STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL SPECIAL 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT WORK AND 

FEDERAL BARRIERS TO INNOVATION 

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 8, 2002 

Serial No. 107-63 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-136 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 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................ 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DALE E. KILDEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. .................... 3 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE C. GLOECKLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF 

VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ALBANY, NEW 

YORK ............................................................................................................................................. 6 

STATEMENT OF DIANE McCAIN, DIRECTOR, CHOICE OFFICE, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA.............................................. 8 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHOONOVER, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES, 

BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BELLEVUE, NEBRASKA ................................................. 10 

STATEMENT OF SALLY ARTHUR, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT 

SERVICES, HUMBLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, HUMBLE, TEXAS .............. 12 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INDIANA 

UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS......................................... 14 

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. .................. 37 

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 

DALE E. KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ................................................................................................................. 41 

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE C. GLOECKLER, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR 

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 

ALBANY, NEW YORK .............................................................................................................. 49
iv

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DIANE McCAIN, DIRECTOR, CHOICE 

OFFICE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA ......... 81 

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHOONOVER, DIRECTOR OF 

STUDENT SERVICES, BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BELLEVUE, NEBRASKA......... 89 

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SALLY ARTHUR, DIRECTOR OF 

EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES, HUMBLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

HUMBLE, TEXAS....................................................................................................................... 95 

APPENDIX G - DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD BY DR. RUSSELL SKIBA, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INDIANA UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, 

INDIANA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL 

DISORDERS .............................................................................................................................. 107 

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND ON 

BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS........ 121 

APPENDIX I - DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD BY DR. RUSSELL SKIBA, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INDIANA UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, 

INDIANA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL 

DISORDERS .............................................................................................................................. 131 

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 163 
1

HEARING ON STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL 

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT WORK 

AND FEDERAL BARRIERS TO INNOVATION

__________________________________________________________

Wednesday, May 8, 2002 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Education Reform, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Michael N. Castle [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Castle, Tancredo, Platts, Osborne, Kildee, McCarthy, Davis, 

Roemer, and Kucinich. 

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

Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Maggie 

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

Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Chairman Castle. 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. 
2

 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 14 days to allow 

members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered, and I will proceed with my opening 

statement. 

 Let me say good afternoon, first of all, to the most obliging group of witnesses we have 

ever had. They were in their seats and they were quiet, even before we started. That's a little bit 

unusual.

 Welcome to everybody here to the next in our series on the reform and reauthorization of 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

 Before we begin, I want to thank you witnesses, as well as the many parents, advocates, and 

educators joining us today in the committee room, and via live webcasting. Your feedback is 

important to shaping and continuing to shape any IDEA reform legislation that is reported by this 

subcommittee. 

 Nearly one year ago today, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted H.R. 1, 

comprehensive education reform legislation designed to hold states and schools accountable for 

improving the academic achievement of our children. Then and now, it is important to note that 

our support for a system of education that leaves no child behind speaks not only to race, gender, or 

ethnicity - it speaks to all children, regardless of their individual challenges or abilities. 

 Today, despite IDEA's many successes, and 27 years after Congress guaranteed the right of 

students with disabilities to sit in regular education classrooms, too many disabled children drop 

out of high school. And too many lag behind their non-disabled peers. 

 While many dedicated professionals are working very hard to raise expectations and 

improve the quality of education for special education students, I am concerned that there are 

barriers to innovation and excellence in the federal law, and its accompanying regulations that may, 

inadvertently, prevent the very success that we all seek. 

 Instead of simply passing a reauthorization bill that continues the status quo, I am interested 

in doing what's right for our children with disabilities and their families. This includes learning 

what our states and districts are doing to improve the education of their special education students, 

and then thinking creatively about how we can help them move beyond simple compliance to real 

academic achievement. 

 Today we will hear about the progress the State of New York has made in increasing high 

school graduation rates for disabled students, and holding students and the state school systems 

accountable for academic achievement. 
3

 We will also learn how Florida has moved to increase parental choice in the education of 

disabled students so that parents can ensure their disabled sons and daughters are receiving a 

quality education. 

 Finally, we will hear testimony from two district-level special education administrators and 

a professor who will describe the innovative practices that their districts have implemented to 

improve academic achievement, and to reduce behavior problems and placements in alternative 

educational settings. 

 While some of these approaches will be controversial, they all deserve our attention, and it 

is my hope that what we learn today will spur discussion and bring fresh thinking to our 

examination of IDEA. 

 At the end of the day, there is no quick or easy way to meet the challenges of educating our 

disabled children better. Yet, if we are to be successful in our efforts to build on IDEA's 

commitment to access with improved results for children and families, we must do what we can to 

avoid the poisonous battles of the past. Only by working together, as we have on H.R. 1, can we 

hope to provide new opportunities for disabled children and more fully include them in all aspects 

of life. 

 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 any opening statement he 

may wish to make. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DALE E. 

KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I am pleased to join Governor Castle at our latest hearing on 

reauthorization of IDEA. I found the testimony at past hearings on this topic very, very helpful and 

useful in our discussions. 

 Today's focus on reforms and strategies to improve the education of children with 

disabilities will help define our work on reauthorization of IDEA later this year. In fact, many of 

the most beneficial reforms to IDEA during past reauthorizations have been as a direct result of 

work at the state and local level, and input from teachers, parents, and administrators alike. 

 However, one aspect of today's focus, on private school vouchers for disabled children, 

causes me concern. Private school vouchers, whether for children with disabilities or children 

without disabilities, will only, I believe, exacerbate our efforts to ensure positive educational 
4

outcomes for children with disabilities. Instead of strengthening our education system and efforts 

to achieve results, children participating in a voucher program would lose the civil rights 

protections that IDEA affords. This means less accountability for the public dollars. 

 In addition, there is simply no need for a voucher program for disabled children. If a school 

district cannot serve a disabled child in a public school setting, a district can enroll a child in a 

private facility without cost to the parent. And under this situation, children maintain their 

protections under IDEA. 

 In short, voucher programs for disabled children will do nothing to strengthen our school 

system's effort to provide a free, appropriate public education. 

 In contrast, I believe there are numerous ways we can improve the educational experience 

and outcomes for children with disabilities. We need to look at creative means of increasing the 

graduation rate of children with disabilities. We need to examine the transition requirements of 

IDEA to ensure that disabled children can move on to work, or to post-secondary education. 

 In addition, we need to ensure that schools and teachers have the tools and knowledge to 

ensure safe and orderly schools. As part of any effort to ensure safe schools, I strongly believe that 

we cannot and should not cease services for children with disabilities. 

 Simply suspending or expelling students from school without support services or efforts to 

deal with the root causes of disruptive behavior, won't make our schools safer. Policies that permit 

ceasing educational support services transfer these problems from our schools to our communities, 

often exacerbating juvenile crime. 

 In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DALE E. KILDEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX B 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I appreciate your kind words and wisdom on this, as 

always. And we will now proceed with our witnesses. 

 Our first witness today - and I will introduce you all, so relax for a moment - our first 

witness today is Mr. Lawrence Gloeckler. Mr. Gloeckler has served as the Deputy Commissioner 

of the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities for the New 

York State Department of Education since 1989. 

 He has also served New York's Department of Education as the acting deputy commissioner 

of the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education. Mr. Gloeckler has 

served on numerous committees and panels pertaining to special education and is immediate past 

President of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. He holds a master's 
5

degree from Syracuse University. 

 Our second witness is Ms. Diane McCain. Ms. McCain is the Director of the Choice Office 

within the Florida Department of Education. Prior to assuming her current position, Ms. McCain 

was Public Information Director of the Charter Schools and Opportunity Scholarship program for 

the Florida department of education. 

 In addition, she served as Director of Communications and Consultant to the Chairman for 

the Coca-Cola Company for the 1996 Olympics. Ms. McCain has a bachelor's degree from Florida 

State University and is currently completing a law degree. 

Dr. Richard Schoonover is our third witness today. Dr. Schoonover is the Director of 

Student Services for Bellevue Public Schools in Bellevue, Nebraska. He has also served Bellevue 

public schools as Director of Special Services and as Principal of CHAP School, a K through 12 

program for students with mental disabilities. Dr. Schoonover earned a Doctor of Education degree 

from the University of Nebraska. 

Dr. Sally Arthur is the Director of Educational Support Services for the Humble 

Independent School District - it is spelled H-u-m-b-l-e, if anyone wonders why I am asking - 

Humble Independent School District in Humble, Texas. She also has experience as the Director of 

Special Education for the Katy independent school district. 

 In addition to her school district duties, Dr. Arthur is the President-elect of the Gulf Coast 

Administrators of Special Education. Her Doctor of Education degree is from the University of 

Houston.

