extremely offended by the idea of a limit on the amount of money to be 

spent. I think it is important to recognize that the number of children who require what are 

perceived to be extraordinarily expensive programs are often children who have been very ill-
28

served by their school systems for a number of years. This exacerbates the disabilities and 

exacerbates the problems they have, so that by the time they are older and clearly need another 

placement, their disability has become more severe, and they have let this be a failure in the school 

system. 

 So I think because the IDEA is based on the individualized needs of students it would be 

completely contrary to the intent of the law, and completely offensive to me as a parent, and I am 

sure to others, to think that our children are worth a certain amount of money. 

Ms. Sanchez. Tell me why you think it offensive. 

Ms. Margolis. Why? Because it says to us that our children are only worth a certain amount of 

money. And it feeds into what I think a lot of us perceive as an idea on the part of society that 

somehow our children, or somehow we as their parents, are worth less because they have 

disabilities. And I think it perpetuates that notion. 

Ms. Sanchez. Okay.

This is a question for administrators. Would it make your life easier if you knew that you 

had some sort of a cap per child for whatever it was that you were trying to do, or would that just 

hinder your ability to help that child? 

Mr. Lock. I can really only speak to the experiences and the frustrations that my teachers and I 

have had. I have been working with elementary-age children for nearly 30 years, both as a teacher 

and as administrator. I have never been out of school. 

 The whole question of over identification of students, I think, is a difficult one to answer, 

because it has been my experience that on the one hand we have parents clamoring to have children 

identified for Special Education services because the kind of Special Ed programs that probably 

were in vogue 10 to 20 years ago are not what we see in practice in the schools today. 

 We have Special Ed teachers who work in the general classroom with Special Education 

children, providing support to those children in an inclusion setting. Parents whose children are not 

successful in school, whose children are underachieving, who may have disabilities that do not 

meet the criteria for placement under IDEA in that district, want as much as they can and parents 

should be the main advocate for their child. 

 I have had parents in the last 10 or 15 years really change from not wanting their child to be 

identified as a Special Education child to parents clamoring to have that resource, because they like 

the way that we implement it. We want to include children in the mainstream. We don't want to 

focus attention on children, or remove them from what other general education children are 

receiving.

 So in order to do that, it has required additional staffing to make that happen. It requires 

additional training to make that happen. Certainly we spend a lot of time on staff development with 

our own general education teachers and meeting the needs of our growing numbers and diverse 
29

population of students. 

 Again, in my experience there are more and more parents who come and proffer their own 

child for screening, and then may appeal the decision of our school committee when we say, “we 

don't believe your child will be found eligible for Special Ed under the guidelines that we have.” 

We have parents appealing that decision because they want the services for their child. So many 

times now, we have to broker that. 

 I don't know if over identification is related to a much more proactive parent community, a 

much more educated parent community, who are familiar with the resources and use whatever 

resources they can for their child. 

 I wanted to comment earlier on the atmosphere that my colleagues have spoken about here 

regarding the fear of litigation. But that really comes into the IEP meeting, so that with all of the 

documents, and all the signatures that we require, the kind of atmosphere that is created in a sense 

could be very adversarial if it weren't for the confidence those parents have, or the trust that they 

have in their school system. It takes a while to develop that; new parents coming in really don't 

have that baseline. 

 So in a sense the kind of dialogue that you would like to see happening, the kind of 

communication between parent and between teacher, whether it is a general ed teacher or the 

Special Ed teacher, I think has been eroded or hampered by the legal aspects and all the paperwork. 

Both school systems and parents feel that if they don't get it documented, and something happens 

down the road, they want to be able to come back to that meeting or those agreements and those 

documents and exploit that. It has had an overall effect, I think, on the kinds of communication and 

dialogue that occur within the school between parents and teachers. 

Ms. Sanchez. May I ask one more question? 

Chairman Castle. You can ask one very short question.

Ms. Sanchez. Okay. This is to Dr. Tynan. 

 You talked about shrinking the disability categories. Would that make certain categories, 

or would it make particular things? For example, there are a lot of kids now who come in and they 

have attention deficit disorder (ADD). Would that be considered as a more mainstream type of 

disability and be moved into the general classroom? What are you advocating in this disability 

category shrinkage? 

