REFORMING THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT: 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT’S 

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL 

EDUCATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 10, 2002 

Serial No. 107-70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-596 pdf 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (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 T. 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 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................iii

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN A. BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................................................................. 4

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, SUBCOMMITEE ON 

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.......................................................... 5

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. ..................... 7

STATEMENT OF TERRY BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S 

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY 

TODD JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX A -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 45

APPENDIX B -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER 

GEORGE MILLER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C........................................................ 49

APPENDIX C -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. 

CASTLE, SUBCOMMITEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. . 57

APPENDIX D -- 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................................................................................................................... 61
iv

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TERRY BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION; 

ACCOMPANIED BY TODD JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR............................................ 65

APPENDIX F – WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS KUCINICH, 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 73

APPENDIX G – QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT TO THE 

HONORABLE TERRY BRANSTAND, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY 

REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C....................... 77

APPENDIX H - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOME EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.............................. 83

APPENDIX I - DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

SUBMITTED DURING A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION HELD IN CENTENNIAL, 

COLORADO ON JULY 1, 2002 ON “REFORMING THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT IS NECESSARY AND POSSIBLE.”............................... 87

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 111 
1

HEARING ON REFORMING THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT: RECOMMENDATIONS 

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON 

EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 

____________________________________________

WENDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2002 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Hon. John H. Boehner [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, Ballenger, Hoekstra, McKeon, Castle, Schaffer, 

Tancredo, Isakson, Platts, Osborne, Miller, Kildee, Owens, Payne, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, 

Rivers, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Solis, and Davis. 

 Staff present: Alexis Callin, Communications Staff Assistant; Scott Galupo, 

Communications Specialist; Kate Gorton, Professional Saff Member; Charles Hokanson, 

Professional Staff Member; Sally Lovejoy, Education/Human Resources Policy Director; Patrick 

Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Doug Mesecar, Professional Staff Member; Maria Miller, 

Communication Coordinator; Deborah Samantar, Communication Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Dave 

Schnittger, Communications Director; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Elisabeth Wheel, 

Legislative Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Legislative Associate; Ruth Friedman, Minority 

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

Legislative Associate; Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant; and Suzanne Palmer, Minority 

Legislative Associate. 
2

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

will come to order. Let me say good morning to all of you. I am especially glad that we have 

Governor Branstad, the Chairman of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special 

Education, here with us today, and Todd Jones, the Commission's executive director. 

 Let me also say good morning to my good friend, Mr. Miller, the ranking Democrat, and all 

of my colleagues who are here today with us for this important hearing. 

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on the recommendations from the President's 

Commission on Excellence in Special Education. This is another in a series of hearings that we 

have done at both the subcommittee and the full committee level on how to reform IDEA. 

 We have one witness today, and I would like to welcome him to the Committee. Governor 

Branstad, as I mentioned, is the Chairman of the President's Commission on Excellence and Special 

Education.

 Previously he served as Governor of the State of Iowa for four consecutive terms, where he 

made education the top priority in his administration and emphasized the need for all children in 

the state to receive the highest quality education, no matter what their ability and circumstances of 

birth. Governor Branstad has also served as Chairman of the National Governors Association, the 

Republican Governors Association and the Education Commission of the States. I want to thank 

him for being here today to discuss this important and timely matter. 

 Joining Governor Branstad at the witness table today is Todd Jones, the Commission's 

executive director. We are glad that he is here as well. 

 I'm going to limit the opening statements to the Chairman and the ranking minority 

member, and a designee from each side. If other members have written statements, they will be 

included in the record. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the record will remain open for 14 

days to allow statements and other extraneous material mentioned during the hearing this morning 

to be in the official record. 

 Without objection, so ordered. 

 Since October of last year, this committee and the Subcommittee on Education Reform 

have conducted a series of hearings preparing for the reauthorization of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, a statute that has played an important role in ensuring that the doors of 

learning are open to millions of students with disabilities since it was originally passed in 1975. 
3

 During these hearings, we have heard from special education experts, education researchers 

and school finance experts; state, district and school administrators and officials; parents of 

children with special needs; and others with expertise in the field of special education. 

 At today's hearing, the sixth in this series, we will hear from the chairman of the President's 

Commission. As you know, the Commission's report, which was submitted to the President last 

week, is a welcome addition to the materials this committee will be reviewing in its examination of 

the special education system. 

 I applaud the Commission's emphasis on reducing the paperwork burden for teachers, 

improving academic results for children with special needs, and maximizing options for parents 

with such children. 

 This expert panel has soundly rejected the notion of turning special education into a new 

federal entitlement spending system, which would directly impede our efforts to reform the current 

system to address the growing concerns of teachers, parents, and most importantly, our children 

with special needs. 

 Despite the improvements made in 1997, major problems remain in the special education 

system, problems that money alone won't fix for teachers, parents, and children with these special 

needs.

 Teachers, for example, want the special education paperwork burden reduced. Parents of 

students with special needs want better results and more options. Too many children, particularly 

minorities, are being wrongly placed in special education classes they don't belong in. 

 I think the Commission has done a great service for students with special needs as well as 

teachers and parents by soundly rejecting the notion that IDEA should be turned into a mandatory 

entitlement. 

 The Commission's report is filled with dozens of recommendations, and with many 

nuances. This committee should closely review this report to see how we can build on the reforms 

of the No Child Left Behind Act to improve the quality of education provided to children with 

special needs. 

 I know that we will approach this authorization with the same vigor, candor, and trust with 

which the members of this committee approached our work on the No Child Left Behind Act. We 

know children with special needs, their parents, and our schools deserve nothing less. 

 I would like now to yield to my friend and colleague, the ranking member from California, 

Mr. Miller. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN A. BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 
4

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER GEORGE 

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing, and Governor, 

welcome to the Committee. I will be brief, because I want to make sure the Governor has 

sufficient time to answer the questions of members of the Committee and to explain the report. 

 I want to thank the Governor and the Commissioners for the work that they have put into 

this effort over the last eight months. They have held almost 20 days of public meetings and 109 

formal witnesses, and 175 individuals providing public testimony, 5,000 pages of transcript. 

 I must say that my initial conclusion is that this report is somewhat thin and I think 

somewhat vague with respect to providing a restatement of - if that was the intent - what should be 

done with respect to IDEA or providing a blueprint for this committee. 

 I will be interested in hearing both a further expansion and the discussion of the idea of 

vouchers, because the report does mention that procedural safeguards and due process should 

follow, but our experience is that that has not been the case, and I don't know that that's necessarily 

the position that I understood the administration to have. 

 And also I think we need to have an expansion of the discussion of full funding, of 

mandatory spending, and the suggestion somehow that full funding is somewhat different than we 

have been working on over the last 30 years, and the commitments that this and every Congress on 

a bipartisan basis have made to the public, to the parents, and to the school districts. 

 It may be that that number differs, but until such time as that is established, I don't think that 

we should now be backtracking on the commitment that we have made, and I look forward to a 

discussion on that matter. 

 I think, as currently presented in the report, it sort of defies what we're hearing from parents 

and from school administrators and from teachers and others. Somehow the suggestion I guess is 

that the money alone won't cure some of the problems that we have identified, the Commission has 

identified, and others have, and we understand that. 

 This committee, under Mr. Boehner's leadership, has been committed to reform and 

resources going hand-in-hand, but I think the notion that somehow now with the reforms taking 

place that the full funding as it is generally understood within the education community, and within 

the IDEA community, is somewhat troublesome. 

 I say that because I'm a little worried that we are getting into a scenario of bait and switch 

here. We went through massive, drastic reforms in Leave No Child Behind, and then the following 

year, the funding disappeared. I think that tells us something, that there is a lesson or there is 

certainly - well, there is a lesson to be learned and there is concern to be had, and to now suggest 

that we would not make an effort to make this a mandatory spending is very troublesome in light of 
5

that record. 

 So I thank the Commission for their work, but I am troubled by some of the vagueness of 

the recommendations and also the direction of some of the recommendations in terms of 

fundamental principles of the Act. 

 We all desire to reduce paperwork, but I think we also know from so many parents who 

have engaged this system that if you don't write it down, it doesn't get done, and it's got to be 

written down somewhere to provide for the protections of these children and for their full 

educational opportunity. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER GEORGE 

MILLER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee on education reform, 

Mr. Castle. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to extend a warm welcome to the former 

Governor of Iowa and Chairman of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special 

Education, Terry Branstad. 

 Years ago, I witnessed Terry's commitment to education when he worked with former 

President Bush to convene our nation's governors for the historic 1989 summit. Today, I am glad, 

but not at all surprised, to see that Terry is still working to make a quality education available to all 

Americans. 

 When Terry and I were at the summit dinner in Charlottesville, our tent overlooked the 

academic village founded by Thomas Jefferson, where it was said that students could look out to 

the horizon poised between their education and their future, between what they are and what they 

would become. 

 Today, despite progress in classrooms around this country, children with disabilities are not 

completing school or performing at levels near their non-disabled peers. Their dreams for the 

future are often beyond their reach and below our expectations. For this reason, I am especially 
6

pleased that your recommendations seek to make accountability for results just as important for 

children with disabilities as for any other kids. 

 I also want to commend you for your focus on early identification and intervention. As you 

mention in your findings, more than half of the children in special education programs have 

specific learning disabilities. Yet, unlike many severe physical and mental disabilities, some are 

identified because they have failed to learn fundamental skills like reading. 

 Other children, who have real, intractable learning disabilities, may not be identified until 

they fail for several years. In either case, it is clear that we must do more to identify young 

children who may be developmentally delayed and provide the necessary assistance to help them 

succeed.

 Finally, I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that the discussion on the Commission's 

recommendations has focused so much on the mandatory versus discretionary funding issue. In my 

subcommittee's hearings, and in discussions with parents, teachers, and school officials in 

Delaware and across the country, it is clear that our current policies do not always deliver the 

education our children deserve. 

 While funding is an important discussion, it is not the only topic for discussion and it is my 

hope that we can come together to do what's right for our children with disabilities. 

 Thank you, Terry, for your hard work on this report. Your findings and recommendations 

bring a fresh perspective about special education and it will complement our efforts as we move 

forward with the reauthorization of IDEA. 

 Your commissioners, your staff, and especially Todd Jones, who is with you, your 

executive director, have much to celebrate. We appreciate it. 