 And our final witness for today is Dr. Russell Skiba. Dr. Skiba is Associate Professor in 

Counseling and Educational Psychology at Indiana University. A member of the school's 

psychology faculty, he has worked primarily in the areas of emotional and behavioral disorders and 

school violence, and teaches in the areas of school violence, zero tolerance, and cultural diversity. 

Dr. Skiba has directed a number of federally funded research projects and published extensively in 

professional journals in the areas of school violence and equity in education. 

 Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would 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. 

 You probably know the ground rules. You have those little boxes in front of you that show 

green, yellow, and then red lights. For four minutes the green light is on, then for one minute the 

light is yellow to tell you it’s time to wrap up, and when you get to red after your five minutes is 

up, you should complete your testimony. You will go in order, right down the line, and then we 

will go to questions and answers by those members who are present, or who may come wandering 

in.
6

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE C. GLOECKLER, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL 

SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, NEW YORK STATE 

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ALBANY, NEW YORK 

Mr. Gloeckler. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm Larry Gloeckler, as you 

introduced me, and I just wanted to let you know my responsibilities with the education department 

including administering the state's special education program, the state vocational rehabilitation 

program and also independent living programs that are state funded. 

 And I really thank you for inviting me, and I consider it an honor to be able to provide 

testimony to you today. 

 I have been asked to speak to you about education reforms in New York State that have 

improved the quality of educational opportunity for students with disabilities, and barriers that may 

exist in IDEA implementing those reforms. 

 In order to stay in my five-minute limit, I'm not going to repeat what's in my testimony, I 

just want to let you know that our goals and accountability principles that we think have led us to 

be able to move towards our goals are stated in the testimony. 

 I have also included a paper on IDEA reauthorization I recently wrote for the Center for 

Education Policy. It's called, ``Time to Simplify and Focus on Performance,'' which I think, in a 

nutshell, describes my message. 

 But before I begin talking about just a few points I want to make, I first want to say that 

students with disabilities who, as you know, represent a very broad range of disabilities, also 

represent children who have substantial abilities. 

 When they are given access to high-quality curriculum and instruction and the appropriate 

supports, these students can perform at high levels - very, very often higher than adults have 

expected of them. And I say this, based on substantial data that we have collected and analyzed 

over a number of years, which I have also included in my testimony. 

 The two most important areas that I recommend you focus on in the reauthorization are 

strengthening performance accountability and strengthening those aspects of the law that can 

support improved student performance. 

 In 1997, you did the right thing. You began a shift in accountability for educational 

programs for these students from 25 years of process accountability built on elaborate paper 

documentation to accountability for education results. I urge you strongly to continue to move in 

that direction. 

 The data that I provided you in my written material documents both the successes that we 

are experiencing in New York, and areas where we clearly need to focus our attention. But most 
7

importantly, although not all the news is good news, we are now focusing on the right issues and 

we now can get to the resolution of performance problems where they exist. 

 As an example, in the four years since 1997, on our state exit test called Regents 

examinations, more students with disabilities are passing them today than were allowed to take 

them in 1997. In some areas, the number passing those tests is double the number taking those 

tests four years ago. And as you can see from the charts I have included for you, those are not small 

numbers. 

 This would not have happened, these students would have continued to be denied the 

opportunity to succeed at this level, if our state Board of Regents and if IDEA 1997 had not said, 

``All students must have access to high standards.'' 

 Because of our shift to performance-based accountability, and again, the reinforcement that 

we received from reforms made to IDEA in 1997, we also now know some other important things. 

 For instance, we know that where children are placed makes a substantial difference in 

performance. We know that poverty has a direct effect on performance. We know that even in 

wealthy school districts, the children who are in poverty in those districts do not do as well, 

academically, as others. 

 We know that minority students placed in special education are performing at significantly 

lower levels than white students. And again, this is not all good news, but the good news is that we 

know what the problem is, and we know what we need to address. 

 Educational leaders must be accountable for all children, and the accountability must be 

about what is important, and that is preparing students to live independent, participatory, high 

quality lives - to be able to, as much as possible, move on to post-secondary education or 

meaningful jobs and careers. 

 In this reauthorization, I urge you to continue to strengthen performance accountability 

components and build in the necessary supports for states and locals to improve performance. 

Allow us to focus our resources on areas that clearly need improvement, rather than treating each 

procedure and process as equally important. 

 As I said, 1997 was a terrific start, I believe, in moving IDEA in the right direction.

However, there is still much to do. We must begin to review IDEA to see what actually, within the 

procedures and processes and subsequent regulations, add value to educational performance and 

what does not. 

 We should remove those things which add no value, and allow the resources to be focused 

specifically on those which do. 

 As I mentioned, we have lots of additional data analysis about key performance indicators 

in our state that I would be happy to share with you, if you are interested. And after this testimony, 
8

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE C. GLOECKLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ALBANY, NEW YORK – 

SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Gloeckler. 

Ms. McCain? 

STATEMENT OF DIANE McCAIN, DIRECTOR, CHOICE OFFICE, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 

Ms. McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to share 

information about parent choice in education and Florida's McKay Scholarship Program for 

Students with Disabilities. On behalf of the thousands of students being served in both public and 

private schools through this program, I thank you for your attention today. 

 Florida's children, regardless of their family income, are assured of an education at public 

expense. Our state leaders believe that every child can learn, if given the opportunity. 

 In our state, public funding for services is not new. Families may choose to attend a private 

school, and no public support follows the child. Families may choose to attend a public school 

which is paid for entirely by public support. 

 For more than 15 years, school districts in Florida have been able to contract with private 

schools for services for students. We believe that school choice is a method for making our 

educators more accountable to parents in Florida. With the McKay program, our legislature has 

empowered parents to choose their children's schools. Parents are given flexibility, perhaps for the 

first time. 

 Before the McKay program, the decision regarding services was made predominantly by 

the school district. Children at risk, children in the juvenile justice system, and children with 

special needs have had the decision made by local school districts. 

 Over $40 million has been paid to provide services by contract to more than 8,000 students. 

With the McKay program, parents, not just school districts, also have an option. 

 Florida has made available two types of tuition vouchers for K through 12 students, the 

Opportunity Scholarships Program and the McKay Scholarships Program for children with 

disabilities. Today I have been asked to share specific information about the McKay program. 

 Children that are eligible for this program are public school students in grades K through 12 

with disabilities. The parent of a public school student with a disability who is dissatisfied with the 
9

student's progress may participate. To alleviate confusion and misunderstanding, our legislature 

defined disabilities for the purpose of this program to include: mentally handicapped, speech and 

language impaired, deaf or hard of hearing, visually impaired, dual sensory impaired, physically 

impaired, emotionally handicapped, specific learning disabled, hospitalized or homebound, and 

autistic. 

 The choices parents now have are both public and private. For the first year, approximately 

1,000 students participated in 139 private schools. For year two, 5,000 students are participating in 

more than 400 private schools. The majority of students are not severely disabled, and are in 

middle school grades. 

 The Department of Education mails parents of students currently receiving special 

education services a letter. This letter is provided in Spanish and English, and we have also added 

Creole this year. The letter serves to inform the parent that this program may be available to them. 

Included are a brochure and a toll free number for parents to use to obtain more information. 

 Calls to the parent information line have exceeded 30,000 calls in number. To serve 

students and process their registrations effectively, the Department has activated a toll-free line to 

serve districts and private schools, in addition to the toll-free line for parents. 

 The program began as a pilot in one school district. For the first fully implemented year, 

which we call year one, we believed that the popularity would continue and that taxpayers were 

strongly indicating a desire to have such a program. 

 To facilitate amendments and to make the law more user friendly during year one, parents 

and private school administrators met with legislative staff, district school personnel, and 

Department of Education administrators to determine how the implementation of the program 

could better serve students. 

 The group developed an action plan that served as a recommendation to the Florida senate. 

The legislature enacted many of the suggestions, and in year two we saw an increase in parent 

participation and private school participation. 

 The creation of the Choice office as a one-stop location for implementation, notification, 

and payment processing, has also provided a more streamlined approach to serving students, 

parents, and our local school districts. 

 We are fortunate working with this program because we get to hear the happiest of stories, 

when it comes to the program and students: Our parents and the schools, both public and private, 

do not hesitate to talk about the good things being accomplished, and the results they are 

witnessing.

 And I am running out of time. I do want to share two stories with you, if I could. This one 

is about a child from Congressman Keller's district in Orlando, Florida. 
10

 The school admitted a middle school student who was identified in the public school system 

as Educable Mentally Handicapped. He could not read, nor did he have any math skills. 

