Student Discipline: Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Published: 2001-01-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Standards for discipline and safety in schools are set primarily by local school districts. Federal and local regulations provide additional protections to special education students who misbehave to ensure that they are not unfairly deprived of their rights to an appropriate education. GAO reviewed regular and special education discipline policies to determine whether there were any differences in how disabled and non-disabled students were disciplined.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found the rate of misconduct among special education students was higher than that of regular education students. Despite little difference in the actions taken by schools to discipline regular education and special education students, a sizeable minority of principals voiced concern that their schools' discipline policies impeded proper disciplinary action. Although the 1997 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act amendments and final federal regulations gave schools more flexibility in handling discipline issues, GAO's analysis showed that local school district policies can provide additional protections when compared with provisions in the final regulations. Restrictive local policies may alter the balance between protecting the rights of disabled students and ensuring that administrators are able to maintain a safe and orderly environment. Because the more common concerns GAO identified about different treatment for special education students resulted largely from local policy, changes in federal law will not address these concerns.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Maintaining discipline and safety in America’s public schools is a key  concern of school officials, parents, and policymakers nationwide. The  public expects schools to operate in an orderly environment free from  violence. Standards for discipline and safety in schools are set primarily by  local school districts. In recent years, however, federal law has required  states and local districts to implement certain discipline-related policies in  schools—for example, through provisions of the Gun Free Schools Act  and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires  that eligible children with disabilities have available to them a free,  appropriate public education that provides for special education and  related services to address their educational needs in the least restrictive environment. The act also requires schools to follow certain procedures  when they make a change in a student’s educational placement because of  his or her behavior.
Moreover, the act prescribes a set of procedures to ensure that children  with disabilities who engage in misconduct are not unfairly deprived of  educational services. While federal law and regulations require all schools  to provide procedural protections to students with disabilities, states and  school districts have the option to provide them with additional  protections. Almost 6 million youths aged 3 through 21 (more than 1 of  every 8 of the 46.6 million public school students) were classified as having  physical, learning, or emotional disabilities that qualified them to receive  educational services under IDEA in school year 1997-98, according to the  most recent data. In fiscal year 2000 the federal government provided  $6 billion to states and local governments to help provide those services.
When the Department of Education issued proposed regulations  implementing the IDEA amendments of 1997, some school administrators  and teachers raised concerns about their ability to preserve school safety  and order and at the same time educate children with disabilities.  Specifically, several provisions of IDEA and portions of the proposed  regulations (such as the “stay-put” provision and the cumulative 10-school- day limit on suspensions) were perceived as limiting the authority of school  personnel to remove students with disabilities from school for disciplinary  infractions. Moreover, at that time, anecdotal evidence suggested that even  after engaging in serious misconduct, students with disabilities continued  to receive educational services in schools because of the protections  afforded by IDEA. In contrast, nondisabled students involved in similar  infractions were suspended or expelled without services. This led to the  perception of a double standard for student discipline and gave rise to  concerns about the fairness of school discipline policies for students with  disabilities. As a result, the Congress directed us to conduct a study to  determine how the IDEA amendments of 1997 affect the ability of schools  to maintain a safe environment conducive to learning. We could not  undertake this study until Education issued final regulations to guide  implementation of IDEA’s 1997 amendments, which took place in March  1999. Following discussions with your staffs, we agreed to study the issues  after the final regulations had been in place for at least a significant portion  of a school year and answer the following questions:   What are the incidence and impact of serious student misconduct  (drugs; weapons; assault; rape; sexual assault; and robbery) on schools,  and is the impact primarily attributable to the serious misconduct of  students with disabilities or of regular education students?
Are students with disabilities who engage in serious misconduct being  disciplined differently from those without disabilities and, if so, how?
What is the role that IDEA plays in schools’ ability to properly discipline  students with disabilities who engage in serious misconduct?