 I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL N. CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

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

APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on education 

reform, Mr. Kildee. 
7

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, Mr. Chairman. I want to join my colleagues in welcoming Governor 

Branstad to the committee today. I thank you for your work over the past few months on the 

Commission and on this report. 

 The Commission's report has provided us with some recommendations that are worthy of 

further discussion. These include ensuring children with disabilities are truly included in state and 

local accountability systems, that's a very important recommendation. 

 These also include ensuring interventions are available for children who are struggling 

academically but not yet identified for special education. Unfortunately, I too must join my 

ranking member in expressing disappointment over much of the remaining substance of the 

Commission's report. 

 The report's focus on private school vouchers is divisive. The Commission's opposition to 

mandatory funding for IDEA and its desire to lower the federal share of excess cost is extremely 

troubling to me. 

 With the increasing demands faced by local school districts and tightening state budgets, 

now is not the time to back away from the additional resources for IDEA. 

 I am also dismayed that the Commission chose not to address problems that school districts 

have encountered in receiving reimbursement from Medicaid. School districts all across the 

country should be provided with assistance from the Department and the Center for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services in obtaining reimbursement for legitimate health and administrative expenses. 

 While the Commission's report includes statutory and regulatory recommendations, I 

believe our most important work could be done in the area of implementation. Too many students 

with disabilities have yet to see the full benefit of IDEA. 

 In large part, this is not due to statutory or regulatory problems, but a lack of effective 

implementation and enforcement. Parents continue to be our top cops to ensuring children with 

disabilities receive services. This isn't fair. Our efforts, this Congress should not be to focus on 

simply change for change sake, rather we should encourage a fuller implementation of this statute 

and its guarantees for children with disabilities. 
8

Chairman Castle and I have had subcommittee hearings, which covered many of the ideas 

embodied in the Commission's report. These hearings have shown that there are many aspects on 

which we can work together. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I yield back the balance of my time. 

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 D 

Chairman Boehner. Before I go to Governor Branstad, let me recognize the gentleman from 

Colorado, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that documents I received during a forum 

held in my district entitled Reform of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Is Necessary 

and Possible be included in the hearing record. 

 Copies of the documents have been provided to my Democratic colleagues. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Miller. Reserving the right to object, and I do so without prejudice, but until such time as we 

have had an opportunity to review the documents, since there is no presence at the hearing, I do 

object.

Chairman Boehner. The objection is heard, but do we have an agreement that upon review of the 

documents, if there is an agreement, that they will be included in the record? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, if that's the case, yes. 

Chairman Boehner. Okay. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. With that, Governor Branstad, we are glad that you are here. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S 

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION; 

ACCOMPANIED BY TODD JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. Branstad. Good morning. Thank you very much, Chairman Boehner, and Congressman 

Miller, and other members of the committee, especially Congressman and former Governor Castle, 

and Congressman Kildee and others members of the committee. It is a neat opportunity for me to 
9

have this chance to testify before your committee today. 

 I was honored to be asked by the President to chair this Presidential Commission on 

Excellence in Special Education and we had a very diverse bipartisan group of citizens that worked 

diligently on the Commission. 

 I am pleased to report that the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education 

has finished its work. The Commission met its July 1 deadline for transmitting its report to 

President Bush. This morning I will outline the Commission's major findings and 

recommendations. Although the report is long and detailed - it's about 88 pages long - I will just 

hit the highlights. 

 On October 2, 2001, President Bush ordered the creation of the Commission. In his 

executive order, he made the following statement, and I quote, ``The education of all children, 

regardless of background or disability, while chiefly a state and local responsibility, must always be 

a national priority. One of the most important goals of my administration is to support states and 

local communities in creating and maintaining a system of public education where no child is left 

behind. Unfortunately, among those at greatest risk of being left behind are children with 

disabilities.'' 

 The President charged the Commission with studying issues related to federal, state and 

local special education programs in order to improve the educational performance of students with 

disabilities.

 The Commission's effort represented the most expansive review of special education in the 

27-year history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The 24-member Commission 

held 13 open hearings and meetings across the country. 

 At these meetings and hearings, we heard from 109 expert witnesses and more than 175 

parents, teachers, students with disabilities, and members of the public. Hundreds of other 

individuals provided the Commission with letters, written statements, and research. 

 I want to give you a brief summary of the findings. 

 Finding 1, IDEA is generally providing basic legal safeguards and access for children with 

disabilities. However, the current system often places process above results, and bureaucratic 

compliance above student achievement, excellence, and outcomes. 

 The system is driven by complex regulations, excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing 

administrative demands at all levels for the child, the parent, the local education agency, and the 

state education agency. Too often, simply qualifying for special education becomes an end-point, 

not a gateway for more effective instruction and strong intervention. 

 Finding 2, the current system uses an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail, instead 

of a model based on prevention and intervention. Too little emphasis is put on prevention, early 

and accurate identification of learning and behavioral problems, and aggressive intervention using 
10

research-based approaches. 

 This means students with disabilities don't get help early when that help can be most 

effective. Special education should be for those who do not respond to strong and appropriate 

instruction and methods provided in general education. 

 Finding 3, children placed in special education are general education children first. Despite 

this basic fact, educators and policy-makers think about the two systems as separate and tally the 

cost of special education as a separate program, not as additional services with resultant add-on 

expenses.

 In such a system, children with disabilities are often treated, not as children who are 

members of general education and whose special instructional needs can be met with scientificallybased approaches, but they are considered separately with unique costs. This creates incentives for 

mis-identification and academic isolation and prevents the pooling of all available resources to aid 

learning.

 General education and special education share responsibilities for children with disabilities.

They are not separate at any level - cost, instruction, or even identification. 

 Finding 4, when a child fails to make progress in special education, parents don't have 

adequate options and have little recourse. Parents have their child's best interests in mind, but they 

often do not feel they are empowered when the system fails them. 

 Finding 5, the culture of compliance has often developed from the pressures of litigation, 

diverting much energy of the public schools' first mission to educate every child. 

 Finding 6, many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack 

validity. As a result, thousands of children are mis-identified every year, while many others are not 

identified early enough or at all. I am proud to say that my state of Iowa is the only state so far that 

has abandoned the idea of IQ discrepancy tests. 

 We did it five years ago. The researchers recommend that this be eliminated in all states. It 

is a costly and unworkable approach, but yet it is still being used in most of the states for 

identifying eligibility for special education. 

 Finding 7, children with disabilities require highly qualified teachers. Teachers, parents, 

and education officials desire better preparation, support, and professional development related to 

the needs of serving these children. Many educators wish they had better preparation before 

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

 Finding 8, research on special education needs enhanced rigor and the long-term 

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

current system does not always embrace or implement evidence-based practices once established. 
11

 Finding 9, the focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives in the current system, 

instead of academic achievement and social outcomes, fails too many children with disabilities. 

Too few students with disabilities successfully graduate from high school or transition to full 

employment and post-secondary opportunities despite provisions in IDEA providing for transition 

services.

 Parents want an education system that is results-oriented and focused on the child's needs in 

school and beyond. 

 Summary of major recommendations, in response to these findings, the Commission has 

produced a report entitled A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their 

Families. This report contains dozens of recommendations addressing each of the Commission's 

nine major findings and ramifications. 

 Overall, federal, state and local education reform must extend to special education 

classrooms. What we discovered was that the central theme of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

must become the driving force behind IDEA reauthorization. 

 In short, we must insist on high academic standards and excellence, press for accountability 

for results at all levels, ensure yearly progress, empower and trust parents, support and enhance 

teacher quality, and encourage educational reforms based on scientifically rigorous research. 

 In addition, we must emphasize identification and assessment methods that prevent 

disabilities and identify needs early and accurately, as well as implementing scientifically based 

instructional practices. 

 Three broad recommendations form the foundation of the report. Major recommendation 

No. 1: focus on results, not on process. 

 IDEA must return to its educational mission: serving the needs of every child. While the 

law must retain the legal and procedural safeguards necessary to guarantee a free appropriate public 

education to children with disabilities, IDEA will only fulfill its intended mission if it raises its 

expectations for children and becomes result-oriented, rather than being driven by process, 

litigation, regulation, and confrontation. In short, the system must be judged by the opportunities it 

gives and the outcomes achieved by each child. 

 Major recommendation 2: embrace a model of prevention rather than a model of failure. 

The current model guiding special education focuses on waiting for a child to fail, not on early 

intervention to prevent failure. 

 Reforms must move the system toward early identification and swift intervention, using 

scientifically based instruction and teaching methods. This will require changes in the nation's 

elementary and secondary schools, as well as reforms in teacher preparation, recruitment and 

support. I would say not only teachers, but also administrators preparation, recruitment and 

support.
12

 Major recommendation 3: consider children with disabilities as general education children 

first. Special education and general education are treated as separate systems, but in fact share 

responsibility for the child with disabilities. 

 In instruction, the system must work together to provide effective teaching and ensure that 

those with additional needs benefit from strong teaching and instructional methods that should be 

offered to a child through general education. 

 Special education should not be treated as a separate cost system, and evaluations of 

spending must be based on all of the expenditures for the child, including the funds from general 

education.

 Funding arrangements should not create an incentive for special education identification or 

become an option for isolating children with learning and behavior problems. Each special 

education need must be met using a school's comprehensive resources, not by relegating students to 

a separate funded program or housed in a separate temporary building or something else that 

isolates the child. Flexibility in the use of all educational funds, including those provided for IDEA, 

is essential. 

 I just hit the high points, and I'm going to stop here because I know you have many 

questions. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TERRY BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S 

COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY TODD 

JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Boehner. Governor, let me say thank you for coming today, and thank you for your 

report. As many of us have noted, the Commission has done good work on behalf of the President 

and this committee look forward to using much of the information that you have developed as we 

begin to consider the reauthorization of IDEA. 

 The Commission's report recommends that Congress create a unified system of services 

from birth through age 21. How does the Commission envision this seamless system working given 

that Part C of IDEA currently serves infants and toddlers, Section 619 separately provides services 

for preschoolers with special needs, and Part B serves school age children with special needs? 

Mr. Branstad. Our concern is that instead of looking at these as separate silos, we need to break 

down the barriers and recognize that we need to look at it holistically in order to meet the needs of 

the child. I guess that also goes when we are talking about a special education child who is also a 

general education child first. We need to use all those resources and be able to coordinate that. 

 We did something in human services while I was Governor of Iowa called decategorization.

This is a similar concept here. Instead of categorically looking at all these programs, look at the 

child and the child's needs. Try to use all the resources to meet their needs, and to try to make it as 
13

seamless as possible. 