 In addition, it was reported by the child and his parents that his teacher had verbally abused 

the child. Recognizing the extent of verbal abuse, the mother removed him from the public school 

system and brought him to the pathway school. 

 When he arrived, his mother's aspirations were for her son to be able to complete basic life 

skills, like reading road signs and filling out a job application. After several months of intensive 

encouragement, attention, and a new school setting, her son now not only reads, but he can also 

add, subtract, and multiply. 

 The administrator, the teacher, and the parents report that the student is a pleasure to have at 

school, and they are very pleased with his progress and the fact that they - and the school is pleased 

with the fact that they have accepted students in the McKay program. 

 We did have schools that were reticent about participating in this program. They did not 

know what to expect from these children. 

 And my time is up, but if you would like, you can ask me all kinds of questions when 

everyone else has finished. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DIANE McCAIN, DIRECTOR, CHOICE OFFICE, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. McCain. I see you picked up the trick of reading fast there, at 

the end. 

Dr. Schoonover? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHOONOVER, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT 

SERVICES, BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BELLEVUE, NEBRASKA 

Mr. Schoonover. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Richard 

Schoonover, Director of Student Services for the Bellevue Public Schools. 

 Bellevue Public Schools is the fourth largest school district in the State of Nebraska, and we 

are the proud home of Offutt Air Force Base and the headquarters of the United States Strategic 

Command. 

 Approximately 45 percent of our students are children of active duty personnel stationed at 

Offutt Air Force Base, and approximately 1,400 of our students, birth through age 21, are students 

with disabilities. 
11

 Bellevue Public Schools is proud of our special education programs, and the services we 

provide for our students. Our district is in the process of an ongoing restructuring of special 

education services, and we are redesigning these services to be better integrate their delivery in the 

general education classroom while still preserving the range of special education services from fulltime general education placement to full-time special education placement, as appropriate for each 

student.

 We believe strongly that the type and level of special education service should fit the needs 

of each individual student, yet all services should be delivered as close to the general education 

program as possible. 

 The Bellevue public schools have been involved in activities exploring the way to improve 

services and implement procedures which provide assistance to students prior to the need for 

verification. The district, with the assistance of the Nebraska Department of Education, has 

developed and implemented programs to assist students in this way. 

 Two examples. We had a Saturday school program for one of our middle schools, which 

provides middle school students, who are at risk of failing, additional academic and behavioral 

supports. The district also has a teacher training program for the elementary level that concentrates 

on literacy, reading, and language skills. The purpose of the training program is to provide 

teachers with additional teaching techniques to work with students who need additional help. 

 The district has integrated its funding from various sources—Title 1, comprehensive school 

reform demonstration project funding, the school district’s general fund, and special education 

funding—to implement a restructuring project in four of our elementary schools that happen to be 

school-wide Title 1 buildings. 

 This restructuring process has assisted these schools and all the students in the school, 

including students with disability. We would like to continue our restructuring efforts, and expand 

to all buildings, both at the elementary and secondary level, and the goal of the district is to obtain 

funding which would provide for this flexibility to address the individual needs of each school. 

 During the next school year, the district will develop and implement a plan to integrate nonspecial education support services with special education support services at our elementary level. 

Our intent is to improve the services and to implement cost-effective and student-efficient services. 

 We will be designing and implementing an expanded student and teacher assistance team 

which will provide student assistance and teacher assistance for the purpose of intervening early in 

the child's life so that referrals for special education may not be needed. 

 The district is currently working with the Nebraska Department of Education to redesign 

and integrate our services for children younger than age five. Currently, the district provides 

preschool services funded by special education, Title 1, early childhood grants from the Nebraska 

Department of Education, and local district funds, and in cooperation with other school districts 

within Sarpy County, Head Start. 
12

 We are in the process of designing and implementing the integrated model, which will be a 

single program, birth to age five, but have different funding sources. Nebraska, as you may recall, 

implemented mandatory services from birth to 21 in 1978. 

 Some of the points we would make for the committee, we feel that the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act should encourage and facilitate the integration of funding sources to 

serve students with disabilities, should encourage integration of various funding sources, title 1, 

reform money. 

 We also would recommend that the IDEA should provide greater flexibility in the use of 

staff to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and we would certainly encourage the 

subcommittee to closely examine and monitor the issue of some of the rising costs within special 

education, such as medical costs. I think districts need greater direction and guidance in this 

particular area. 

 We also would encourage the Congress to have IDEA provide more guidance and direction 

as to when an independent evaluation is required within the school. And the last reauthorization 

went a long way in making some corrections and some improvements, and we certainly applaud 

those efforts. 

 The Bellevue Public Schools would be available to provide any assistance that you may 

need throughout the reauthorization. Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHOONOVER, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT 

SERVICES, BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BELLEVUE, NEBRASKA – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Schoonover. 

 We will turn now to Dr. Arthur. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY ARTHUR, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL 

SUPPORT SERVICES, HUMBLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

HUMBLE, TEXAS 

Ms. Arthur. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kildee, members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Dr. Sally Arthur; I am the Director of Educational Support Services in Humble 

Independent School District, located in Humble, Texas. 

 We are a suburban school district in northeast Houston with an enrollment of 26,000 

students. The demographics of my school district and my background are described in my written 

statement. 

 It is my pleasure to be here today. I am going to talk to you about three innovations that are 

working in my district: positive behavioral interventions and supports, curriculum-based 
13

measurements, and bilingual child study teams. 

 Research sought from universities can be a powerful catalyst for change when elements of 

school-wide, user-friendly, data-driven portions exist as a part of the project. 

 Positive behavioral interventions and supports are a system of clearly defined behaviors in 

all school environments that are taught and analyzed to measure effectiveness. 

 Consequences are consistent. Appropriate behavior is reinforced. The system addresses 

school-wide, classroom, and individual student progress. It instructs students in school-wide 

expectations. It doesn't focus on consequences, it focuses on positive behaviors. 

 Positive behavioral interventions and supports are an alternative to zero tolerance and 

punishment. Discipline referrals in Humble ISD have reduced, at the elementary level 44.2 

percent, at the middle school level 3.7 percent, and at the high school level, 15.9 percent. These 

decreases have occurred over one year's time. 

 Another innovative program in our school district is curriculum-based measurement, which 

can accelerate learning for some, and distinguish between learning disabilities and teaching issues. 

 Curriculum-based measurement collects data on reading, writing, and/or math across short 

time intervals. Assessment probes measure growth, resulting from intensive interventions. The 

probes take two to three minutes to administer. In this way, responsiveness to the intervention can 

be determined quickly and over short periods of time. 

 Initial results, using curriculum-based measurement, are promising. Individual case studies 

on two students in Humble ISD will be provided as a supplement to this testimony. These students 

were not referred to special education assessment as a result of curriculum-based measurement. Of 

these, one student made three years' growth in reading since November, and the other student's 

intervention was provided by the parent. 

 The final program I wanted to talk to you about is the Bilingual Child Study Team. This 

team reduces the use of special education for culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Bilingual Child Study Team is a district-wide team that problem solves around referrals to special 

education for those who are culturally or linguistically diverse. It determines interventions, refers 

to special education, or both. 

 Bilingual Child Study Team has increased appropriate referrals to special education from 79 

percent to 97 percent in Humble ISD. When a referral is questionable, the student participates in 

bilingual curriculum-based measurement. Our school district is currently well below the state 

average in identification of students who are bilingual and identified as special education. 

 These innovations have led to positive results. For instance, Kingwood High School - a 

high school in Humble ISD - students are performing at extraordinary levels. While our regular 

education students pass the exit level assessment in the areas of reading, writing, and math at the 

rate of 99 percent, more than 97 percent of our special education students pass those same tests. 
14

98.4 percent of our special education students take these exams. I attribute this to high standards 

set for all students and support that we provide in the general education setting. 

 At Shadow Forest Elementary School, we have 17 students with autism. Of these, only two 

need the majority of their day in special education. The rest enjoy services and a range of 

educational settings that have, over time, contributed to some students moving from entering 

school as non-verbal to full inclusion and participation as general education students. I attribute 

these results to positive behavioral interventions, as I described earlier. 

 There are good things happening in public schools today. There are school districts and 

schools that work. Things can always be better. There are services to improve, and children and 

families to serve. As innovative as these things are, legislative change could improve things 

dramatically. 

 Simplify. Look at the State of Texas' discipline chart, based on the federal regulations from 

1999. I think you have some copies of them. Look at how complex the discipline regulations are.

What this system does is it freezes educators from taking positive actions, and confuses the issue of 

positive support with negative consequences. 

 Be sensible. Schools are better able to focus on innovation when freed from due process 

liabilities rising from minor procedure requirements. IEP teams should have problems presented to 

them prior to parents being able to file for due process. 