Although the IDEA amendments of 1997 required that Education collect  limited data on certain disciplinary actions for special education students,  at the time we did our work this effort had not progressed sufficiently to  provide us with any usable data. Because of this limitation, we surveyed a  nationally representative sample of about 465 public middle and high  school principals about discipline of special education as well as regular  education students. We did not survey elementary schools because data  from Department of Education and Department of Justice reports showed  that elementary schools were much less likely than either middle or high  schools to experience or report any type of serious misconduct. All data  from our survey are self-reported, and we did not independently verify their  accuracy. We had a response rate of 60 percent for our survey. This  response rate is too low to permit us to produce estimates that are  nationally representative. Nevertheless, the size and geographic location of  the 272 responding schools were generally similar to the schools in our  sample, and we believe the survey data provide information not available  from any other source about IDEA’s impact on school discipline. We also  conducted site visits and interviews with principals in Louisiana, New York,  and Wisconsin to help develop our survey instruments and gain a broader  perspective on the IDEA implementation in a variety of settings and in  locations where IDEA and discipline issues were reported to be of  significant concern. Finally, we reviewed the few available studies on IDEA  and school discipline issues. We incorporated, where appropriate, the  results of those studies into the design of our review and the conclusions  contained in this report. We conducted our work between January 2000 and  December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Appendix I explains our methodology in more detail.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: IDEA is the primary federal law addressing the unique educational needs of  children with disabilities. Millions of youths with disabilities aged 3  through 21 receive educational services under IDEA each year. In 1975, the  Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA),  which mandated that a free, appropriate public education be made  available for all children with disabilities, ensured due process rights,  required individualized education programs, and required placement of  children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Subsequent  amendments to this law added other provisions and programs in support of  children with disabilities and their parents and renamed the law as the  IDEA in 1990. IDEA was most recently substantially revised in 1997.
IDEA defines childhood disabilities to include a number of different  emotional or physical conditions. Specifically, IDEA defines a “child with a  disability” as a child with mental retardation; hearing, speech, or language  impairments; visual impairments; orthopedic impairments; serious  emotional disturbance; autism; traumatic brain injury; other health  impairments; or specific learning disabilities, who, for this reason, needs  special education and related services.
By requiring that eligible children with disabilities receive special  education services to address their educational needs in the least  restrictive environment, IDEA mandates that such students are to be  educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who are not  disabled. Generally, disabled students are to be removed from the regular  education class only when they cannot be educated in that setting with  supplementary aids and services. IDEA provides safeguards to ensure that  children with disabilities who engage in misconduct are not unfairly  deprived of educational services. For example, in developing the child’s  IEP, the team—which includes at least one of the child’s regular education  teachers and others providing special education resources—must consider  strategies to address any behavior that may impede the child’s learning or  the learning of others. If a child with a disability engages in misconduct, the  school may take disciplinary action; however, the school may also be  required to convene the IEP team to conduct a behavioral assessment and  develop or review an intervention plan to address the behavior that  resulted in the disciplinary action. Also, when the suspension considered is  for more than 10 school days at a time, the IEP team must review the  relationship between the child’s disability and the behavior that resulted in  the disciplinary action.
In October 1997, the Department of Education issued proposed regulations  implementing the amendments. The proposed regulations contained  several provisions that would allow services to continue to special  education students who were suspended or expelled. In response to these  proposed regulations some districts put in place discipline policies that  were consistent with the proposed regulations that limited suspensions of  special education students. In commenting on the proposed regulations,  some school administrators and others voiced concerns that several  procedural and discipline provisions that were designed to protect the  rights of students with disabilities created problems among some school  administrators and teachers over how to preserve school safety and order.  After receiving nearly 6,000 public comments, Education issued final  regulations for the IDEA amendments on March 12, 1999. The final  regulations included some changes to the discipline provisions that  attempted to respond to some of these concerns.
According to Education, the discipline provisions in the final regulations  give school officials reasonable flexibility to deal with minor infractions of  school rules, while ensuring that special education students continue to  receive educational services. To avoid disruption during the school year,  Education did not require a state to comply with the new regulations  essentially until the 1999-2000 school year began.
Generally, under IDEA and the 1999 implementing federal regulations,  schools are permitted to suspend a special education student for up to 10  school days in a given school year without providing educational services  or removing the child to an alternative educational setting. However, if the  misconduct is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the student  may be suspended beyond 10 school days; for such suspensions, the special  education student must be provided educational services. The final  regulations require a manifestation determination—to assess whether the  student’s misconduct was caused by his disability—and an IEP team  meeting only when a suspension is for more than 10 school days at a time.  Otherwise, for short-term suspensions lasting 10 or fewer school days that  do not constitute a change in placement, a manifestation determination and  an IEP meeting are not mandatory. Additionally, the final regulations also  permit repeated short-term (not more than 10 school days) suspensions of  a disabled student, even if the suspensions cumulatively total more than 10  school days, so long as educational services are provided to the student  after the 10th suspension day in a given school year.
The regulations also modify a school’s authority to suspend a disabled  student for more than 10 school days. Specifically, prior to the 1997 IDEA  amendments, a student with a disability could be removed for up to 45 days  to an interim alternative educational setting for carrying a firearm; under  the revised law and the implementing regulations, this suspension  authority has been expanded to include a disabled student who possesses  or carries a weapon or possesses, uses, sells, or solicits drugs at school, as  well as a disabled student determined by a hearing officer to be so  dangerous that the student’s behavior “is substantially likely to result in  injury to the child or others.”