Dr. Tynan. Currently, there are 14 or 15 different categories. And I think it would be helpful for a 

child who is experiencing problems in learning and behavior in the classroom, to not concern 

ourselves with an extensive $4,400 evaluation to decide whether it is a learning disability or an 

ADHD problem, and whether it can be categorized into one category or another. It would be 

helpful to just have funds available to recognize that children with these problems are there, and to 

be able to use those funds to supplement the classroom instruction. 
30

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Souder? 

Mr. Souder. I thank you each for your testimony today. It has been very interesting. I have never 

heard a more stirring combination of testimony from both advocates and the public schools as to 

why we should be providing choice.

Generally speaking, when there are parental choice debates, the concern is that the private 

schools might cherry-pick, taking the easiest-to-educate kids out of the system and the kids in the 

schools are left in a wholly different direction. What we have heard today is that there would be 

less paperwork for the public schools and would be a tremendous savings for the public schools if 

these kids were taken out. There would be less unruly classrooms if they were taken out. If the 

numbers that we have heard today were correct, it would be a tremendous value. So it is hard to 

see why anybody really would be against flexibility in best interests of the child and the parent. 

 I also know that this is an incredibly difficult issue. My daughter is a schoolteacher, and 

she is wrestling with it. I have also met with many parents, and the reason the adversarial situation 

developed is that many parents felt that the school system was not responsive. And that is how we 

wound up with a lot of this paperwork and a lot of the lawsuits. In trying to rebuild that 

responsiveness, it has been difficult because it has led to what everybody agrees is now too much 

paperwork. That is partly because of the history and a feeling that we could go back to where we 

were before. And this is not going to be an easy thing for this Committee to address, as to what 

paperwork is required or not. 

 I was fascinated to know there are multiple classes of kids with special needs and 

disabilities, ranging from ones that are very expensive trying to mainstream, to the types that are 

newer and where a lot of the growth in IDEA has been. How do we draft accountability into the 

legislation? I have some concerns and continue to have concerns about national testing and 

disaggregating data down to an individual basis. We cannot have it zeroed in on an individual 

student, which is difficult, because in some small schools there may only be one student. How can 

we figure out how to do that? 

First, let me ask Mr. Lock, and I would like further comments from others, would you 

accept a reduction in paperwork in exchange if you saw improvements in the scores? In other 

words, once the school established that the different categories were learning, could you reduce the 

paperwork? Would that be something that would be acceptable? 

Mr. Lock. The paperwork does have a purpose in outlying. I am not saying get rid of all the 

paperwork; I am not saying that at all. In the testimony I provided, there were nine suggestions 

about ways to reduce the paperwork. 

 Certainly there are things that need to be included to address the goals that the parent and 

the school want to work out for their child. There is an assessment component that is included, not 

only the kinds of assessment that will be done on a regular basis, but also the assessment that is 

either required by the district or the state, and the kinds of accommodations that are going to be 
31

made with that assessment as well. 

 I think what has happened is that we have broken the whole communication process down 

into so many small parts, for some of the reasons that you and others have described, that each part 

almost takes on a life of its own. Whether it is specific objectives that the teacher is going to 

implement in a classroom, whether it is specific accommodations the teacher is going to implement 

in the classroom, or the specific accommodations that the school is going to implement in a testing 

setting, or whether it is a state test or a local test, certainly what we are trying to do is make it very 

clear in the school and parent's mind what our expectations are for this child, and how we are going 

to measure that, and how we are going to report it back to the parents. 

 I don't really see the connection between the volume of paperwork and the academic 

success that a child is having on any kind of assessments. 

Mr. Souder. Well, I would appreciate if each of you could maybe give a written response, because 

one of the fundamental questions is that if we reduce a lot of the specifics of this paperwork, there 

is a concern that we will go back to where we were before, and that some parents will not receive 

adequate individualized plans driving towards success. We could make some changes, but there is 

a concern and you had specific suggestions in your testimony. 