 That's what we're recommending, breaking down those barriers as much as they possibly 

can be. 

Chairman Boehner. Governor, the report also goes on to say that we should get away from all of 

the dotting of the I's and crossing the T's, all of the bureaucracy, and begin to focus on results. 

 As we went through H.R. 1 last year, one of the goals was to focus on results and provide 

teachers, administrators, and others with much more flexibility in terms of how they get there. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. 

Chairman Boehner. As a state legislator back in the mid-80's, I can recall wondering why we 

thought that we should outline everything a school should do from A to Z, through every grade 

level. Then we just accept the results because we have outlined all the steps they should take. We 

should instead begin to focus on the end product or the results that we wanted, and allow people to 

get there. 

 Now, having said that, changing from this model of us outlining every single step that needs 

to be taken in the bureaucracy, and focusing on results, what recommendations do you have in 

terms of moving us and providing the steps to go from the current model to a more results-oriented 

model? 

Mr. Branstad. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we commend you and the committee, the Senate, and 

the President for working together in a bipartisan way on the Leave No Child Behind legislation. 

We think what you did there was an important and significant first step, and this should be 

coordinated.

 We're saying special education children should also be included in the accountability 

system that you designed in that legislation. Congressman Castle mentioned in the introduction 

that he and I both participated in the Presidential summit on education and that was really the very 

beginning of setting national goals for education and trying to focus more on results, and less on 

process or inputs. 

 We believe that's critically important, and frankly we heard from a lot of parents who are 

very frustrated about the over-emphasis on process. I understand the importance of protecting civil 

rights, but we want to see more of the focus on what is in the best interest of the child, and how can 

each child be challenged to achieve their highest level of potential. 

Chairman Boehner. We know that many children get missed early on. We know that many 

children are identified incorrectly, especially minorities. The Commission's report notes that we 

need to do a better job of training teachers and administrators to detect problems early on, and 

spend more effort in prevention. 
14

 My question is what type of incentives can we provide so that the training does in fact 

happen, and the identification of any potential problems with each child be detected as early as 

possible?

Mr. Branstad. That's a very good question, and I don't know that I have a great answer for that. I 

think that that really goes to the schools of education. We speak not just to what the administration 

needs to do in the Department of Ed, or what the Congress needs to do in the legislation, but we 

also speak to the needs to reform and change the teacher preparation process. There are a lot of 

teachers out there and I am just shocked to hear how many teachers feel ill prepared to deal with 

special education children in their classrooms. 

 So there's a lot of work that needs to be done with existing teachers to upgrade and improve 

their skills in identifying and working with special ed kids, and also in the general preparation. In 

fact, I made the effort to go up and visit the University of Northern Iowa special ed faculty in my 

state to learn as much as I could from them and some of the new methods and ideas that are coming 

out.

 We also think that there is some great research that needs to be incorporated into the 

teaching methods in the colleges and universities throughout the country. We had one of our 

public hearings at Peabody College in Nashville, at Venable University in Nashville, where we 

heard from some outstanding researchers about some of the work that's going on there. 

 One of the things that we came across, and I mentioned this briefly in my remarks, is the 

need to eliminate IQ discrepancy tests that are used in so many states. There is not real validity to 

them. The efficacy of it is just not shown in the research. 

 We in the State of Iowa have had five years of experience in eliminating that, and instead 

putting those resources towards serving the needs of the kids. It's a better use of the resource. 

Chairman Boehner. I appreciate that the teacher colleges need to do a better job, but in the 

meantime, we have real children in real classrooms with real needs. I think from this committee's 

standpoint, we need to find a way to address this need much more quickly than waiting for those 

institutions to begin to change their process. 

Mr. Branstad. I think you're right about that, and I think Todd Jones has got some comments 

about that. 

Mr. Jones. There are a couple of methods that the committee can look at that. One is how Part B 

funds are used, and permitting Part B funds to train general ed teachers in how to address the needs 

of special education children is an important way to do that. 

 Most referrals and identifications come from general education teachers, not from special 

education teachers initially. 

 Another way to look at it is how Part D, the research and national activity funds, are used 

and to focus funds on bringing that knowledge to those teachers as opposed to strictly focusing it 
15

on special education program professional development. 

Mr. Branstad. Actually there are some really detailed recommendations on how that whole 

research process needs to be reformed and changed in the Department of Education, so it is more 

effective and so that the concepts get put into practice. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. Just to follow up on that part of the debate, there was a wonderful debate 

in the Washington Post yesterday about schools of education, teachers' proficiency, arguing 

whether you should teach more content or more pedagogy, and at the end, Paul Hill - I think he is 

from the University of Washington - said well, why don't we look at a lot of things that we're 

teaching that really are relevant to what teacher is doing in the classroom. 

 One of the things, and we keep stating it in the Higher Education Act, that they are 

supposed to pay attention to preparing teachers to deal with IDEA, and yet I met with a group of 

teachers in New York a couple of months ago who are absolutely incredulous that nobody had 

talked to them about what they were going to encounter in the classroom, so maybe we also have to 

think about that when the Higher Education Act comes up next year. 

Mr. Branstad. I think you are absolutely right, Congressman. We heard that from teachers all 

over the country, so what you have heard is exactly what we have been hearing. 

Mr. Miller. Let me ask a question here, and we have been around and we have discussed for 

almost as long as I have been in Congress this question of paperwork, of requirements, of inputs 

versus outputs, and it has been a subject of reauthorization.

 In your report - I'm reading from page 17 which I think is the full report - it states that IEP 

should provide a guide to quality instruction and related services for children. IEP's must preserve 

basic civil rights and promote achievement. We find this is possible by reducing current excessive 

repetitious paperwork requirements. The Commission recommends IDEA statutory IEP 

requirements focusing on substantive education and developmental outcomes and results. 

 And in the failure to do that is met by the law. Whether we deal with inputs or outputs, and 

I think there is merit to the argument that the Commission is making and that many members have 

made, and groups have made, I don't know that you - I want to be clear that we are not leading 

people down a primrose path here. 

 In your next paragraph, you stated among the IEP provisions that would be replaced by 

measurable outcomes and results would be the obligation of the IEP's to include benchmarks and 

short-term objectives as an inclusion. IEP contributes greatly to the paperwork burden and bears 

no relationship to the non-linear reality of child's development. Members of the child's IEP team 

would or should agree on the length, and evaluate periods and criterions, judgments and so forth, 

which I think is a good idea. 
16

 But let's not pretend that there is not going to be paperwork because if those goals and 

objectives and outputs are not there to be measured, and to be determined, we are kind of back 

where we are today where a lot of IEP's are more fiction than fact, and in many instances, you 

know, the attitude sometimes is well then, sue us if you don't like it. I mean, let's not pretend like 

this is a one-way street where the litigation is all inspired by parents. 

 Very often with IEP's, the services aren't available, so you end up on a waiting list for 

services and your child is still continuing along the developmental line, and what's been stated in 

the IEP is not a reality. 

 So I guess can you reconcile those two paragraphs? Because clearly the first one I read is 

about a different set of inputs, if you will, and the second one is really about how you enforce and 

achieve those recommendations, as I read it. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes, we think the IEP, the individual education plan needs to be tailored to meet 

the needs of the specific child, and what we're trying to say, and I think we recognize it, reducing 

paperwork is something that everybody wants, everybody talks about it, it is harder to do than it is 

to talk about it. 

 We recognize that there is still going to have to be a certain amount of paperwork involved.

What concerns us is we heard from teachers and special ed teachers are spending typically five 

hours a week on paperwork and we think that's excessive. 

 Also, we are losing a lot of our best special ed teachers because they are just burned out 

because of all the paperwork and all the extra responsibilities that have been placed on them that 

takes them away from working with the children. 

 The focus here is to try to make sure that the content of the IEP is focused and that it is not 

just a boilerplate that is put together. A lot of that boilerplate language meets all the procedural 

requirements, but we need one that really does focus on this unique child's individual needs and is 

designed to develop some benchmarks on achieving, and what this child is expected to achieve in 

the next year. 

Mr. Miller. That obviously being your answer, I think we are in somewhat agreement there. Let 

me ask you another question. On the question of vouchers, am I correct in reading your 

recommendation which is that the due process, the IEP requirements, the requirements of the least 

restrictive environment if you will, the other requirements, would follow that voucher and be 

enforceable? And who would enforce it if that were the case? 

Mr. Branstad. Well, the Commission's discussion of school choice options is not to the detail of 

the nuts and bolts implementation. What it says is that as those states and localities choose to 

experiment with any form of choice, whether it be charters, intra-district transfers, or any sort of 

private service provision, that the considerations of IDEA funding and IDEA structures be brought 

into that, and that special ed not merely be an afterthought in how the program is constructed. 
17

 It might be easier to describe it first as to how it would work with charters, and then think 

how that extrapolates out. If you have a charter school -

Mr. Miller. A charter school is - 

Mr. Branstad. They are public schools. 

Mr. Miller. Right. 

Mr. Branstad. But there are many charter schools, which are treated under charter laws for special 

ed purposes as being some foreign entity, and so transfers of children from general public schools 

to charter schools are difficult to manage. 

Mr. Miller. But they are still under all the requirements of IDEA. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes, they are. 

Mr. Miller. They are public entities. What do you do when you have a non-public entity? Does 

the Commission envision that the due process and the other legal protections of IDEA are 

transferable with that financial grant? 

Mr. Branstad. Presumably they would be. Those are the civil rights components to IDEA. The 

question isn't whether the child is moving over into another service setting, and that that's somehow 

sealed off from public education. The concept is a more collaborative one. 

 Think about today with Title 1 services. If a child is in a private school, the Title 1 services 

at times follow the child, and a collaborative relationship is set up between that private possibly 

parochial school, and the local education agency. 

 The same concept can exist through special ed. It just hasn't been explored. 

Mr. Miller. But there are clear distinctions - and I'm running out of time - but there are clear 

distinctions between the legal requirements of Title 1 funding and the allocations of Title 1 funding 

in that setting, and the civil rights and due process protections of IDEA. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes and no. In my other job as deputy assistant - 

Mr. Miller. Yes, because one - 

Mr. Branstad. - secretary for civil rights –

Mr. Miller. - one is clearly a different situation. 