 Fund IDEA, at the 40 percent level - IDEA part C needs increases for early intervention.

That time is where trends can be reversed. Increase funding for part D, and require practical 

application of the research funded. 

 And expect. Set high standards for all students. Expect performance from the schools. 

 Thank you very much for your time. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SALLY ARTHUR, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT 

SERVICES, HUMBLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, HUMBLE, TEXAS – SEE 

APPENDIX F 

Chairman Castle. Thank you for your time, Dr. Arthur, we appreciate it. And we will be back to 

you shortly. 

Dr. Skiba, you are the final witness, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INDIANA 

UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND ON 

BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL 
15

DISORDERS 

Mr. Skiba. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dr. 

Russell Skiba. I am honored for this opportunity to speak before the committee today. 

 In addition to my faculty duties at Indiana University, I am also Director of the Safe and 

Responsive Schools Project, about which I am going to speak to you today. I am representing the 

Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, a national organization representing children with 

emotional and behavioral disorders and their families. 

 And if possible, I would like to have included in the record three helpful fact sheets on these 

issues by CCBD. 

Chairman Castle. Without objection, they will be included. 

DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD BY DR. RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR, INDIANA UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND 

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS – SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Mr. Skiba. Thank you. My statement today can be summarized by three key findings of the Safe 

and Responsive Schools Project. 

 First, we have the knowledge and the skill to make our schools effective instructional 

environments, with a minimal use of suspension and expulsion. 

 Second, there is, in fact, no evidence that suspension and expulsion positively contribute to 

school safety or improved student behavior. And they may, in fact, have unintended negative 

consequences.

 And third, we can have safe and well-disciplined schools under current law without 

significantly amending the IDEA. 

 Over the past three years, the Safe and Responsive Schools Project has worked with local 

schools in two states to develop a comprehensive approach to school discipline and school violence 

prevention. Our schools form teams that conduct needs assessment and use those results to develop 

comprehensive school safety plans that they then implement the next year. 

 We are extremely encouraged by the outcomes after the first year of implementation. 

Among our five pilot schools in Indiana, out-of-school suspensions showed a decline, ranging from 

40 to 60 percent. These gains were extended to students of disabilities as well. In one school that 

is documented here, suspensions dropped from 39 for students with disabilities to 0 the following 

year.

 I would like to highlight one school that is highlighted in the written testimony, the 

experience of Owen Valley High School. The team, in its first year, identified as one of its most 
16

serious problems the tremendous number of referrals to the office. Students were literally lined up 

in chairs outside of the administrative office, waiting to see the disciplinarian. 

 In response, the school developed an innovative new program called the Intervention Room, 

described in the written testimony. What you have in Table 1 is a summary of those results. After 

1 year of implementation, the total number of suspensions at that school was down over 50 percent, 

expulsions were down 40 percent, the number of drop-outs was down 20 percent, and the number 

of suspensions and expulsions for students with an IEP were down by 73 and 100 percent, 

respectively. 

 We believe that these data show that there is nothing in current IDEA disciplinary policies 

that prevent schools from continuing to improve the safety and disciplinary climate of our schools, 

and that positive discipline and academic excellence go hand in hand. 

 This year, Owen Valley High School was one of six schools in the nation that won the 

prestigious New American High School Award from the U.S. Department of Education, in 

recognition of its reform efforts and its increased academic excellence. 

 These findings are also consistent with the review of IDEA disciplinary provisions that I 

was commissioned to write for the ``Rethinking Special Education'' conference held here in 

Washington. The major findings of that paper were first, there is little or no evidence that the 

disciplinary provisions of IDEA significantly limit the ability of administrators to discipline 

students. The GAO found, for instance, that 75 percent of school principals across the country 

believe that the disciplinary provisions of IDEA have a positive or neutral impact on their ability to 

discipline students. 

 Second, there is no evidence that special education students are given greater leeway in 

their behavior as a result of IDEA disciplinary provisions. 

 And third, and perhaps most importantly, there is no evidence that suspension and 

expulsion make a positive contribution to school safety or improving student behavior. Rather, the 

evidence suggests that suspensions and expulsions are correlated with school drop-out rates and a 

high rate of repeat offending, suggesting that students do not learn from suspension and expulsion. 

In addition, there is very high disproportionality by race in suspension and expulsion rates that 

cannot be explained by the behavior of those students. 

 We have the knowledge to find effective disciplinary alternatives for all students. Panels of 

national experts in school violence prevention have been convened by Congress, the U.S. 

Departments of Education and Justice, the White House, and the Surgeon General. All of those 

panels have consistently recommended approaches such as violence prevention and improved 

behavior management for teaching students to solve their interpersonal and personal problems. 

 In conclusion, I would make three recommendations. First, to increase the investment in 

IDEA for developing and implementing effective research-based practices related to behavior.

There is no reason why every school in the country cannot have these kind of results, and the kind 

of results described in Humble, with sufficient support for research and for training in best 
17

practices in preventing school disruption. 

 Second, educate stakeholders in effective and ineffective methods of discipline. If we are 

serious about the call of no child left behind, to make sure that our schools only research-based 

practices, we would reduce our uses of ineffective practices like suspension and expulsion, and turn 

instead to instructional strategies for school discipline. 

 And finally, work with schools across the nation to ensure the uniform implementation of 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Perhaps we could consider some kind of national 

technical assistance that would enable us to work with schools as problems arise. 

 I know I am over time; I would just like to finish up my concluding comments here. The 

experience of Owen Valley High School and the other schools participating in the Safe and 

Responsive Schools Project has shown us that there is no inherent conflict between continuing 

services for students with disabilities and preserving the safety of our schools. 

 Schools that are most effective in preserving safety and improving student behavior have 

learned to use empirically validated prevention practices that seek to keep all students in school, 

and teach both disabled and non-disabled students what they need to know to avoid violence, to get 

along with their peers, and to succeed in school and society. 

 Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, INDIANA 

UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS – SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Skiba. 

 Before I yield to myself for questioning, I would just like to make a couple of general 

comments, based on what we have heard here today. 

 First, I was pleased to hear - actually, almost all of you - mention at some point the 

reauthorization of 1997. I know that Mr. Gloeckler and Dr. Schoonover, in particular, cited it as an 

improvement in terms of what we have done with IDEA. 

 For those of us who worked on that reauthorization, we are pleased to hear that. That was a 

bit of a difficult labor, just as this reauthorization will be, as well. And our goal is to build even 

more on some of the reforms we made in 1997, if we possibly can. But it was nice to hear that you 

believe there have been improvements in special education because of the 1997 reauthorization. I 

haven't heard that a lot, actually, people talk about IDEA. 

 The second thing is that even in areas where we might have improved, perhaps in 

discipline, et cetera, there are still ways we can improve. I don't think we have reached the ultimate 

point in any of this. And so when I ask questions, it's not necessarily picking on a particular area, 
18

it's just that I want to continue to try to improve IDEA. 

 I mean, my judgment is that the paperwork demands, the time demands on the IEPs and 

some of the lack of information which is out there are very distracting. I agree with you, Dr. Skiba, 

when you mentioned at the end the uniform implementation, and some sort of technical assistance. 

 We've just passed an education research bill here, in the House of Representatives last 

week, which we're now urging the Senate to take up. We feel that, you know, we could be doing a 

lot more with education research than we are presently in this country, and that had to be a very 

bipartisan bill that Mr. Kildee and I and a lot of others around here were strongly supportive of, and 

hopefully that can help to do that. 

 In fact, if I have time, I will probably ask a question of several of you who have been 

involved with these in the schools, about what you use for sources of information. 

 But with that, let me yield myself five minutes and run through some questions with you. 

And let me start with you, Dr. Arthur. Just looking at this chart, which you have in front of you 

and which I have here, which - and I don't begin to suggest to you I have read it, or would 

understand it if I did read it immediately - but it's a discipline flow chart for students with 

disabilities.

 What should we do? Should we change the law? Dr. Skiba says we can be doing better at 

the local level, in terms of disciplining with fewer suspensions and expulsions, et cetera, but I don't 

want people who are supposed to be teaching kids with disabilities to be spending all their time 

worrying about flow charts and paperwork, for example. 

 I know that's sort of a broad question, but do you have any immediate suggestions? 

Remember, our goal is to improve this legislation. 

Ms. Arthur. Right. You know, it's been my experience, working with administrators - because we 

trained our administrators on this particular flow chart - and working with administrators, they find 

it very complex, and difficult to manage. 

 The decision point at every point is a place where they can make an error. It's not 

problematic until they really get to that 10-day bar, and then it becomes very problematic. 

 My belief is that, you know, we can provide a free, appropriate public education for our 

kids with disabilities, and should be providing it, really, from the time they start being disciplined.