 Are there differences that would require a specific education plan for what Dr. Tynan has 

called the Class I group, or maybe where you have a learning deficiency? Maybe we are better off 

having trained teachers and a generalized plan for trying to deal with that subcategory, as opposed 

to a specific education plan for each student. And how would we know that it is working? 

Because indeed, as discussed in some of the testimony, in spite of this effort and in spite of all this 

paperwork, we are not seeing the movement towards results. 

 The parents really don't care about the process. What they want is a good education for their 

kids. And so one of the questions is how can we write a bill that tries to hold school systems 

accountable? The parents would accept one-third of this paperwork if they knew their kids were 

going to get a better education, and that ultimately should be measured some way. The question is 

how do we measure that so we can try to reduce some of the cost and increase the effectiveness of 

the program? Because if we can't figure out that relationship, we are unlikely to really have much 

reduction in paperwork, because of the past concerns about what happened in the public school 

systems. That is our dilemma. How to do it? 

Ms. Neas. Just very briefly, Mr. Souder, I think one of the things that I appreciated from Mr. 

Lock's testimony was the time that it takes to work with parents. When you walk into an IEP 

meeting, the only person who doesn't have any training about the process is the parent. And one of 

the things we have been entertaining is would it be possible to hook up parents with peer families 

who have been through the process. A peer who has been through it before would explain an IEP 

meeting, and the sorts of things you need to think about before you get in there so that people come 

into that process understanding what the outcome should be, what they need to know, and what 

everybody's role is. 
32

 I think facilitating the communication between parents and the schools is one of the things 

needed. When IDEA works, it is because communication works. And what we can do is try to help 

parents understand what to expect and what should be the outcome of the IEP. 

Ms. Margolis. And if I may comment very quickly on the paperwork issue, I think it is very 

important to look at how much of that paperwork comes from poor policies and practices at the 

state and local level, and to what extent states think they have to require paperwork because that is 

what the regulations require, even if they don't. 

 As an example, in Baltimore City any time a change is made to an IEP, even if it was the 

meeting two months before an assessment comes in or whatever, whenever an IEP is revised, the 

team rewrites the entire IEP again. There is nothing in the IDEA that requires that kind of time and 

that kind of paperwork. And I think a lot of the paperwork that is complained about, if you analyze 

it, will be the result of poor policy and practice at the state and local level, not because of the 

IDEA.

Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I think this is going to be one of our major efforts trying to figure this out. In talking with 

different parents, I think the peer referrals and help is important. But I have also met with parent 

groups from multiple schools in my district, and in fact some of them are meeting with peers and 

they are still struggling. Probably their expectations may not match the ability of the school 

system's financial ability to meet it. Some of it is a lack of understanding of the different 

challenges you are facing with each kind of kid, and they may not have had a student of that type 

there before. And although that is helpful, it will not change a lot of the system. 

 A second thing, if I may say is that even the seemingly irrational paperwork things, 

including what we heard about referrals and about a certain class, are there because there was a 

case somewhere where somebody was sued, because a school didn't tell a student about a program, 

and that parent didn't know about that program. And my guess is the reason they want to make 

sure that the plans that are changed are rewritten each time is that when an adversarial relationship 

develops, which is in a fair percentage of these cases quite frankly, if there isn't a paperwork trail, 

the school system is left undefended. 

 Now literally I am not taking sides here. I know that this is the biggest cost pressure on the 

public schools, and the most difficult thing for the teachers. But it is not without some justice that 

we have wound up in this kind of situation, because many of those kids take such an extraordinary 

amount of time and take so much effort, and quite frankly, can slow down a whole class that they 

were ignored, or shunted off to the side, rather than be addressed. And this is probably the biggest 

cost, very nearly, within the school system today, and the most difficult sub-part. 

 And I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you.
33

I would like to comment, but we are going to have a few more questions by some of the 

Members, including myself, who wanted to follow up on a few things, and then we will be 

finished.

 But I sympathize and empathize with a lot of what Mr. Souder stated. I thought Ms. 

Margolis' statement was interesting about the Baltimore schools. In general in IDEA, you hear a lot 

of anecdotal evidence of circumstances such as that, and yet there doesn't seem to be a way of 

determining who is doing it right and who is doing it wrong in this field, more than in most fields 

that I deal with. It is very frustrating. 