Mr. Branstad. No. The Title 1 funds carry with them other civil rights obligations that are 

enforced by the Office of Civil Rights. 
18

Mr. Miller. No, no. This, whether we like the language or not, is about an individual entitlement 

for services that have been determined to be necessary for the progress, the educational and 

development progress of that child. It is not the entitlement that runs with Title 1, and the concern 

here is obviously that some schools have allowed parents to use vouchers. And I have two points:

one, whether or not, the parents know about that, and two, whether or not there has been any 

enforcement of those civil rights/due process protections that are the absolute organizing principle 

for these children and their parents. 

Mr. Miller. I think it was the intent of the Commission that there would be accountability. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Delaware, Mr. Castle. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Branstad, I actually have some fairly specific 

questions, and one of them is in light of the recent reports of schools spending $50,000, $75,000,

and $100,000. By the way, I saw $200,000 the other day spent on one high-need student. I 

appreciate your Commission's recommendations to allow and encourage the states to address the 

impact of the one-half of one percent to require extraordinary care. I am pleased that that number 

is as small as it is, but it's a significant dollar figure. 

 As you mentioned in your report, some states have already created an additional funding 

source to help schools which exceed the average for people cost, but in your recommendations you 

suggested IDEA should allow states to use unspent IDEA funds to help pay the costs of high need 

children. 

 I was curious about that recommendation. Did you hear testimony that states were not 

spending their federal IDEA funds? Did the Commission discuss other ways to help states, 

particularly those who are magnets for high cost students because of their ability to deliver our 

magnets, meet their financial obligations? 

Mr. Branstad. I think Dr. Douglas Gill chaired that particular task force. He is from the State of 

Washington, and has considerable experience in this. Todd, can you maybe summarize the 

situation there, and why the Commission made that recommendation? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, I can. Commissioner Gill, who chaired the finance task force, felt strongly about 

the issue, in part because he had seen it firsthand. As we went to our hearing on finance in Los 

Angeles, we heard testimony to the same end. That is that schools hold back a portion of funds 

from whatever pool they can over concern that at the end of a funding cycle - you can hold IDEA 

funds for 27 months under the Tidings Amendment - when money for everything else has been 

committed, in through the door walks a child whose needs require them to spend 60 or $100,000 a 

year.

 That child must be served under the law, and under frankly the ethical obligations of that 

district. However, that cost remains real. The idea is to create alternatives to better manage the 

funding needs. Risk pools and safety nets were some of the ideas identified. 
19

Mr. Castle. I think it is an important subject and one that we need to look at further too, but let me 

move on. Recently I met with some advocates who suggested that schools are missing out on what 

could be more than a billion dollars a year in Medicaid reimbursements for coordinating and 

providing medical services to special education students from low income families. 

 Obviously that's a lot of money to the Medicaid program, but it is not a lot of money to the 

Medicaid program, which is huge. However, it is a lot of money to the schools that must pay for 

these medical services. 

 Did your Commission consider ways to harmonize education and health laws in guidance to 

ensure the schools are in fact able to be reimbursed for medical services that are covered by 

Medicaid? And if not, and I realize you had a lot of territory to cover, why not? 

Mr. Branstad. That is a very big and complicated subject, and the Commission does recommend 

better coordination. However, with the limited time frame we had, I think the feeling of the 

Commission was there just wasn't enough time to go into the kind of detail that needs to be in that 

area.

 There is clearly a need for better coordination and this question also came up yesterday at 

the Senate hearing. So this is an issue that I think does need much more in-depth research, work, 

and better coordination between the HCVA's replacement, CMS, and the Department of Education. 

Mr. Castle. Yes, I think you're right. I mean, these economic issues tend to be very significant 

when you start to deal with the people who are doing this on a day-to-day basis. For that reason, I 

think that issue is something we need to pay attention to as well. 

 Let me move on again to another question if I can get it in. I do appreciate and support 

your recommendation that state and local accountability systems should include all children 

consistent with No Child Left Behind. 

 As you know, that law requires annual reporting on the success of each school district in 

achieving its goals for students with disabilities. If they fail, it provides technical assistance and 

corrective actions. 

 In your recommendations, you state that IDEA should be revamped to require each of these 

things I just described. Is it your recommendation to recreate the accountability system that is 

currently in No Child Left Behind, and which already applies to children with disabilities in IDEA? 

Mr. Branstad. What we're saying is that we need to make accommodations so that children with 

disabilities can participate in the accountability system that was part of the No Child Left Behind. 

 So we want it to be consistent with that. We also recognize that there may need to be some 

accommodations that have to be made so that children with disabilities can participate. 

Mr. Castle. But it is not your goal to have it duplicative? 
20

Mr. Branstad. No, it is that they should be part of the unified system of accountability, but 

recognizing the special needs of some children in special ed, there may need to be certain 

accommodations made so that they can participate. 

 That's what we're saying, not a separate, no, not at all. We want them to be part of the 

overall accountability system and part of No Child Left Behind. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield back to the Chair. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, the Commission's report specifically questions 

whether or not the 40 percent full funding figure set by Congress in 1975 is the proper level of 

federal commitment to special education costs. 

 Would the Commission envision this figure to be higher than 40 percent or lower than 40 

percent? And what was the justification for questioning that figure of 40 percent? 

Mr. Branstad. I think I'm going to let Todd answer that, because I did not participate in that 

particular task force, and this was the area that Dr. Doug Gill chaired. 

Mr. Kildee. Sure. 

Mr. Jones. The issue isn't that the 40 percent of APPE is necessarily the right or wrong number; it 

is that it's an arbitrary number that's attempting to be a proxy for another number, and that is excess 

cost.

 Since 1975, Congress has thought that APPE, average per pupil expenditure, was roughly 

one-half or the same as the excess cost. In other words, special ed students are twice as costly in 

total as a general ed student, and so the proxy for 40 percent of excess cost was average per pupil 

expenditure.

 What the Commission has recommended is that Congress stop looking for a proxy and 

instead recommends that states and localities go for the real figure, and it is easily achieved. It can 

be developed based on guidelines that locals could develop, and it could well be that there is a 

need, once you look at what excess cost is, because very few people have an accurate 

representation of it; That the number needs to be more, or the figure needs to be more, that more 

money is put in, or it could be less. 

 It could be more for some students, 100 percent for the high cost children, for example, or it 

could be far less for children with less intensive needs, and that will be to the wisdom of Congress 

to give thought to once that number exists. 

 But the idea is to step away from the arbitrary number. 
21

Mr. Kildee. No administration has asked for more, and all administrations have asked for less. 

Mr. Branstad. I mean, I think this administration has increased the funding in recent years. It still 

has not achieved the goal that was set way back in 1975. As a former Governor, I know the 

frustration that a lot of Governors have feeling that that was an unfunded mandate or a promise that 

wasn't fulfilled. 

 But there has been, and we acknowledge that progress has been made in recent years due to 

the efforts of the Congress and the President. 

Mr. Kildee. But at least 40 percent gave some mark, some measure to determine the federal 

commitment to IDEA. As I said, no administration has ever asked for more than 40 percent. We 

have never had to worry about that, about busting the budget. All of them have asked for less. I'm 

not sure why you felt this was so important that we question the 40 percent. 

Mr. Jones. Let me give you a good example of why. Because the numbers are unconnected, there 

can be changes to how much special education costs that are totally unrelated to the average per 

pupil expenditure. 

 Let's say hypothetically that there became a means of helping the most severely disabled 

students that was exorbitantly expensive, and the true excess cost of special education became 

much more than it is today. The 40 percent figure remains the same. Local schools become shortchanged.

 On the flip side, there could be great growth in the general cost of education, maybe 

through technology that is totally unrelated to special ed costs. The Commission is saying to stop 

looking to a proxy that isn't related to excess cost, and use the relationship to excess cost. 

 The excess cost figure is no more related to APPE than it is to the number of children 

named Fred who are in special ed. They exist, but there is no relationship between the two. 

Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you another question. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 

formerly called HCVA, and what we still call it, HCVA. 

Mr. Branstad. I'm a little out of date on that, thank you. 

Mr. Kildee. They are reviewing a restricted school-based Medicaid reimbursement policy. Why 

did the Commission not address what could be a shrinking of the available pool of funds for school 

districts? 

Mr. Branstad. Congressman, I think it was more that this was a very large and complex area and 

you know, we had time constraints and we had a limited amount of time to address all these issues. 

I just think that particular subcommittee made the determination that they just didn't have the time 

to do justice to the kind of work that needs to be done there. 
22

 I think that clearly we did address it, saying there needs to be better coordination, but I hear 

your concerns. I think they are very well founded. That needs to be addressed, and I know that 

Medicaid is a huge issue that impacts not only a lot of citizens, but a lot of school districts. A lot of 

school districts are not satisfied with the way that's been coordinated. It has been very expensive 

and difficult to manage. 

Mr. Kildee. You recognize that especially for some students, that's a very important source of 

funding.

Mr. Branstad. Yes. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Branstad. Especially for low incidents, basically high cost students, this is a huge issue. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Governor. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, welcome, we're glad to have you, and I 

commend you on the report. 

 I really want to talk about two things, or make one observation, first. I commend the 

Commission on identification of the three categories being sensory, developmental and physical, 

and neurological. I want to also complement you on the early identification. 

 It is my experience that through a lack of early identification effort, there are many children 

whose symptoms might appear to be a learning disability when they are in fact a correctable 

physical impairment in audiology or in sight. 

 I would like for you to address for one second your recommendation in giving flexibility to 

systems to move money for early identification, which I think probably is in the sensory area more 

than anything else. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes, Congressman, we heard from some very distinguished researchers that felt 

that this is an area where we needed more flexibility and where early intervention could make a real 

difference in the lives of these kids. 

 So that was an area and Todd, maybe you can expand on that. 

Mr. Jones. Part of what the Commission looked at is not only in the identification process where 

so many resources and efforts are tied up, but looking at how that process occurs. The 

recommendation to step away from the IQ discrepancy model means going for weeks of evaluation 

of a child where nothing is really going on except process, and instead looking at an interventionbased model where children are brought in because they appear to have a need. You seek to 
23

remediate it, and those who are left over at the end unremediated are the ones who are identified 

because they still have need. 

Mr. Branstad. Also in the area of early intervention in reading, the researchers testified before the 

Commission that with appropriate intervention early on, many of these kids can catch up to their 

peers, and don't have to go into special education. 

Mr. Isakson. I would suggest that a better emphasis on kindergarten or first grade audiological 

testing and eyesight testing could go a long way towards identification of a physical problem that is 

correctable from a child that gets identified three years later as having a learning disability when 

they don't have one. 