You know, in a perfect world, I do believe that we can provide for students, really almost exclusive 

to this. I think pieces of this are very important, like the functional behavioral assessment and the 

IEP process, to do that. 

 I do think that we need some consistent uniformity in our discipline chart. I do think there 

is a very disjointed appearance in public schools of some students that get one treatment, others 

that get others, kids that perhaps have manipulation as a reason for their behavior, they learn to 
19

manipulate the system. It's problematic. 

 In Texas, we do provide services from the get-go, when they are disciplined, and I think we 

can do that fairly reasonably. We have a limitation of three days' suspension, they're not allowed to 

be out of school for a long period of time. There are some constraints that you can put on 

administrators. 

 And I really do think that all kids are entitled to that. I don't think expelling any student to 

the street is appropriate. So, I think many of the entitlements that special ed kids have, generally, 

kids should have too. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you. I know it's difficult. Let me ask, I guess, Mr. Gloeckler and Dr. 

Schoonover, perhaps I'll ask this question, too, and this is, in your direct, you know, in-the-line-offire-type positions dealing with this particular subject, where do you get your information from? I 

mean, do you just develop that information in terms of New York and Nebraska, or do you look to 

other states? Is there any kind of an outlet to organizations, anything that helps with this? 

 We get a lot of complaints about IDEA. I mean, it does many good things, don't get me 

wrong, and I am one of those who believes that if you take children with disabilities and give them 

an opportunity, you might see some great abilities, as you said, Mr. Gloeckler. But my concern is 

that I don't get the sense that there is a good information base in terms of what's working or what's 

not working. And quite frankly, as we go to mark up this legislation, I am concerned that we don't 

really have the information in hand that we need in order to make the right decisions to help all of 

you with respect to educating children with disabilities.

 So, are there organizations for this, or do you just depend upon who you know in the 

community, within your states? How does this work? 

Mr. Gloeckler. In New York, there are many organizations that we can reach out to. At the 

national level, there is the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of State 

Directors of Special Education, there are clearinghouses on many of the issues. 

 However, we have, for years -. 

Chairman Castle. Any of them useful? 

Mr. Gloeckler. Yes. 

Chairman Castle. I'm serious. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. 

Mr. Gloeckler. Yes, I'm very serious. In fact, I think particularly the work that has been done on 

positive behavioral supports is a good example of how research is being disseminated and put in 

practice throughout the nation. 

 In our state, for instance, we're using folks from the Midwest to help train our teachers and 

administrators. And there are networks that identify where things are working, and word gets out. I 
20

have, for instance, been able to go to many states in the last few years, and talk about the 

performance-based approaches that we're using in New York. 

 The one thing that I would suggest to you, however, is that, when research is funded, 

particularly directly, towards issues around students with disabilities and other areas of disability, 

there usually is very little money applied to dissemination of that research. 

 So, there are certain areas where the word gets out, and there are organizations which push 

certain issues. But most of the research you have to really search for, and I think that's a problem. 

Chairman Castle. That's something I would like to address, too. Dr. Schoonover, can you answer 

that as well, and then my time is up. 

Mr. Schoonover. You know, the different organizations would be the same. But I think one of the 

things we would recommend be done in this reauthorization of IDEA is that the IDEA contain a 

requirement - or at least a strong suggestion - at the federal level, that the federal level provide 

regional workshops for special educators, both administrators and teachers and parents, and focus 

those workshops on innovative practices, bring the results of research together, and share that 

information with local administrators. 

 And in addition to that, the U.S. Department of Education should not only share 

information better, but share options and techniques that school districts can use to integrate 

funding. You know, don't just come out and say, ``This is a good program,'' but say, ``Now, if you 

really want to do it, this is the way to mix and match your funding to do that,'' including state, local, 

and federal dollars. So, help with the implementation. 

 I guess my approach would be that the answer to the question isn't, ``you can't do that.'' The 

answer is, ``Okay, let me help you do it.'' And that should be the relationship between the federal 

and the local level. It's going to take a partnership as we work with students. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Schoonover. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole question of cessation of education services has 

been a question before this committee for a long time, and a very serious concern of mine. 

Dr. Skiba, could you elaborate on what steps schools should take to make the environment safe and 

conducive to learning, and can you tell us more about some schools out there that are doing this 

effectively? 

Mr. Skiba. Certainly, Representative Kildee. We have tended, I think, in the light of the tragic 

school shooting incidents of the last few years, I think - if I can start, actually, with the previous 

question about what's working and not working, our knowledge base in the schools, in terms of 

dissemination about dealing with student behavior, is not all that it could be. And frankly, in many 

of our schools, we're just unprepared for how quickly they had to act in light of the school violence 

that occurred in our schools. 
21

 Over time, we have learned that the best approach is not through reactive approaches like 

zero tolerance, or even implementing school security measures, but a comprehensive approach to 

school violence prevention that, first of all, focuses on the entire school climate, that we put in 

place instructional approaches, like conflict resolution, or bullying prevention, that teach all 

students alternatives to violence for solving their problems. 

 At the second level, that we identify early on kids who may be at risk. In three-quarters of 

the school shooting incidents, as analyzed by the Secret Service, someone knew that that child was 

at risk, and perhaps had even been told that the child was going - had seen an early warning sign. 

So we need to have a better understanding of early identification and of ways of getting services to 

children who are at risk. 

 And then finally, a continuum of effective responses. It's not that we should never remove a 

child from school, but in fact, the overuse is counterproductive, as a number of the witnesses have 

said, and schools that are effective find a range of effective consequences, like restorative justice, 

that can pull our kids with challenging behavior back into school and keep those kids in school. 

 My approach on this is that that type of approach can short-circuit a lot of the issues we face 

- a lot of the conflict we face - around the discipline of students with disabilities. 

 There is no inherent conflict between the provisions of IDEA 1997 and discipline in our 

schools if we define discipline as the proactive and preventative solution of behavior problems. 

There is only a conflict if we over-rely on suspension and expulsion. 

 And given that suspension and expulsion really don't have much research support as 

effective approaches, it makes much more sense for us to look at this type of comprehensive 

approach across both general and special education. I hope I have answered your question. 

Mr. Kildee. You have. You have been very helpful. This has been a question before this 

committee for quite some time, and there has been some division within the Congress. 

Mr. Skiba. Yes, I am aware of that. 

Mr. Kildee. And within the committee. So, it has been helpful. Let me address a couple of 

questions to Dr. Schoonover and Dr. Arthur. 

 Are your school districts accessing Medicaid to assist with the IEPs of children? And if so, 

does that reimbursement come to your school districts, and can we do anything in the 

reauthorization of working even with other committees in this Congress to assist you in accessing 

Medicaid? 

 I ask that because some states got very, very active in accessing Medicaid – for example, 

Illinois and my own state of Michigan - and had to return some of Medicaid money. Yet, it is a 

legitimate source of help for these children. Could you two respond to that? 
22

Ms. Arthur. Well, we are accessing money through our school district. We have changed service 

providers because of some difficulty with that, but we have increased our funding significantly in 

the last few years, and are able to use some of those funds. 

 It does not nearly cover the cost of some of the services that we're having to provide for 

children that have high medical needs. And the medical things that are going on in public schools 

today are now really significant. 

 So, it has helped and assisted, and I think districts are very glad to access those funds. But 

in the same sense, we would like more funds, because there are really high-cost children in the 

public schools nowadays. 

Mr. Kildee. Dr. Schoonover? 

Mr. Schoonover. In our district, we access Medicaid to assist with the funding of speech therapy, 

physical therapy, and occupational therapy. In the State of Nebraska, that money actually goes to 

the state, and then it's an offset against our state reimbursement. 

Mr. Kildee. It's an offset? 

Mr. Schoonover. It's an offset against our state reimbursement. And we get a percentage of it for 

administrative impact to that. 

 There is another Medicaid program which supports the administration of Medicaid, and 

currently our district is not accessing that. Some school districts in the state have just started to 

access that particular money. 

 Because the first portion of that money is an offset, it generates more money for the state. 

The state has used that money to fund services coordination for our zero to five population. So it 

has been beneficial to the states for their purposes. 

Mr. Kildee. If I could just follow through with one question. Actually, the cost of those special 

needs children with medical problems really lies with you, does it not? 

Mr. Schoonover. Yes, it does. It goes back to the school district, and we're finding that, as I think 

most school districts are finding, that it's not a huge number of students. The number is small, but 

it's the complexity. It's not only the direct medical services that are complex, but it's just the 

implementation of those services in a school environment is complex. 