Before special education students may be removed from their current  educational placement, however, IDEA provides a number of procedural  safeguards. One such safeguard is a student’s right to remain in his or her  current educational placement during any due process and subsequent  judicial proceedings that follow the initial disciplinary removal. This  safeguard was designed to limit the exclusion of students with disabilities  from their educational setting because of their disability. In the past, such  exclusions were alleged to have occurred so that schools, under the guise  of minimizing disruptions or protecting other students, would not have to  provide expensive services to disabled students. However, the so-called  “stay-put” provision, whereby a child’s educational placement is to be  maintained, has been perceived by some as limiting the authority of school  personnel to remove special education students from school for  disciplinary infractions.
Education publicized the issuance of these final regulations extensively  through printed materials and via its agency Web site. It also provided  training and support materials to states and school districts explaining the  changes. Education held a series of public forums around the country for  local education agencies, schools, and other interested parties to explain  the changes to the final regulations, with a special emphasis on the changes  to the discipline provisions. It also held interactive videoconferences for  the public and made numerous presentations at state forums. Education  funded partnership grants with various groups to provide approved training  and information at the local level. Finally, the agency issued memorandums  related to IDEA implementation in electronic and printed form to provide  guidance and answers to commonly asked questions.
section_title: Reported Extent and Effect of Serious Misconduct in Surveyed Schools
paragraphs: About 81 percent of schools responding to our survey experienced one or  more incidents of serious misconduct in the 1999-2000 school year. Most  principals reported to us (consistent with prior research findings) that  most incidents of serious misconduct were acts of violent behavior,  generally fistfights; firearms incidents were rare. Although the number of  incidents was greater among regular education students, special education  students had a higher rate of serious misconduct (per 1,000 students) than  regular education students in reporting schools. The most common effect  of serious misconduct was a disruption of student learning. Other effects,  as reported by principals, included administrators and teachers having to  spend an undue amount of time responding to the misconduct. Principals  attributed the effects of serious misconduct to incidents caused by both  regular education students and special education students.
subsections: section_title: The Majority of Responding Principals Experience Serious Misconduct in Their Schools
paragraphs: On the basis of our analysis of the data reported to us, 81 percent of the 272  responding schools experienced at least one incident of serious  misconduct in the 1999-2000 school year (see table 1).
Schools responding to our survey experienced an average of 10 incidents of  serious misconduct among regular education students and 4 incidents  among special education students in school year 1999-2000 (see table 2). To  make a comparison that controls for the greater number of regular  education students in schools (they were 88 percent of all students in the  schools we surveyed), we calculated rates of misconduct per 1,000  students. We found that special education students had a higher rate of  misconduct. For every 1,000 regular education students represented in  our survey, there were 15 incidents of serious misconduct reported; for  every 1,000 special education students, there were 50 incidents of serious  misconduct reported.
Violent behavior was the most common type of serious misconduct  engaged in by students, according to responding principals. Based on  information we received from written survey comments, from discussions  we had with school officials during our survey data clarification, and from  our site visits, many of the violent incidents were student fistfights. Seven  of every 10 incidents among regular education students and 3 of every 4  incidents among special education students were acts of violent behavior.
The number of incidents reported by principals varied. While 22 percent of  responding principals reported no serious misconduct among regular  education students during the 1999-2000 school year, 31 percent reported  10 or more incidents among regular education students. Further, 34 percent  reported no serious misconduct among special education students, while  15 percent reported 10 or more incidents among this group. More detailed  information on the incidence of serious misconduct appears in tables 6 and  7 in appendix II.
section_title: Serious Misconduct Disrupts Student Learning and Consumes Time of Administrators and Teachers
paragraphs: Serious misconduct, whether committed by regular education or special  education students, leads to a variety of negative effects on the school  community (see fig. 1). The most common effect—reported by 52 percent  of responding principals—is a disruption in student learning. The next  most common effect of serious misconduct involves the time and attention  teachers and administrators must devote to dealing with student  misconduct. Forty-seven percent of responding principals indicated school  administrators have to spend an undue amount of time and attention on  serious misconduct, and 29 percent of responding principals indicated that  teachers have to spend an undue amount of time on discipline procedures  and reviewing district discipline policies. These responses are consistent  with the comments we heard in our site visits. Some of the staff we  interviewed stated that IDEA-related discipline processes were  burdensome when compared with actions taken regarding regular  education students and that they took resources away from other activities.  Other effects reported in the survey responses were a negative impact on  efforts to meet state or district learning standards and difficulty hiring  substitute teachers.