 That's my main point, and I think it's money well-spent in the flexibility that we give those 

states to do that will be a help. It lessens the number of identifications that are inappropriate or 

misdiagnosed for some other reason, which raises the availability of funds for the children that 

really need it. 

 I have a second point and this may be an observation. As I read the report, when you got 

into the parental empowerment, and the question of choices for parents was addressed, and I think 

Mr. Miller was addressing that when he used the voucher award a minute ago, as I understood it, 

your recommendation was along the lines of No Child Left Behind where you have a measurable 

accountability system on the schools, and when there is a failure, that the parents be empowered 

with certain choices to address the need of the child. 

 Was I correct in reading that? 

Mr. Branstad. Yes, Congressman, the intent was to be consistent with the No Child Left Behind 

approach, and also with giving the flexibility to the states where they have similar provisions. 

Mr. Isakson. This is not a question, but an observation. I think this is really important to the 

children in need of help. 

 It would be a big mistake for us in Congress to take a ward-like voucher and abuse that 

ward in the context of the IDEA debate when as I understand it, what you have observed is that 

there are cases where an underserved child's parents should have the opportunity for that child to 

receive a better education which may include a transfer, or may include choices for that parent. 

This may or may not, at the discretion of state law and local education association, mean some 

form of public or maybe even private, or as you said, charter school assistance. 

 And I remind everybody as we address this, because this is really important, the Supreme 

Court ruled years ago that if a state or local education agency cannot meet the needs of an IDEAidentified child, regardless of the cost, that state shall provide that education. It is universally 

provided in a private setting, usually because of multiple severe physical handicaps. 

 Now, in the sense of the word, that would be a voucher mandated by the Courts, but in fact, 

it was a mandate by the Courts that that child had the right to an adequate education, and if the 
24

system couldn't deliver it, the system had an obligation to provide it. 

 So the point I'm trying to make here is that if our systems are failing our children, we are 

failing our children not to have measurable assessments, the results of which can allow parents the 

ability to get that child into a setting where they do get the best possible education given their 

circumstances, and not just throw that concept out in a political debate for or against a term of 

choice, or vouchers. 

 So that's a statement, I wasn't asking you a question but I wanted to make sure I understood 

what the Commission was saying. 

Mr. Branstad. I think your observation about the intent of the Commission is correct. I would also 

say that when we talked about the individual education plan, the IEP, we wanted to see that focused 

on outcomes so that the parents can have measurable things to look at, rather than just a bunch of 

inputs that really doesn't give them much guidance as to whether their child is making the kind of 

progress they believe the child should be making. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, Governor and Mr. Jones, I am 

reading through the report, and I can't help but feel a bit disappointed in you punting on, and 

kicking the can down the road on, the single most important question that we face in this whole 

debate on IDEA, and that is the requirement that we give every single child a free and appropriate 

education who has a disability. 

 That doesn't mean a free ride for the government, and appropriate only to those with 

disabilities that are not severe. It means free and appropriate to every single child in America that 

has this severe or limited disability. 

 And as I read through your executive summary, your summary of findings, your summary 

of major recommendations, that question is really not addressed. 

 It's almost like having a Commission on terrorism and not addressing the question of Al 

Qaeda. What we need, I think, is to have you more directly address this. Your major 

recommendations on the eighth page focus on results, not on process. 

 Well, it seems to me when you have quoted No Child Left Behind, that we have succeeded 

on No Child Left Behind because we attached focusing on results to attaching more resources to 

the achievement of better results and success. You don't say that anywhere in your major 

recommendation. 

 In fact, major recommendation 2 is embrace a model of prevention and intervention which 

would probably cost some resources, yet major recommendation No. 2, we don't have you 
25

addressing that 40 percent question either. 

 You simply say we don't know if it is bigger or smaller, but Congress should decide that, in 

effect, and I just want to say, Governor, that when my constituents come up to me in town meetings 

and whether it is a mother or father of a child with a limited disability, dyslexia, or it is a child like 

Dominque at McKinley School that needs two therapists, full daycare, extreme disability problems, 

confined to a wheelchair all day, which cost more money, I'm not sure how we address this cost 

need to get up to the 40 percent with this report that you have given us. 

 Can you tell me why you haven't said let's get to at least the 40 percent, and that's a major 

finding of this report? 

Mr. Branstad. Congressman, we know that the 40 percent issue is a big issue here, and we know 

that there's going to be a lot of debate and discussion about it in both the House and the Senate. 

 What we wanted to do, and we recommend or recognize that whatever the Commission 

does in this area is probably not going to have a lot of sway here, but what we wanted to do is to 

recommend some changes that we felt could make a real significant difference in the lives of kids. 

 We believe this early intervention and moving the process from where you have to fail 

before you are eligible, are things that can make a real difference in the lives of kids. Are they 

going to cost more or less? We think there will be some initial costs to the early intervention, but if 

that child doesn't have to spend their whole school years in special education because of the early 

intervention, it's actually going to save a lot more in the long term than it is going to cost in the 

short-term. 

Mr. Roemer. But Governor, that's a very good answer to my question, to say that we would need 

at least the current cost of 40 percent then. Why not say in this report that Congress should meet its 

obligation under IDEA, Part B, that says that we are now providing about $1200 out of the 

estimated $7300 that it costs per pupil to educate these children across the country? 

Mr. Branstad. The task force chaired by Dr. Douglas Gill basically addressed this issue, and I 

thought in some detail trying to identify one. We need to do a better job of helping school districts 

deal with that child with severe disabilities that is a very expensive one to deal with. I think there 

are some specific recommendations there that help to deal with that. 

 And then also - 

Mr. Roemer. But Governor, not from the Federal Government. He recommends alternative 

resources or other resources there. 

Mr. Branstad. Well, greater flexibility of federal resources as well as other resources, I believe. 

Mr. Roemer. Well, that doesn't address the question of federal resources and our obligation to 

provide the 40 percent. 
26

Mr. Jones. Mr. Roemer, it does say explicitly that there should be more money for Part B. The 

question you are raising is how much, and you're saying we're $1200 now, why not 40 percent? 

 Let's say 40 percent is $2800 a child, just to pull a number out of the air. It begs the 

question. What is the right number? Is it $2800? Is it $4,000? Is it $2,000? We don't know how 

much special education costs, and until the country comes to grips with what cost is, Congress has 

a difficult time saying what's the proper level of support. 

 And until you clarify that, the 40 percent becomes a moving target over time, and it's again, 

unrelated to the cost of special ed. That's why the Commission said to look back at what cost is, 

and then think about what spending should be. 

Mr. Roemer. I just think that you should have helped us with that moving target, and at least help 

us get to the 40 percent. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you. Mr. Osborne? 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here, Governor. I tend to be a 

little bit practical in my approach and I commend you for your thought regarding being resultsoriented, and so process-oriented. It sounds good, and yet I guess I'm concerned about what results 

are you looking for, who will determine those results, and what exactly would be measurable here 

because that's going to be a big issue. 

Mr. Branstad. I think what we're looking for is academic achievement that is tailored to that 

individual student. The whole idea of an individual education plan, an IEP, is to have a plan that 

really is tailored to the needs of the child, and we want to make sure that we have benchmarks and 

ways to measure progress for that child. 

 Different children have the ability to learn at different rates. The goals are much different 

for those with severe handicaps than another child that might have some specific learning 

disabilities.

 So we need to make sure that that IEP is developed in a coordinated cooperative manner. 

We heard some real concerns were where parents felt that it was cut and dried, and the decision 

was made before they ever got to an IEP meeting. We think that's wrong. 

 We think there needs to be a collaborative way where the parents are brought in early to get 

their input, and they participate fully in the process along with the teachers and the other 

specialists, and the administrators in that school, as well as the child themselves. 

Mr. Osborne. So you are saying then that there should be some specific benchmarks over time that 

you try to assess. 
27

Mr. Branstad. That's correct, and then there would be regular meetings where they would have an 

opportunity to collaboratively review the results and what kind of outcomes they are achieving, and 

it has different options that may want to be looked at. 

Mr. Osborne. Okay. The second question I have that I think is a key point is your emphasis on 

early identification, and I think everyone realizes that's really critical. 

 Again, the question would be how do we accurately identify early because a child that has 

spent the first three years of its life sitting in front of a television set as opposed to a child that 

spends the first three years of its life being read to every night, having different academicallyoriented toys and so on would maybe test very differently? 

 So are you talking about some type of a functional IQ test? I have had bad experiences. 

Mr. Branstad. That's exactly what we're saying, we ought to eliminate those. What we are 

suggesting instead, we heard from a former principal of an intercity school in New York City that I 

think impressed the entire Commission meeting down in Coral Gables. 

 He talked about how in the pre-school meeting, he meets with the parents. He says these 

are the thing –he had a test of - was it 30 some different things that a child should know when they 

started school? So the child would be informed that they should know their colors and their 

address; they should know these basic things before they ever start school. 

 That was a way to put the parents on notice and explain that these are the things we expect 

the child to know when they start school. Then they worked right from the get-go in kindergarten, 

teaching these kids to read rather than waiting until first grade. There was a tremendous 

improvement in achievement that they had in the school that he led. He was a very good leader for 

the school. 

 It was very clear in communicating and working with the parents. Of course, it provided 

great support for his teachers and was able to attract really good teachers because they liked being 

part of a team that was achieving great things. 

 In a sense I thought that was an example of early intervention where the principal was 

working with the parent saying you know, this is what we are expecting your child to know when 

they start their first day of kindergarten, so be sure they are ready for it. 

 In some cases, they still wouldn't be, but at least they were on notice of what was expected 

and then the school would go to work and try to deal with the deficiencies that might exist from 

day one. 

Mr. Osborne. Are you suggesting that there be some type of informal guidelines for identification? 

It sounds like what you're talking about is very individualized by school, and it is kind of a seat of 

the pants operation. Where one school might do a great job, another one might simply use an old 

test of some type. I would wonder if it would be wise if we had some type of fairly universal 
28

approach in this early identification. 

Mr. Branstad. I think what we're saying is to look at the best practices. We need to get the word 

out on those best practices so they can be copied and used elsewhere. I thought the example of 

what he was doing was a great example and one that I would like to see schools use throughout the 

country.