 It's an area in which I think most school districts would appreciate some guidance from the 

federal level, and some assistance - not in trying to figure out how not to do something, that's not 

our issue. Our issue is working together to come up with an efficient and effective way of 

implementing services for students. We all care very deeply about that. 
23

Mr. Kildee. Maybe we could address that offset question and see if some of the money could flow 

directly to the school district. 

Mr. Schoonover. Good. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Schoonover. You're welcome. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Osborne? 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. We appreciate your 

testimony. 

 I would like to start out with Dr. Skiba. I have been involved with a young person in a 

mentoring relationship. And that young person had been suspended twice, for a week. And it's kind 

of a catch 22. He then is absent, so then he gets to the point where there is no way he can pass his 

classes because of absences, and so he is not doing well. 

 So I tend to agree with you. I don't see suspension as being a very good answer in these 

cases. But still, we have cases where there are some specific behaviors that occur, and what is an 

administrator to do? And so I am going to shoot three of them at you, and maybe you can start, and 

anybody else who has an idea. 

 Let's say someone consistently talks back to a teacher. And they have been warned, and 

you know, they keep doing it. What do you do? 

 Secondly, let's say somebody shows up and they are high on drugs or alcohol, and it's pretty 

obvious.

 Or, thirdly, let's say there is a fight in the school. It isn't knives or guns, but it's a fistfight, 

and nobody gets hurt badly, but there is a fight. What do you do? 

 I mean, you're talking about some alternatives to suspension, and I guess what I'm 

interested in is what specific behavior modification can you use in those cases that does the job? 

Mr. Skiba. I'm hoping I can have everyone else's five minutes to cover this. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Skiba. I think in general, I think we can find ways of dealing with those things in various -

from various points of the three levels that I was talking about. And oftentimes, we can scale the 

severity of the behavior with where we need to be, in terms of those three issues of creating the 

climate, early identification, or effective responses. 
24

 When we talk about an issue like talking back, there is clearly an instructional approach that 

we can use. It doesn't make much sense for us to put a kid out of school for a disrespect issue.

That's probably the kind of thing that we can deal with with conversation, with instruction, with 

other behavioral approaches. 

 As we get into fighting, we may -. 

Mr. Osborne. Let me interrupt you. 

Mr. Skiba. Okay. 

Mr. Osborne. Now, I understand you're saying a conversational approach. Can you be more 

specific? I mean, are you talking about a group therapy session? Some structured conflict 

resolution class? Or what would you do? 

Mr. Skiba. No, probably not a group therapy session. Some sort of discussion with a school 

counselor. We may have more structured behavioral approaches that deal with compliance 

training. There is actually a whole literature out there on compliance training that provides a 

positive - instead of punishing a child for non-compliance, we reward the child for compliance, and 

gradually, over time, shape that. 

 So there is a whole literature out there. I would be happy to talk with you about it in more 

detail -. 

Mr. Osborne. I would like to see that. I appreciate it. Go ahead. 

Mr. Skiba. I think as we get to more complex issues like fighting, we have to involve more levels 

of our continuum. Certainly the fact that - if we look at some studies on conflict resolution, when 

they interview children, they find that 85 percent of all kids in schools believe there is no other way 

to solve their problems than through fighting. 

 So clearly, at the overall level, we have a big job in front of us in educating our children 

that there are alternatives to fighting; things like conflict resolution can do that. 

 But also, we need to protect the safety of our schools. And I am by no means saying that 

there are no times in which we don't take a kid out of school if we need that for safety. But again, 

there are interventions like restorative justice that we can use to handle the kids who are fighting. 

 And we have to sort of look at two levels here. I was on a statewide telecast one time with 

the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. And after talking about all of the behavioral 

principles, somebody called in and said, ``Well, what do you do if a kid throws a chair?'' 

 Well, you know, my answer was ``duck.'' But you know, our options are really pretty 

limited if we wait until that serious incident takes place to take action. If we notice that we have 

serious problems of fighting in the school, then we take action before that to address kind of the 

root causes of fighting in our school, and seek to address those to decrease the overall incidence of 
25

fighting.

 I think drug and alcohol problems become a very significant problem for our community. 

One of our schools, frankly, a couple of our high schools have really solved a lot of their other 

problems with safe and responsive schools, but they are still very much wrestling with drug and 

alcohol problems in their rural areas. 

 And I think we have to make a very serious effort to work with juvenile justice authorities, 

of working with community mental health. It really requires a more community-based and whole 

community effort to deal with some of those causes, because we're not simply going to be able to 

deal with that within school when there are lots of other community factors impinging on that. 

 I know I haven't begun to answer your question here, but -. 

Mr. Osborne. That's a good start. Thank you. 

Mr. Skiba. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. I guess that is all we are going to do for now, is just begin to answer the 

question with the time limits we have. Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Congressman Kildee addressed 

one of the major issues that has always been of concern to me, having been on a school board for 

nine years in San Diego, California, and that is the one of the medical issues that arise. 

 In addition to being able to access certain funding streams, have you considered, thought - 

and this is to any of you - a whole different way to do that? I mean, should school districts have - 

or, you know, health and human services, fund the medical needs of kids in school? And this is all 

children, because we know that many, many children go to school - their primary care giver is the 

school house. 

 And it's just a big issue, in addition to special education. Do you have some other ways that 

we might address this issue? Anybody thought about a different mechanism, different structure? 

Ms. Arthur. Well, we have thought about different mechanisms. We don't really know - and this 

may just be ignorance - how to access those funding streams as school districts. 

 Certainly, we are all looking at - we, in Humble, right now are looking at - the possibility of 

school clinics on the school campuses for children that have health needs, and families that have 

health needs, and whether there are some ways that you can access other funding streams, for 

example, for mental health issues, that could possibly bring wrap-around services to children. 

 We have not taken that step yet. It requires a lot of connections with outside resources and 

funding streams, and we just haven't really figured it quite out. We do have a contingent of people 

from our district right now going to Atlanta to talk with a parent who has done a lot of work with 

alternative funding streams by the name of Sue Smith. She has done a lot of work in the State of 
26

Georgia.

 And so, we're trying to figure out how to do it right now, but we have to seek that 

information. It is not readily available to school districts. 

Mrs. Davis. Did you have a comment? 

Mr. Schoonover. Just one comment. In our district, some of our medical services are funded with 

Medicaid, and some of them we fund. And from a local administrative perspective, I haven't been 

able to figure out the difference between the two situations. I am sure there is, and I guess it's 

probably due to a lack of understanding of the Medicaid rules and how those rules are applied. 

 So, one thing that would help would be to simplify that, and actually communicate how 

those rules apply, because quite honestly, I have not figured out the difference between the two 

situations. 

Mr. Gloeckler. Yes. From a state perspective on that issue, one of the recommendations I made in 

my paper, which I didn't talk about in my oral testimony, is that we know there is tremendous 

research on the improvements of student performance when health and mental health services are 

readily available to schools, whether in schools or as a collaboration with a community. 

 There has been, I think, virtually no significant work done at the federal level - because I 

know you're asking how can you help - to clarify what the barriers really are to pooling funding, to 

collaboration that's easy and quick. 

 And that would be an area, I think, that's really ripe for study as IDEA is reauthorized, 

because much of what IDEA calls for today, as we keep getting more and more - as there is more 

and more improvement and more and more awareness of the capabilities of people with disabilities 

- is to deal with the more complex issues. And I think that's an area which we just haven't 

addressed yet, and we really welcome your support and we would be glad to give you any kind of 

advice that you need, specifically, on that. 

Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you. I think that would be really helpful. And it is just clear to me that, 

even though you may be able to access some of those funding streams, at least the districts that are 

represented here don't. 

 I think we have seen some situations where school districts have. San Diego has made 

some attempts, and has been successful in some ways, and they have done some very integrative 

kinds of services. 

 But the other thing that we all need to recognize is that school health centers are very 

controversial in communities. And even though they bring great benefit to a community, they also 

create a lot of problems. And sometimes it's hard, politically, for people to move forward with that. 

 I think the other issue that would be helpful to us in helping to get a handle on, as you 

suggest, trying to reclarify, redefine the free and public education, appropriate education for 
27

children. And I think I look to you in some ways to help with that, as well. 

 I think that it would be important for Congress to do that, so that we don't leave any child 

behind, but at the same time, we might acknowledge that there have been some real serious 

problems that have been an issue for public schools, and certainly the encroachment issue is a 

major one, in terms of all funding that school districts receive. 

 Is that - just - I know my time is up, but can you just - maybe there is a concern or two 

there, or if there is one issue, particularly, that we should look at in this regard of redefinition, what 

would that be? 

Mr. Gloeckler. Well, let me speak to that. One of the things that we find - the strategy that has 

been used so far, to attempt to bring clarity to who does what, which is really what you're talking 

about, I think, is agreements. 