 Some of the over identification issues, the paperwork, whose responsibility it is, local 

decisions being made that take up a lot of time, et cetera, and I am not asking a question of any of 

you as I say this, it is just I find it to be frustrating. There seems to be a lack of really good 

oversight as to how IDEA works, because I don't think there are any of us, the strongest advocates 

or the ones most concerned about IDEA, who don't want to see the system work. The basis of the 

system is in taking care of the young children and giving them the opportunities, not in paperwork 

and litigation and IEPs and all those things. That leads to it sometimes, but if you overdo that, then 

you take away from the other side of it. And I think there is a sense out there that that is what is 

happening. So I just make that statement; it is something we are going to be looking for as we go 

through the legislation. 

 Let me take a few more minutes and, Dr. Tynan, start with you. You have been touching on 

this subject a couple times in your statements. You talked about 14 or 15 different categories of 

problems here. You talked about the likelihood that classification of mental retardation is faster in 

America. But my question to you is over the past ten years, what have you observed regarding the 

growth in the number of students in Special Education who have lesser disabilities? This is another 

area that I hear about a lot, but I can't give you statistics on it, and you are probably going to have 

to do it without statistics as well. Mr. Lock, for example, testified that now parents are coming to 

him advocating having their kids being classified as having disabilities to get into these programs, 

which would indicate to me that there is a broader expanse now of students who we are identifying 

in this situation. I don't know if that is good or bad, but I just want to see if it is happening right 

now.

Dr. Tynan. I think there is sufficient data particularly on the growth of the learning disabilities 

category, and the most rapidly growing category is the “other health-impaired,” in which the 

children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder are classified. 

 In our book chapter, we note that parents who have a family income greater than $100,000 

per year are much more likely to ask for accommodations on the SAT due to disability than 

families with lesser incomes. So there is knowledge in certain groups that some classifications get 

you some services. So it has certainly been a growth area.

I think also it is helpful sometimes to look at examples outside of the public education 

system. I know, for example, in the estimate I was given by the Catholic schools in Wilmington 

that seven to eight percent of their children are diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity 

disorder, and they are taught in those schools. Sometimes there is a public-private partnership, in 
34

that there will be some learning disability services provided. But sometimes they are completely 

contained within the private school. And they somehow do this rather well at a much lower cost, 

with a lot less paperwork. 

 If I want to institute a behavioral plan at a private school, I show up, there is a teacher, there 

is a principal, there is me; we write it up, it gets implemented. We don't have to go through all the 

paperwork that Mr. Lock has talked about. Is there any way we can take those lessons learned in 

some other school systems and apply them to the public school? 

Chairman Castle. Thank you.

 Dr. Wolf, I want to ask you a question, and I need to get a brief answer from you if I can. 

You didn't talk about it too much, but someplace in your testimony is this whole business about 

compliance models that currently govern the IDEA statute. I would characterize this as a lot of 

procedural aspects of things that have to be done, as opposed to the substance of what we need to 

do for our kids. In fact, apparently, in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

they have 814 different compliance points on a checklist, which is virtually impossible for 

anybody. I would like your thoughts.

Should IDEA be refocused to concentrate on educational results, rather than inputs and 

processes? I understand you need some inputs and processes, but are we too input-processcompliance procedurally oriented, and not output-enough-oriented at this point? And if so, what 

can we do to effectuate those changes? 

Dr. Wolf. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with your perspective on that question. 

 I really think that the two essential components are the use of gain scores, which I think gets 

away from a sort of forced procedural access question because a lot of the procedural requirements 

come from the idea that every child is different. But if you use as a benchmark the child's previous 

performance, you automatically correct for all that different-ness, and you don't need all these 

procedural requirements that come with it. 

 And the second thing is some element of an exit option for parental choice when things get 

really bad. Because I think another source of a lot of the procedural requirements is the fact that 

with Special Education, we try and empower parents all the way to the point of them actually 

choosing their program, and then stop them there. And so many of the procedural requirements are 

rights for appeal, rights for access, rights for process to empower parents. But then they stop at the 

point of actually giving them the opportunity to choose their child's school or their child's program, 

if it is clear that the current one isn't serving them. And I think if you gave them that choice, you 

could remove some of the other procedural requirements that are guaranteeing parents access. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Wolf.