Mr. Jones. Frankly, the researchers that we heard from, and whether it be Dr. Jack Fletcher from 

U.T. Houston who was on our Commission, Sharon Vaughn, or a series of researchers discussing 

how there are ways to effectively identify early on with very short-term and easy to use tests - and I 

will use that for the lack of a better word - that take a minute or two or five to identify which 

children are at risk of having a disability, and those are the ones to initially focus on with 

interventions. 

 At the end of those series of interventions, you have children left over and those are the 

ones who are going to need services, children with disabilities. 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from 

California, Ms. Solis, for five minutes. 

Ms. Solis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Governor. In reading over the 

Commission's report, I note that there seems to be an absence of discussion regarding limited 

English population, those that are English language learners. 

 In a state like mine in California where you have one-third of the population that are 

considered LEP - limited English proficient - why was this not brought up in your report or 

addressed in some manner? 

 And I ask the question because how can you assess a child if their first language is not 

English? 

Mr. Jones. Actually, the Commission did address it in the issue of culturally sensitive evaluation 

materials. That goes beyond simply the issue of LEP children, but also goes to children who come 

from different cultural backgrounds, or children who, while not necessarily of limited are not native 

speakers of another tongue, but still have limited proficiency in English that is of use to them in 

school.

 There is a discussion of that, that materials do need to be culturally sensitive. That still 

goes to the broader question of then what the service delivery issue is. So that's how the 

Commission addressed it. 

 Materials need to meet that initial threshold before being used. 
29

Ms. Solis. What about professional training, teacher training and use of, for example, paraprofessionals? 

Mr. Jones. Actually para-professionals weren’t discussed precisely, but in fact, there is an entire 

page at the end, I believe it is of the professional development section, which discusses the need to 

have professionals in schools at all levels that are from diverse populations. 

Ms. Solis. But nothing specifically about the usage of para-professionals, which I think in some 

cases, in some of my school districts, is being used now, and actually helps to augment the 

assistance of the instruction that's going on, because for example, if you go into a classroom and 

there is a lab, and students are in wheelchairs and they are performing on a computer, you have one 

instructor, and maybe you have a para-professional in there assisting these different children on 

their need to learn how to use that computer, or whatever the topic might be. 

 I would hope that that would be something that would be looked at, or somehow 

encouraged, and then also funding for that, funding for development in those areas so that not only 

teachers and administrators get the kind of staff development and training that's needed there, but 

also at the bottom rung, and going up. 

Mr. Branstad. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act does address the need for paraprofessionals and I think your point is a good one. There needs to be training for those people as 

well as for the teachers and administrators in dealing with children with disabilities in the 

classrooms. 

 Historically, that training is not. It's not just the initial training, but it is also the staff 

development that needs to be on an on-going basis. 

Ms. Solis. Right. And I think earlier one of our colleagues on the other side brought up the issue of 

providing sufficient testing so that students that are found to have maybe health care needs, for 

example, with hearing impairment or eyesight - 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. 

Ms. Solis. I know in my many cases minority students, because of lack of access to adequate health 

care, their parents don't have health insurance, that kids are misdiagnosed. That happens to a high 

proportion of minority populations, and how do we begin to address that so that there is some 

standards set that students beyond kindergarten, because in some cases, not all students are even 

able to get into the kindergarten class, they start at the first grade and they are already behind in 

learning.

 By the time they get maybe tested at the third grade, they are already set aside as an IDEA 

student, and I would hope that there would be more resources, in particular Medicaid or the SCHIP 

program and other kinds of innovative ways of getting resources in to those schools so that students 

can be adequately assessed, and appropriately assessed. 
30

Mr. Branstad. Early intervention is one of our very strong recommendations. Early intervention is 

taking specific action to help kids at an early stage, as opposed to this concept of waiting for them 

to fail. That's why we want to eliminate the IQ discrepancy tests. Waiting until they fail that 

before they are eligible for funding doesn't make any sense. 

 It is much better to work early on with them and identify that problem and maybe deal with 

it in an effective way where they don't end up in special education. So the money spent on early 

intervention actually saves money for years down the road. 

Ms. Solis. Just a last point would be that when you talk about staff development, do you see that 

there might be a need to increase the number of bilingual teachers that could be trained into these 

careers as well? 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. And we are also losing a lot of teachers because of the high paperwork and 

the demands. We are losing a lot of teachers that have special ed training that are leaving special 

education because the demands of it are more than they want. 

 I happen to have a daughter that lives in California that is getting her training to be an 

elementary teacher, so I have a keen interest in this that I get from her perspective, and she has 

been doing substitute teaching and getting her teaching credentials. I've gotten some firsthand 

information from her about the experience she has had in dealing with the diverse population that 

you mention in your area. 

Ms. Solis. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this report. You are dealing with special 

education generally, but do you have any recommendations as to different treatment from the 

federal level for people who are severely developmentally disabled - Down Syndrome and the like - 

as opposed to people who are learning disabled, which means they are not performing to grade? 

 It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference there, and secondly, we have a 

problem in the architecture of any of these problems in that if you are administering, whether it is a 

hospital or a school, and you can get money by categorizing people as eligible for more federal 

funds, you don't have much incentive to stop categorizing them. 

 So is there a success rate? We are spending extra money on people who are learning 

disabled. Are they then no longer categorized as learning disabled? If they aren't, why should we 

be spending the money if we are not achieving any results? How can we design it to actually get 

kids up to grade, and then stop subsidizing the school? 

Mr. Branstad. Congressman, we do address that issue and it is interesting because of the low 

incidence of disabilities. What we found is that the number of kids identified in that area probably 

isn't going to change much, depending upon the resources. But the high incidence ones which are 

the ones with like specific learning disabilities, are the ones that have been going up the most 
31

dramatically, and I think that's what you are and we do have specific recommendations. I'm going 

to let Todd address them. 

Mr. Jones. Let me mention a couple. One recommendation is the general recommendation to 

move to a system that is based on outcomes, and while that seems to be one that would be more 

easily applied to children with specific learning disabilities, it can be applied equally and 

appropriately to children with other disabilities. 

 For example, a child with severe mental retardation who hypothetically will not graduate 

from high school, and instead will just time out based on service, it still is an appropriate outcome 

for the state to look at local education agencies, and say how many of those children are going out 

and getting jobs? 

 If that number happens to be five percent, and is stagnating there, that is a failure. If that 

district instead is moving from 5 to 8 to 12 to 20 percent, and is being judged on its effectiveness in 

helping children move out into the working world, even though they haven't graduated from school, 

that's an effective outcome measure that would apply for children with the more severe disabilities 

like that. 

 Also on the issue of moving kids out of special education, one thing that's very clear here is 

that by focusing on remediation and by focusing on providing services that assist the child, there 

are many children with disabilities like learning disabilities that will no longer have a need for 

service.

 It is not that their disability has gone away, it's just that they no longer have a need for the 

intensive services they previously needed. The key will then be moving those children on to 

regular education, and those resources can be more effectively redeployed to other children. 

Mr. Petri. But what's the incentive for the school principal that has tough budget problems and 

states are cutting back? They are all under pressure to cut off this source of funds. Just because the 

kid is reading to grade level, I mean, that's the goal of the whole program. 

 Say you succeed and we are spending money on this, and you succeed. However, if you 

categorize the person as a success, you lose X-number of federal dollars. 

Mr. Jones. From the federal level, you actually did the heavy lifting five years ago when you 

changed the federal formula from one that is based distribution of funds on how many children you 

have, to the population of your state. Most states are moving in that direction, or at least moving 

away from a system where having N+1, N+2 children brings in extra dollars. 

 And by doing that, it discourages - that's a lot of what finance-driven over-identification is 

about. It's keeping around the kids who really are on the margin for needing services, but their 

head counts still helps us. 

 When you move away from that system, you move away from that problem. 
32

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. Tierney. I thank the Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. I want to 

follow up on a line of questioning that was started by our ranking member a little while ago, 

because I want to clarify something. 

Mr. Jones, can you tell me exactly what civil right protections are associated with Title I services 

for private schools? 

Mr. Jones. What civil rights protections are there for children in private schools? The obligation 

of the LEA, if it is using federal Title 1 funds, and they are distributed to an institution which is 

discriminating on the basis of race or on the basis of ethnic origin or on the basis of sex, it is the 

obligation of that LEA to manage their distribution of funds in a way that is not discriminatory. 

 That doesn't mean that OCR comes and does investigations of the local private school.

What it does is it means that there is an enforcement action for the local education agency on how 

they are administering that program. 

 And that exists today, and in fact, I can say as Deputy Assistant Secretary, there are 

complaints outstanding against districts for exactly those kinds of issues. 

Mr. Tierney. So are you suggesting then when you talked about this voucher concept here, that in 

addition to those rights that you just mentioned, that the individual rights and protections afforded 

under IDEA also follow the child if he or she then attends a private school? 

Mr. Jones. It depends on how the child is going to the school. If it's under the long-standing 

program that Congressman Isakson was just - 

Mr. Tierney. No, no, I guess we're talking about your new iteration here, your use of the word 

vouchers.

Mr. Jones. Okay, and again, that's not a word I'm going to use to describe those private 

supplemental service programs. 

Mr. Tierney. Well, then whatever you call them, do the IDEA protections afforded under that 

statute follow that child? 

Mr. Jones. It depends upon the nature of the program set up by this Congress, or by states, and 

frankly there is only a handful -

Mr. Tierney. I mean, you are making the recommendation. What do you envision on your 

recommendation? Will we or won't we allow that to follow? 

Mr. Jones. What is being envisioned here is that those safeguards are going to apply depending 

upon how the program is shaped. They may or may not apply depending upon how the program is 
33

described.

 Let me give an example. If a child voluntarily leaves a public school system and moves to 

a private school, is it appropriate under some other side voucher program, having nothing to do 

with special ed for that local education agency to provide occupational therapy services using staff 

paid for with IDEA funds for the child in that private school? And which civil rights protections 

would apply? 

 That's a fair question. The Commission is saying that has to be worked out as these 

programs are designed. They simply shouldn't be ignored as the program is set up. 

 For example, what protection goes along with occupational therapy services? 

Mr. Tierney. So I guess what you're basically saying is that you haven't made a recommendation, 

that you can see it sometimes following and sometimes not. 

Mr. Jones. No, the recommendation is that IDEA not be viewed as a barrier in all cases to the 

provision of services, and that the goal - 

Mr. Tierney. Which is another way of saying that you can envision or you recommend that 

sometimes those protections don't follow. 