 And what we've found is agreements work when everybody is willing to agree. And they 

also work best when there is little debate over resources. But agreements really have not been an 

effective strategy in the long term. So, the encroachment occurs because the people who are 

supposed to agree to help agreed, but never helped. 

 Again, I think those two issues are connected. If we can clarify who is responsible under 

what conditions, and how to pool funds, which are targeted to the same people sometimes, just for 

slightly different reasons, we might be able to, I guess, mitigate the need to worry too much about 

redefining FAPE, because I think most of it has to do with the inability to bring the other systems, 

including education, together in a real collaboration. 

Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. Mr. Tancredo is next. 

Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCain, by far the most exciting, I think, 

development - as far as I'm concerned, anyway, and as far as I've been able to observe in this whole 

area - is what is happening in Florida with the McKay Scholarship Program. It is bold; it is 

challenging a lot of assumptions, of course, and, therefore, it challenges a lot of powerful special 

interests. And the fact that you have been able - that those in the State of Florida who are concerned 

about children have actually been able - to overcome the objections and the obstinacy of 

organizations who are more concerned about the system than they are about children, is to your 

credit.

 I am interested in, among other things, the - you state in your testimony that “To alleviate 

confusion and misunderstanding, our legislature defined disabilities for the purpose of this program 

to include” - and then you listed them. Does that indicate that there was no state - there was no 

other definition, there was no other legal definition in place before that? 

Ms. McCain. No. In other parts of the statute, the definition was provided. However, when 

parents would refer to the McKay program and the law that provides that program, many parents 
28

believe that their - as all parents do - that their child is very special. So they often, even a child 

without special needs, or without disabilities, the parent believes that perhaps their child might be 

eligible for this program, which was not the case. 

 It was very disappointing for parents, but it was a clarification thing, and it really did 

eliminate some confusion to actually put that in this particular part of the law. 

Mr. Tancredo. I see. And specific learning disabilities, specific learning disabled, is that defined 

any better, beyond that, in the law? 

Ms. McCain. No, I do not believe so in the rest of our statutes. However, what would not be 

eligible would be a child, perhaps, that has broken their leg and perhaps receiving services at home. 

That child is temporarily disabled, but is not learning disabled. Does that answer your question? 

Mr. Tancredo. Yes, thank you. I am interested in knowing the structure of most of the private 

schools to which these children go, especially in regards to their general education offering, as 

opposed to special education offering. 

 Are most of the schools to which these children go, most of the private schools, providing 

general education and they have a special ed. program like any other school but it, for whatever 

reason, offers something to the parent that they think they cannot -. 

Ms. McCain. The majority of the schools, yes. They provide general education with a specialty.

And then we do have some highly specialized private schools. 

 And you will notice that, while our numbers have increased greatly, I do think that we're 

going to, within the next year or so, more or less cap out, if you will, for existing private schools 

that are established in the state. 

 We have more than 2,000 private schools in the state. Clearly, not all of them are able to 

provide special services, nor are they interested in doing so for this amount of funding. But we 

have schools that perhaps serve just autistic children, or they have a particular specialized area, and 

are known for that. 

 And then we have schools that have a religious basis, and they have perhaps specialized 

instructors and teachers on the campus. 

Mr. Tancredo. And did I understand you correctly that the capping effect that would occur is a 

result of supply, not demand? 

Ms. McCain. Yes. Mm-hmm, yes. Many of the schools that initially participated - and I 

mentioned one that was - or, I didn't get to that point, where there was a school that the board - a 

private school that expressed a concern as to whether or not the program would be around for any 

length of time. 
29

Mr. Tancredo. Yes, it's in your -. 

Ms. McCain. They wanted to, you know, have these children, for a multitude of reasons, dealing 

with the government. I mean, there were a number of questions in the minds of that school board’s 

members. 

 They were encouraged by a particular parent to accept one child. That child did so well -

and I don't mean just in terms of progress, but they were pleased with the way everything worked 

out, the child's progress being a large part of that - that they have now expanded their services.

Coming into the third year, they are going to have 43 students, I believe. 

 So some of the schools have actually expanded their space availability, where before, they 

may have been a little concerned about participating or not. 

Mr. Tancredo. Have you been able to recognize any attempt on the part of the public schools from 

which these children came, for instance, to revise their program, or in any way adopt -. 

Ms. McCain. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. Tancredo. Okay. 

Ms. McCain. We are in the process of surveying parents. It is likely that some evaluations will be 

completed by early fall, certainly by the end of the year, on what would motivate a parent to make a 

change, whether it's to another public school setting, or to a private school. 

 We want to know for a multitude of reasons, but also because the school districts want to 

know so that they can make some changes and improvements. Part of the program's success, I 

think -. 

Mr. Tancredo. And I think that is so important for people to understand and hear here, that the 

benefit eventually, is to the child, to all children. 

Ms. McCain. Yes. 

Mr. Tancredo. In fact, public schools may change whatever they are doing in order to 

accommodate that, and isn't that what exactly we're all about? Well, anyway, I am sorry, our time 

is up. 

Ms. McCain. No, that's wonderful. Would you like to come home with me? But that said, 

teachers also are reporting - public school teachers - we have children of public school teachers in 

the McKay program, but they are reporting that they are being ``listened to'' more directly now. 

Because what they have to say, and perhaps what they had been saying - and it was falling perhaps 

on deaf ears because of financial constraints, or whatever - is now being paid attention to and 

perhaps resulting in some changes. 
30

 The program's success includes this data that we're going to get, in terms of the evaluation 

and what we're seeing. 

 The fact that the majority of the children are in middle school grades, as opposed to early 

grades, reflects that parents have ``given a particular school a chance'' to educate the child, and then 

have made a conscientious decision to leave the public school system, or to remain in the public 

school system, but just go for another choice. 

 And that's another thing that sometimes gets overlooked when people oppose a program, or 

particularly the McKay program - it's about public school choices as well. And that has been, I 

think, very important to parents, many of whom had applied for waivers and had been unable to get 

them, and now are able to -. 

Mr. Tancredo. Get them. 

Ms. McCain. - just make another public school choice. 

Mr. Tancredo. That's great. Thank you. 

Ms. McCain. Thank you. 

Mr. Tancredo. And congratulations to you. 

Ms. McCain. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask very briefly of the witness? 

Chairman Castle. Mrs. Davis, certainly. 

Mrs. Davis. I am sorry, I do not quite understand what the - you mentioned the level of funding. 

Could you clarify that for me? 

Ms. McCain. Yes. We refer to the McKay program as a scholarship program, as opposed to a 

voucher program, although it is a check that is actually made payable to the parent. 

 The amount of that scholarship tuition check is equal to what the child generated in the state 

funding amount. So we call it the FEFP, for the Florida Education Finance Program, and that is 

what follows a child. Construction dollars don't follow the child, many other funding sources do 

not follow the child. But the per-student funding does follow the child, either to another public 

school or to a private school. 

Mrs. Davis. And what is that in Florida generally? 

Ms. McCain. Well, it varies from county to county, or from district to district. We finance the 

children based on their level of disability that we classify, and a matrix. 
31

 And a child that is perhaps not severely disabled is at what we call the low end. It's about 

$4,800.

Mrs. Davis. And? 

Ms. McCain. And a child at a high end would be around $15,000, and could go as high as $20,000.

But we have less than one percent of those children participating in this program. Many of them 

are already served under a third-party contract with the district and a private institution or school 

setting.

Mrs. Davis. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. I believe all the members who want to participate 

have, and we're going to have a vote fairly soon. I want to ask just a couple of more questions, and 

maybe Mr. Kildee will, but if the votes begin we will have to break it all up. 

 But let me ask you, Mr. Gloeckler, a couple of questions. First of all, do you think we are 

over-identifying children? Do you think we are, by not providing services in early childhood, 

getting children in school who have learning problems that are not true disabilities? With regard to 

what we're doing when people get into the IDEA system, do we have an over-identification 

problem going on that we need to be focused on? 

Mr. Gloeckler. In New York State, we have been very concerned about a pattern that makes one 

suspicious of over-identification in that, for many, many years, the percentage of students in the 

total enrollment placed in special education was growing every year. 

 We instituted in the mid-1990s - added in the late 1990s - a program that was targeted to 

prevention of support services in the general education environment. And lo and behold, we have 

now seen a leveling off of referrals and placements in special education. As long -. 

Chairman Castle. Now, repeat that. What did you do? 

Mr. Gloeckler. We instituted - the name - we all have our own names for these programs, as you 

know, but ours is called Education-Related Support Services Aid, and what it is is aid targeted at 

support services and general education for those students that might have difficulties that were 

being referred to special -. 

Chairman Castle. Is it usually aimed at younger children, or is it sort of factored over all the 

grades? 