I wasn't going to ask this, but Mr. Lock; something Dr. Wolf said reminded me of this. 

How many kids in your school actually advance from being in IDEA disabilities programs to being 

back in regular education programs? I mean, is it one percent, 50 percent? Can you give me some 
35

rough guesstimate? 

Mr. Lock. That is a very good question; I should have that number for you. Out of the 102 

students that we have, some of who are just receiving support, say, in speech from a speech and 

language clinician, kids come into and leave the program at different ages and different grades. I 

would say the number of students exiting from our speech and language program, perhaps, would 

be much higher than those exiting from, say, a program that offers emotional disability support to 

children, or learning disabilities. 

 Usually by the fifth or sixth grade, which is the age that my children will be leaving the 

school, I would say that at least half to 75 percent of our speech and language children will be 

exiting the program. But probably the majority of our learning-disabled or emotionally disabled 

children will continue with some degree of support later on into middle school. It may be reduced 

services, but some support would be continued. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you. I am pleased to have that answer.

Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Dr. Wolf, first of all, one of my top legislative assistants was a student of yours at 

Georgetown, so I thank you for that. 

 You stated and I believe I read it correctly, that there should be a separate accountability of 

academic achievement for IDEA students. H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, requires that the 

performance of schools and school districts and states be judged on the achievement of at-risk 

groups, the disaggregate of data, and that includes disabled children. So this would mean that the 

performance of disabled children would cause the school to fall under the bill's timeline for failing 

schools.

 Wouldn't this system essentially encompass your suggestion of having some separate 

accountability for those students? 

Dr. Wolf. Mr. Kildee, it does. That is a nice connection, or a nice combination of examining the 

needs of regular students and special-needs students together, and extending to the special-needs 

students the same sort of fail-safe accommodation if a school is failing. 

 I would say though in the case of Special Education students, it could create a situation 

where the regular education program is very good at a school, and therefore the scores are good 

there, and maybe there is enough to just barely get by for the Special Education students. But I 

think I agree with you that that accommodation is a positive, and is helpful in that respect. 

Mr. Kildee. Well, basically we want to close the gap and show improvement within that at-risk 

group. And if we had students, some extraordinarily disabled students, where there would be little 

measurable progress, those are not counted under that disaggregation of data. So perhaps we could 
36

achieve your goal with a little tweaking of H.R. 1. 

 Thank you very much. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lock, in your testimony you indicated that there are 22,000 students in Fairfax County 

in the IDEA program. Do you have any idea how many of those are costing the school system 

more than $50,000 or more than $100,000? 

Mr. Lock. No, I don't, but I would dare to say that the number of children that we are unable to 

serve in the public school system, and who may go into contract services, into a private program 

for the level of support the child needs, those are the kinds of numbers and those are the students 

that we would be looking at. 

 I mean, to my knowledge, those situations don't exist in my district, where those kinds of 

things happen and those amounts of money were spent within the school district. Now, if a child 

went into a private facility it is very possible, that the tuition rates or the support being provided 

could be that high. 

Mr. Scott. Do you know how many from Fairfax go to such services? 

Mr. Lock. No, I don't. 

Mr. Scott. You have a chart here that lists the number of hours that it takes. Is this a typical or 

exceptional student? 

Mr. Lock. No, sir, this is a typical student. And I actually met with my staff last week to put this 

together. And this would be really the minimum that we would spend. 

Mr. Scott. Okay. And you have indicated on the chart that after you add up the time the teacher, 

the screening chair, the psychologist, and social worker put into getting someone's IEP established, 

before any services are provided, 83 hours would be put in. When you multiply that hourly rate by 

the number of students, you are up to $86 million in the County of Fairfax. 

 “Meeting and testing” looks like it is about half of it. How can you involve many people in 

a situation that includes multi-disciplinary individual needs and significantly reduce the number of 

hours? How can you do this right without those numbers of hours? 