Mr. Jones. For the child, the question is how are the funds used, not the question of the child. The 

child has civil rights protections or not. The question is -

Mr. Tierney. The question is does the child retain the protections under IDEA or do they not? 

Mr. Jones. If IDEA funds, presumably the IDEA funds were following that child, presumably 

those protections would exist. 

Mr. Tierney. The question is it your recommendation or not? 

Mr. Jones. No, the presumption in the report is that those exist. I mean, I have to stand on what 

the report says, not necessarily the implications from it. 

Mr. Tierney. The report is not as clear there as some might hope, and as well as a number of other 

areas where the report really wasn't very clear. 

 You talk in the report about a need to deal with the special education teacher and related 

services, a personnel shortage, and you talk about increased recruitment and retention, but you 

don't really provide very much by way of recommendations. Why not? 

Mr. Jones. Well, I would disagree with the sentiment that there aren't recommendations. There are 

recommendations to explore. In fact, I will go to - 
34

Mr. Branstad. Well, one example would be paperwork. If we heard one thing clear, loud and 

clear from teachers, it's that the demands and the additional paperwork are driving a lot of people 

out of it. 

Mr. Tierney. I agree with you. 

Mr. Branstad. And we are trying to address that issue. We know that is not easy because we also 

have to protect the civil rights and the rights of the child. So as we are trying to reduce the 

paperwork, streamline it, and make it more efficient, we don't want to lose that protection that is 

specifically designed to protect their civil rights. 

Mr. Tierney. I have a number of people in my family that teach in the special education area, so let 

me ask you this. Beyond the paperwork, because clearly that's an issue. 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. 

Mr. Tierney. But it is not the only motivating issue, did you look beyond that issue and see what 

else may be motivating teachers to leave the profession, or to have difficulty staying in it, to 

understand why people aren't attracted to these careers and this type of education like pay, like 

conditions, failure to have a mentor, failure to have continuing education support? 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. All of those things - I think adequate training is one of the concerns. In the 

section entitled teacher recruitment and retention, there are four bullet points: experimenting with 

different pay for educators ensuring special needs; experimenting with performance-based, or 

knowledge and skill-based pay with the possibility of higher pay for successful special ed educators 

is another bullet point; developing high quality alternative routes in the classrooms and enabling 

high potential educators to enter the profession and receive on-the-job professional development; 

and the fourth bullet point is improving working conditions for special educators by reducing 

paperwork and mitigating adversarial nature of special education. 

 We did hear that, the adversarial nature of it and that a lot of teachers just didn't like to be 

into something that's adversarial. That's not why they got into teaching. They really want to help 

kids, but they don't want to be in a dispute or in litigation kind of directed business. 

Mr. Tierney. Well, this committee has been struggling for a number of years now in trying to 

reform teacher education and the Higher Education Act is usually the vehicle that we do that, as 

well as some other statutes. Some have had some success more than others. 

 What proposals do you have that would improve on what we have been doing in terms of 

improving that higher education system so that we get more and better qualified teachers for this 

area?

Mr. Branstad. Well, I think we clearly recommend that there needs to be training for general ed 

teachers and for administrators in dealing with special education. That's an idea that I think has 

been sorely lacking around the country. That's one of the areas. 
35

Mr. Jones. I can offer a couple of others up. There is a recommendation that states and universities 

work closer together to identify which universities are producing students who are producing 

students with successful outcomes. In other words, which teachers have students who do better in 

the same conditions and the same schools based on their training from different universities? 

 There is a suggestion that there be training provided that's in classrooms so - and I don't 

remember who mentioned it, but the idea that children, or teachers arrive in classrooms and have 

no idea, they have never seen a child with special needs before and don't know how to deal with 

them in any extent. 

 There is a recommendation that there be greater focus on preparing teachers while they are 

in college for the realities of working life in the classroom, aside from just the kids. How do you 

deal with management issues? Those are some of the recommendations that the Commission had, 

and there are a few more within the report as well. 

Mr. Tierney. But no recommendations as to how we go about -

Mr. Schaffer. Excuse me; the Chair is going to recognize the gentle lady from New York, who is 

next. Perhaps she will yield you some of her time. 

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. I know a couple of my colleagues talked to you about the Medicaid 

reimbursement. Are you going to do a recommendation that someone follows through on how to 

deal with that issue as far as medical course for our schools on IDEA? Or is it just going to be 

dropped? 

Mr. Branstad. In terms of the whole Medicaid issue, we didn't feel that we had enough time to get 

into -

Mrs. McCarthy. Oh no, I know you have said that, but are you going to recommend that through 

the President or the Department of Education, that someone follows through to see what the 

solution is on that? 

Mr. Branstad. Yes. I believe there is a need, and we did talk about the need for greater 

coordination. I think there needs to be follow-up work done on that with the Department of Ed 

working directly with the people that oversee CMS, that oversee the Medicaid program. 

Mrs. McCarthy. So that will be a follow-through so that when we start dealing with IDEA, as we 

are starting to do now, that we will have some recommendations on how to work with this? 

Mr. Branstad. Based on the questions that were raised yesterday in the Senate hearing and today, I 

am asking the Department of Education to work directly with CMS on that issue, because I think 

that is an important issue. It is one that we didn't have the time to get into in great depth. 

 It is also a complicated and difficult issue. 
36

Mrs. McCarthy. I understand. 

Mr. Branstad. We know there is no easy answer, but it does need to be addressed. 

Mrs. McCarthy. It has to be, because each and every school that is dealing with certainly some 

unique children that can do very well in school, but they do need full-time nurses, nurses aides, and 

it should not be the burden of the school in my opinion to be able to have to pay these finances out. 

Mr. Branstad. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. 

Mrs. McCarthy. And I'm going to throw out one other thing, because we're talking about 

prevention. There are a number of us here that have been trying on the federal level to have every 

child tested at birth for hearing. 

 It costs $35. That's $35, and if we find out at birth that this child has a hearing loss and can 

work with that baby, we will save a lot of money further down. I believe with you holistically that 

we have to start at birth in my opinion on a lot of these issues. 

 A number of things that I have found through my constituents, especially those that are in 

the military, one of the biggest problems that they seem to find when they have children with 

special needs is that obviously they are transferred almost every two years. 

 They take their IEP profile of their child, go into a new school, and the new school just 

throws it out and says no, we don't do it that way, we don't need it, we have our own program. The 

frustration for certainly the parents, and certainly for the child, is like overwhelming. 

 Now, obviously we have become a country that people move every seven years I think the 

average is now, so you can imagine what parents are going through, and yet we don't really address 

that, because it could be from one district to the next, to be honest with you, and that's something 

that we're going to have to start to deal with. 

 And I didn't notice if there was anything in the Commission on that. 

Mr. Branstad. Todd? 

Mr. Jones. Actually there is and it is hiding in plain sight. It's the recommendation that the shift in 

IEP's be one from process to outcomes. 

 There is an anecdote in here where one of our witnesses discussed how an IEP she saw had 

little to do with anything but certain school-based ideas and process-based demands, and had 

nothing to do with the fact that the young man wanted to be a merchant marine, and needed the 

skills to do that. 

We need to shift IEP's to ones that are based on outcome such as wanting a child with 

severe mental retardation to have a job when they leave at age 21 from the system. That is an 

outcome that is readily identifiable in New York, Colorado and California, whereas when 
37

somebody transfers from system to system, and then hears well, we have a different system so our 

process needs to be different. They are right. 

 That's because they are reacting to the perverse incentives of a system that is designed 

strictly to process and not to the outcome of what that child should be focused on including 

learning to read, learning to do math, understanding basic community skills, getting a job, and 

going to post-secondary education. 

 Those are tangible outcomes. If you shift the IEP's to that, you will see a greater ease of 

transition from location to location. 

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. Branstad. The Chair recognizes the representative from California, Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few follow-ups, and I understand that most of 

the questions that I had have been answered, and I appreciate it. 

 I also am very pleased that we are going to be focusing more on how we integrate our 

health care dollars with special education. That's been a long - it's not only with special education, 

it's also with regular education, and I think that we need to go into great depth in taking a look at 

how we do that. 

 And I would suggest looking at some good models around the country where they have at 

least made strides in that area. I think that would be helpful. California has some, although I think 

other states probably have done some good work in that area as well, and having the flexibility 

there to do what they need to do. 

 One of the other issues that I know you've addressed is that one of paperwork, and I'm not 

sure if we've fully gotten a handle on what the Commission believes, what you think, should be 

eliminated from the IEP to help with the paperwork issue. 

 I have just heard you discuss the need to have flexibility in terms of students who are 

moving in the military, and I know as the representative from San Diego, how important that is in 

San Diego, but can you be specific? 

 What would you eliminate in the IEP? And is that the kind of paperwork focus that we 

should be having? 

Mr. Branstad. We didn't specifically say anything. The IEP's do vary substantially from district to 

district and from state to state. What we're saying is the focus should be on the outcome or results 

of the child and it ought to be truly individualized. 

 The intent has always been to be an individual education plan, but in some cases, it has 

been too boilerplate and not enough individualized with goals and benchmarks for that child.

That's where we think the focus needs to be, and less on all these procedural things that have made 
38

them longer and less meaningful. 

Mrs. Davis. Can you be a little more specific about what we can eliminate, because often we add 

things, but we never take anything away. 

Mr. Branstad. Good point. Todd? 

Mr. Jones. You know, some of the most insightful testimony that we heard was actually in San 

Diego at our hearing at the Grant Hotel, because it was not prescribing what's necessarily in the IEP 

from the federal level, which drives the paperwork. 

 Yes, that does, but that could be distilled down into two sides of two pieces of paper pretty 

effectively. What we heard in testimony was that additional paperwork comes from two places. The 

first is from the regulatory monitoring process, which is when the Office of Special Education 

Program strongly hints to a state that it needs to change its state documents to reflect a greater 

emphasis on transition in this case, or in some other area. The second is from local districts and 

states themselves from what we would call defensive blocking mechanisms for litigation, not that 

they are effective or necessarily mean anything in terms of service or in terms of preventing later 

litigation, but districts seem to believe, and the attorneys have said so, that they believe paperwork 

covers their trail, and gives them the paper trail to defend later litigation. 

 The advocacy attorneys who appeared before us in San Diego said that that's meaningless. 

School attorneys who appeared before us elsewhere said no, it actually works. So that's part of 

what drives it, the extensive process monitoring and the fear of litigation. 