Mr. Gloeckler. Generally, the students that benefited from that were in the elementary schools. 

But it could be used elsewhere. 

 But as a result of that and other efforts that we have made as part of the goals I laid out 

here, we have seen a flattening of special education placement percentages. But we do see in our 
32

urban districts, however, and our districts with lower resources, higher rates of classification. 

Chairman Castle. But the over-identification problem of minorities, which we've heard -. 

Mr. Gloeckler. Absolutely, and I have data in our testimony that shows you where we are in New 

York on that issue. 

 But I would say to you that as long as there is a disproportionate placement of minorities in 

special education, we have an over-identification problem. And I think that is tied to resources, the 

models that the urban districts still use, and the fact that in many districts, students are referred to 

special education because there is no other option. 

 So, I think it's really critical that we keep focusing on building the general education 

supports at an early age. 

Chairman Castle. Now, my final question on this line is this - for the kids who are receiving 

special education services, what is your percentage of kids who go back into the mainstream of 

education? Are you working on that, or is that somebody nobody pays attention to? How are you 

doing? 

Mr. Gloeckler. Again, it is one of our specific goals. We call it declassification, or returning to a 

supported general ed environment. At the preschool level, that percentage has grown up to 19 

percent. That percentage of students are being declassified when they move into the school's 

general education system, so that is positive. 

 In our state, virtually no student gets declassified when they're identified in school age, and 

the classification rate is as low, I believe, as three-and-a-half percent, which we're very concerned 

about.

Chairman Castle. Okay. Thank you. And I will ask one final question of Dr. Schoonover. You 

may not have an answer to this, but I'm concerned about the individualized education program. I 

mean, that is somewhat like Dr. Arthur's chart. I mean, there are a whole huge number of hours - 

we have had other testimony on this. 

 Any ideas, any specific thoughts of how to manage that? I'm not suggesting it's not needed, 

but I would also suggest that perhaps in a bureaucratic, regulatory way, that we have sort of 

overdone it in some instances. Do you have any thoughts about that? 

Mr. Schoonover. Yes. We would like to see the IEP return to being an instructional document. 

Over a period of years, the IEP has started out as an instructional document, and then it became a 

combination of an instructional document and a compliance document. 

 We would recommend that you return the IEP to being an instructional document. We 

understand there has to be a compliance document, and I would suggest that if there is a need for a 

compliance document - which there is - that we look at a different way of doing that, maybe 

looking at a different document all together, and perhaps tying that to the three-year re-evaluation 
33

cycle, so that compliance is an ongoing process that you review every three years, and the IEP, 

again, sticks with an instructional approach. 

 So, we would like to see, really, a return to its intended purpose, which was instruction. 

Chairman Castle. Okay. Let me turn - 

Ms. Arthur. Mr. Chairman, may I - 

Chairman Castle. I'm sorry, were you - 

Ms. Arthur. May I make a comment? 

Chairman Castle. You certainly may. 

Ms. Arthur. You know, one of the things I think that's really critical to understand about that 

discipline chart is it really removes flexibility from the hands of administrators. 

 If you look, for example, when Mr. Osborne asked the question about alcohol and drugs, 

there is the automatic implication that you send a student to a discipline alternative education 

placement. People don't even consider that there is any other option. So I do think that there needs 

to be some sort of remedy to this complicated process because it is very inflexible, and very 

difficult to implement. 

Mr. Skiba. May I -. 

Chairman Castle. You're going to have to be brief. 

Mr. Skiba. I felt remiss in not mentioning to Mr. Osborne that there are a lot of resources out 

there. If the committee would consult our website that is in the testimony, we have a resource link 

there that has - should have - resources for addressing all of those things. 

 In general, though, I think that the answer that Dr. Arthur talks about, not understanding 

that there are a lot of options, is a critical one in our schools right now. There are options like the 

``Tough Kid Book'' for dealing with these problems of non-compliance. Mendler and Curwin have 

a wonderful book called ``Discipline with Dignity.'' 

 What is important is that we begin to look at the training mechanisms that might be inherent 

in IDEA. We are beginning to focus on early intervention in reading, and that is a wonderful thing 

that the Congress is beginning to consider. 

 We should also, perhaps, consider training for our teachers in appropriate methods of 

behavior management - in providing them these options so that they don't have to rely on 

exclusionary options as much, once they know how to deal with these problems. 
34

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Skiba. Mr. Platts wanted one minute, and then Mr. Kildee will 

take whatever time he needs, and we will wrap it up. 

Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you. Although I am coming in late, I 

appreciate the wealth of knowledge and the statistics and things you shared in your testimony. 

 I had just one question, Ms. McCain, on the McKay Scholarship Program. I understand that 

there is a lawsuit that's been brought on the non-special-ed -. 

Ms. McCain. The opportunity scholarship program. 

Mr. Platts. But none has been brought on the McKay Scholarships? 

Ms. McCain. No, we have 100 percent happy parents. 

Mr. Platts. And the way they are administered is - I mean, there are different qualifications - that 

you have to be an IDEA student to apply for a McKay Scholarship, but the funding - 

Ms. McCain. Well, the major difference between the two scholarship programs, or voucher 

programs, is eligibility. For a child in McKay, the child does have to be a special needs student and 

be receiving, for the prior school year, special ed services and have an IEP that's been written for 

the child. 

 For the Opportunity Scholarship Program, it has nothing to do with the individual child and 

has everything to do with the public school's performance. 

Mr. Platts. Okay. 

Ms. McCain. And if a school receives a failing grade for two out of four years, then the children 

that are assigned or attending that school are eligible. 

Mr. Platts. Is there any difference in what's required of the school, as far as accepting students? 

Ms. McCain. Yes. The private schools that participate in the Opportunity Scholarship Program do 

have to accept the children on a random basis, and I will speak to how that differs in more detail 

with the McKay Scholarship Program, and I will be quick about it. The tuition is set at what we 

call the FTE, or the individual student allocation. 

 There is no supplemental payment that can be made by the parent, so choices are somewhat 

limited by private schools that will accept that voucher. 

Mr. Platts. That's the McKay? 

Ms. McCain. No, that's in the Opportunity Scholarship Program. 
35

Mr. Platts. Okay. 

Ms. McCain. In McKay, parents can supplement. 

Mr. Platts. Okay. 

Ms. McCain. And often, they do not need to, however. And we do encourage the private schools, 

while they are not to discriminate - we don't want them accepting a child they cannot serve. 

 And we intensely work with parents, as do the local school districts, to let the parents know 

what is available in the public school system and in the private school system, as well. 

Mr. Platts. Has there been any difficulty of parents with the McKay Scholarships wanting to get 

into a certain school that is serving their student's - their child's - needs, and they feel the school has 

not been fair in the application process, or the review of accepting their - 

Ms. McCain. We haven't had that happen yet. The biggest obstacle initially was finances. Often a 

parent may have a child that qualifies for a $4,800 payment, and they are picking a school with a 

tuition of $15,000. The state will not pay the difference. 

 However, what has happened is we have had a number of other funding sources, private 

funding sources, through organizations that have provided that supplement. 

Mr. Platts. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Platts. I would now yield to Mr. Kildee for any final 

statements, questions, or whatever he wishes to - 

Mr. Kildee. Well, I thank the people who testified today. The third bell is about to ring, we have 

to go over to vote. But this has been a very, very helpful hearing, and I appreciate you, Governor,

holding this hearing. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. We only get - Republicans only get two bells, the 

Democrats get three. I'm jealous. 

 Let me thank all of you as well. We do appreciate you being here today; we always know 

it's a sacrifice to come here. Your testimony, the written testimony, will be, obviously, perused by 

the staff, and if you have any further thoughts afterwards, please feel free to contact us. 

 We plan, some time before this year is over, to be marking this legislation up and going 

forward. We will be having some additional hearings, but it has been very valuable to have all of 

you here, and we thank you. We all have to run out the door, or we would go down and shake your 

hand. But we do thank you and appreciate your being here. Thank you. 
36

DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD BY DR. RUSSELL SKIBA, ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR, INDIANA UNIVERSITY/BLOOMINGTON, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, AND 

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS – SEE 

APPENDIX I 

 We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned] 
37
38
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

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Castle, 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 

Mr. Gloeckler, 6, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32 

Mr. Kildee, 3, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35 

Mr. Osborne, 23, 24, 25 

Mr. Platts, 34, 35 

Mr. Schoonover, 10, 20, 22, 23, 26, 32 

Mr. Skiba, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 33 

Mr. Tancredo, 27, 28, 29, 30 

Mrs. Davis, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 

Ms. Arthur, 12, 18, 22, 25, 33 

Ms. McCain, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35