Mr. Lock. Well, the testing component is a very important component, and I am not saying that we 

need to, or that that is an area where we can cut. Obviously, the careful screening of students for 
37

disabilities is going to be a key piece of any evaluation of a student for support under IDEA. 

 I think we are probably looking to have adjustments made in some of the other areas, 

maybe even in the frequency of the assessment that is done, if we are just going to look at 

assessment. Or tying the kinds of accommodations that we are making in the classroom into the 

kinds of accommodations we would make in assessment, because every little piece of this really 

adds up to the total paperwork issue that we have. 

 And again, what we have tried to do in the time that I have had to prepare testimony for this 

Committee today is to take a look, and to really think hard with a cross-section of people within our 

school district, about the kinds of cuts or the kinds of ways that we could perhaps reduce the 

paperwork commitment and the time commitment. And I have tried to include that in my 

testimony as things that we could do and still maintain the integrity of the program of 

identification, and also the provision of services to students. 

Mr. Scott. Some of this looks like it would be very difficult. I mean you are not going to cut down 

the amount of testing. If you are going to have multi-disciplinary people involved, I don't know 

how you can do that without setting up a meeting. Can you make a significant dent in the number 

of hours? 

Mr. Lock. The main concern that we hear from our Special Education teachers, upon whom the 

weight lies, is not only just about the paperwork, but also using technology, for example, as a way 

to automate the process of including information. Having objectives, for example, that we could 

access through a database and be able to include more easily into a document. If you look at the 

documents, and I provided a sample IEP, there is a lot of repetitive information that is included 

from document to document, that could be automated, for example, to save time. 

 Cutting back the frequency of meetings by trying to reduce the formality of the process 

would help. Certainly you need to document what needs to be included to support students, but for 

many children it is not necessarily to have as frequent formal meetings as is required. And there 

are ways that I think we could make the process more informal and less frequent, in terms of 

continuous assessment, which is really a part of what we do in public education. So there is an 

ongoing assessment. Reporting to parents is part of what we do on a regular basis. 

 There are things that are already in place in our general education program that are in place 

for our Special Education program as well. I hate to keep going back to those recommendations, 

but those are, we think, the most significant areas that really need to be looked at, in terms of what 

we can do to reduce but still maintain the integrity of the program and the services we provide? 

Mr. Scott. Ms. Margolis? 

Ms. Margolis. Yes, if I may address that, thank you. I think one of the things that might cut down 

on the number of hours of meetings, and potentially on the frequency, is if assessment results are 

shared with families prior to meetings, and if drafts of IEPs are exchanged back and forth. That 

often really reduces the amount of time that people need to sit at the table, because a lot of the 

hashing out of the IEP and looking at test results and questions that come up can be addressed 
38

outside of meetings. 

 I have certainly found in representing children that the meetings that run the smoothest and 

that are the most efficient are the meetings where we have had that paperwork ahead of time. It 

enables me to meet with families to talk with them, to figure out what questions they have, and to 

comment on a proposed IEP draft, rather than only being able at the time of the meeting to raise 

any possible concerns. And often we have been able to work out a lot ahead of time. 

 So I think that the provision of evaluation results prior to meetings and exchanging drafts of 

IEPs could go a long way towards reducing the amount of hours people spend in meetings. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And I believe we have reached the end of our 

questioning.

 I would like, obviously, to thank the witnesses for your valuable time that it takes to prepare 

to get here, and your testimony here today. And I would like to thank the Members for their 

participation. 

 If there is no further business at this time, then we stand adjourned. Thank you. 

Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Castle, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38 

Mr. Keller, 21 

Mr. Kildee, 20, 21, 23, 35 

Mr. Lock, 18, 19, 20, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37 

Mr. Scott, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38 

Mr. Souder, 30, 31, 32 

Mr. Tynan, 17, 26, 27, 29, 33 

Mr. Wolf, 22, 26, 34, 35 

Mrs. Biggert, 25, 26, 27 

Ms. Margolis, 25, 27, 28, 32, 37 

Ms. Neas, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31 

Ms. Sanchez, 27, 28, 29, 30