Mr. Branstad. We also heard in one of our hearings from New York about how the federal 

agencies, just because the wording was a little different, even though the intent was about the same, 

had to go through a whole lot. I don't think the thing would still have been resolved when he 

testified before our Commission, so we think that needs to be eliminated. 

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

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Payne, you're up next. 

Mr. Payne. Thank you. Thank you very much. I come up next and last, right? Let me just ask a 

question. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for the work that you have done according to your 

report that you had 13 open hearings, and 109 expert witnesses, and many parents and teachers and 

students involved. That's great. 

 I just have two quick questions. One deals with the Finding 6, which says that many of the 

current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity. As a result, thousands of 

children are mis-identified every year, and you would say some are not identified. 

 I have a concern, and it might have been brought up before, but about the mis-identification 

of minorities. We find that in some school districts, as many as 30 or 40 percent of African 
39

American boys are in special ed, and I wonder if you have any way of looking at that? 

 And then in the conclusion of your summary on the major recommendations, on the second 

major recommendation about embrace a model of prevention and not a model of failure, I think 

that's good, but where you talk about the current model. Guiding special education focuses on 

waiting for a child to fail, not on early intervention, and to prevent failure. 

 I wonder what your feeling is about one, the full funding of Headstart, or to K, ages say 

three on to K which once again is costing money, but I think that these things kind of work 

together.

Mr. Branstad. Thank you, Congressman Payne. With regard to this system of waiting to fail, we 

do recommend the elimination of these IQ discrepancy tests. I think your point about the need for 

early intervention and programs that work with infants and toddlers, and programs like Headstart 

can make a real difference. 

 We also heard from an inner-city principal who had worked closely with parents on 

working on simple things that to notify them early on what's expected their child needs to know 

when they start school, even if they haven't had the benefit of Headstart. That can be very, very 

helpful. 

 So in addressing the second part of your question, I think the first part of your question had 

to do with over-identification of minority kids, and we had several members of the Commission, 

Katie Wright from Illinois, and Jack Fletcher and Floyd Coos, who specifically worked on that. I 

think there is a section on page 26 of the report that specifically deals with that disproportionate 

representation of minorities in special ed. 

 That is an area that the President also mentioned in his charge to us, and one that we took 

very seriously, and one that I think we have some good recommendations on. 

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Schaffer. [presiding] I have got a couple of questions that I would like to ask. First, 

regarding the Office of Special Education Programs, how would you characterize its strengths and 

weaknesses? The Commission spent a good deal of time evaluating that office so I would like you 

to comment and elaborate a little further here for us today. 

Mr. Branstad. First of all, I will probably let Todd go into most of the detail on that, but on this 

Commission we had a number of researchers that have dealt specifically with that office. We also 

had some ex-official members who are very knowledgeable, so we had some people that had some 

real knowledge and in-depth experience. 

 This is an area where we went into considerable depth and recommendations on major 

reforms and changes that can be done administratively. 
40

 With that as kind of a lead-in, let me let Todd go into more of the detail. 

Mr. Jones. Let me divide the discussion into two halves, the monitoring and enforcement side, and 

the research side. On the monitoring and enforcement side, there is a view from the Commission 

that there is too heavy an emphasis on process, and process compliance. 

 There are roughly 814 process points on which states are judged when looking at IDEA 

compliance. Now, the question is whether that is driven from the staff and the management, or is it 

driven from the law? It's pretty clear that the law drives a significant part of that. 

 So even though there is the process view of the world, it's the law itself which helps drive 

that process focus because it doesn't allow in many ways - 

Mr. Schaffer. What is significant? Half? Three-quarters? What would you estimate? 

Mr. Jones. That is process or the -

Mr. Schaffer. There are 814 process points. Some are driven by staff and administrative and by 

statute - 

Mr. Jones. Easily three-quarters. To give an example, in the discussion of transition within the 

act, there is a focus on having the right transition regulations in place, and whether we have the 

procedures in place. 

 Fundamentally the questions states should be asked is how many kids are going to college, 

how many kids are passing the state regents exam, and how many are getting jobs? Those are real 

substantive outcomes in transition, but OSIP can't monitor those as substantive achievement 

outcomes - 

Mr. Schaffer. My question was -

Mr. Jones. - because the law won't allow it. 

Mr. Schaffer. - on those 814 points that you would identify as process-oriented, and you said some 

are administratively driven. 

Mr. Jones. I would say the bulk, more than three-fourths. 

Mr. Schaffer. You said some are administratively driven and some are a function of the law. 

Mr. Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Schaffer. And that is what I'm trying to get at. 

Mr. Jones. I would say the bulk; at least two-thirds are driven by the law. 
41

Mr. Schaffer. Are driven by statutes. That's something we can do something about. 

Mr. Jones. Absolutely. 

Mr. Schaffer. Got it. 

Mr. Jones. The other side is the research side, and this is true not in Office of Special Ed 

programs, but in all of the special ed and rehab services administration. There is a bit of a silo 

mentality. 

 It is very clear that there is not enough collaboration between the disability research office, 

the rehab services administration research office, the special ed program research office, and with 

offices outside like at NIH or at the National Science Foundation. 

 The collaboration is not there. There needs to be a much closer working relationship than 

there is now. 

Mr. Schaffer. So what is that going to take in your estimation? 

Mr. Jones. I think it takes better management of the office, and I think Assistant Secretary 

Pasternak is well prepared to do that because he was on the Commission and saw the need.

Frankly, in speaking with him, I believe he is motivated to make the changes. 

Mr. Schaffer. in terms of focusing more attention on the outcome side - 

Mr. Jones. Right. 

Mr. Schaffer. - can you elaborate a little further on that? What kind of changes do you 

recommend there? How did the Commission treat that question? 

Mr. Jones. Well, the changes need to be made. The sticky part is under the statutes; the 

regulations under the statute cannot be changed from where they stood in 1983 unless Congress 

gives explicit authorization. That was written into the statute back in 1983. 

 It's up to Congress to change the standard against which states are judged, and put the - if 

that's what you desire, is to change it to this kind of outcome-based system, you need to put that 

into statute. 

Mr. Branstad. We think that's a real fundamental decision, and one that we strongly recommend. 

In our meeting in Houston, I visited a school down there, and we asked of the special ed kids how 

many of them were getting jobs and how many were going on to higher education. They had no 

idea and this was supposed to be an exemplary school. 

Mr. Schaffer. Let me jump in the last minute here to the Commission's recommendations 

regarding school choice. Your proposal was to amend IDEA to allow states to use federal special 

ed funds to enable students with disabilities to attend schools or to have access to the schools of 
42

their family's choosing, and I presume that would include charter schools, other public, private, 

partnerships, and specifically, I'm curious whether you evaluated the applicability of Florida's 

McKay scholarship program. 

 Could you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. Branstad. We had one of our hearings in Coral Gables. We did hear a lot about the McKay 

scholarship. I think we were concerned that there needs to be some accountability when there is a 

decision made by the parents. 

 The McKay scholarship is a unique program in Florida. We heard many good things about 

it, but we also felt there needs to be accountability also built in when programs like that are 

established. 

Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Scott, you are up next. Are you ready to go? 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Governor and Mr. Jones for a very 

comprehensive and helpful report, particularly your endorsement for more funding for Part C. 

 I think it's important that we get ahead of the curve and those early intervention services are 

extremely cost-effective, and I appreciate your endorsement of that. 

 I just had one question. You touched on the idea of a risk pool. I know some very small 

counties, if they ever have a severely disabled child, will have to raise taxes if they want to deal 

with that one child. 

 What can be done to alleviate the catastrophic effects or impact on a small county, such 

school system, through a risk pool? 

Mr. Branstad. Dr. Douglas Gill chaired that particular task force that dealt with the funding issue, 

and he's from the State of Washington. They have done some of that in his state, and I think they 

have begun to do that in some other states around the country. 

 I will let Todd kind of go into the details of how that is envisioned. 

Mr. Jones. There are a couple of ways of looking at it. One is risk pools and one is safety nets.

Under one concept, it works like a non-profit insurance pool. You put up some money to 

participate in the pool, and then when you have children who have certain prescribed needs, you 

would be able to bill back to that pool and draw down the funding for that, spreading the risk across 

multiple agencies, multiple local schools. 

 In the other concept, and this is one that they use in Washington, there is essentially a board 

that looks at the need of the agency, and they will look down and say okay, have you, for example, 

billed Medicaid for the following bills? 
43

 If the district hasn't, they may not be able to access the funds, and it is done on a more 

judgmental basis. Has this district done everything it can with the resources it has to provide for 

these costs, and is the district truly representing costs that are associated with this child, or are they 

masking other costs? 

 This goes back to the underlying recommendation in the report which is we, the country, 

need to know what special ed costs. We don't have a good answer for that right now. 

Mr. Scott. Are there any programs to cover catastrophic costs? And if you have a $50,000 or 

$100,000 case, would there be insurance or something to cover everything over the first $15,000, 

$20,000? Has that idea been floated around? 

Mr. Jones. There are about a half dozen states, and in fact, they are listed in a box in that section of 

the report, and Maryland is one of them. Washington, Utah - I will lose track if I try and name any 

more who have risk pools like that. 

 In those cases, some of them are funded separately by the state. One of the unfortunate 

problems is when the money is gone, the money is gone, and when the pool is dry, you can't draw. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, and again, I appreciate your hard work and very helpful report, 

and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Schaffer. I would like to echo the comments of my colleague. Your work on presenting the 

report is something that is obviously very useful to not only those of us on the committee, but all of 

those who are interested in reauthorization reform of the IDEA program. 

Governor and Mr. Jones, I appreciate your presence here today, your testimony, and the time you 

spent. I appreciate the time our colleagues have spent attending today's hearing, and if there is no 

further business before the Committee, we will stand adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
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

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Boehner, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 38 

Mr. Branstad, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 39, 41, 42 

Mr. Castle, 5, 18, 19, 20, 26 

Mr. Isakson, 22, 23, 24 

Mr. Jones, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43 

Mr. Kildee, 7, 20, 21, 22 

Mr. Miller, 4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18 

Mr. Osborne, 26, 27, 28 

Mr. Payne, 38, 39 

Mr. Petri, 30, 31 

Mr. Roemer, 24, 25, 26 

Mr. Schaffer, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 

Mr. Scott, 42, 43 

Mr. Tancredo, 8 

Mr. Tierney, 32, 33, 34, 35 

Mrs. Davis, 37, 38 

Mrs. McCarthy, 35, 36, 37 

Ms. Solis, 28, 29, 30