section_title: Principals Attribute the Effects of Serious Misconduct to Both Regular Education and Special Education Students
paragraphs: Principals responding to our survey attributed the more common effects of  serious misconduct—disruption of student learning; school administrators  and teachers spending an undue amount of time and attention on  disciplinary matters; negative impact on efforts to meet state or district  learning standards; and difficulty hiring substitute teachers—to both  regular education and special education students. However, principals  generally attributed the effects somewhat more frequently to special  education students than to regular education students (especially effects  involving the time spent in dealing with serious misconduct). For example,  127 principals indicated that administrators had spent an undue amount of  time and effort in dealing with serious misconduct. Among these principals,  80 said this effect resulted from misconduct by both regular education and  special education students. An additional 40 principals indicated the effect  arose solely from misconduct by special education students, while 7 other  principals attributed the effect exclusively to misconduct by regular  education students. Likewise, 50 of the 80 principals who said that teachers  had spent an undue amount of time on disciplinary matters indicated that  this effect was attributable to both regular and special education students.  The remaining 30 principals indicated the effect had resulted exclusively  from misconduct by special education students. Principals attributed each  of the remaining three more common effects to the misconduct of both  groups as well (see table 8 in app. II for the complete list of effects arising  from serious misconduct and the frequency that principals attributed them  to each student group).
section_title: Special Education Students Generally Disciplined Similarly to Regular Education Students
paragraphs: Based on our analysis of reported disciplinary actions and past research,  regular education and special education students who engaged in serious  misconduct were treated in a similar manner. Regardless of student status,  about 60 to 65 percent of students who engaged in serious misconduct  during school year 1999-2000 were given out-of-school suspensions.  Moreover, most suspended students from either group were given short- term, rather than long-term, suspensions. The portion of suspended special  education students who received educational services during their  suspensions was not much different from the portion of suspended regular  education students who received services. Finally, the percentages of  regular education and special education perpetrators who were suspended  from school and/or placed in an alternative educational setting were 15  percent and 17 percent, respectively.
We asked principals in our survey to indicate the type and frequency of  disciplinary actions they took with students in response to the serious  misconduct engaged in by regular education and special education  students during the 1999-2000 school year. The information principals  provided to us reveals that there is little difference in how they discipline  regular education and special education students who engage in serious  misconduct. Table 3 compares the frequency with which principals took  disciplinary actions with regular education and special education students  who engaged in serious misconduct. An out-of-school suspension was the  most common disciplinary action taken against students who engaged in  serious misconduct, based on our analysis of the data reported to us. Sixty- four percent of regular education students and 58 percent of special  education students who engaged in serious misconduct were given out-of- school suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year. Relatively few  students were expelled. A large majority of special education students who  received an expulsion were provided educational services after the  expulsion, consistent with IDEA requirements that schools continue to  provide services to students with disabilities who are expelled. About one- half of regular education students received education services after  expulsion.
Our analysis of the suspension data indicates little difference between the  two student categories in terms of the length of suspensions received (see  table 4). About two-thirds of each category of suspended students were  suspended for a short period (1 to 3 days) rather than a long period (4 or  more days). Forty-five percent of suspended special education students  received educational services during the suspension period. By  comparison, 35 percent of suspended regular education students received  educational services during their suspension.
According to our analysis of the information reported to us, principals  referred to the police or juvenile justice system similar portions of regular  education and special education students involved in serious misconduct.  Specifically, responding principals reported referring an average of 34  percent of special education perpetrators and 28 percent of regular  education perpetrators to the police or juvenile justice system. A police  referral was in addition to the disciplinary action reported above (in fact,  police or uniformed security officers were present continually at many of  the 17 schools we visited).
section_title: IDEA Appears to Play a Limited Role in Schools’ Ability to Discipline Students
paragraphs: IDEA appears to play a limited role in schools’ ability to properly discipline  students. Eighty-six percent of the 272 schools responding to our survey  also operate under one or more local special education discipline policies  that differ from IDEA and the final regulations by providing additional  protections for students with disabilities. In some instances, local special  education discipline policies prohibit schools from taking actions that  would be permissible under IDEA, while in other cases, these policies  require schools to take actions not mandated by IDEA. For example, 64  percent of responding principals reported that a local policy prohibits  suspension of special education students for more than 10 school days over  the course of a school year, even though a suspension totaling more than 10  school days is permissible under IDEA.
Responding principals viewed some of these local policies more favorably  than others and generally assessed their overall special education  discipline policies, which are an amalgamation of IDEA and local policies,  as moderately supporting discipline-related matters. Principals rated most  negatively the local policy preventing suspension of a special education  student more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year.  Nevertheless, responding principals generally regarded their overall special  education discipline policy as having a positive or neutral effect on the  level of safety and orderliness in their schools.
subsections: section_title: Most Responding Schools Operate Under Policies That Provide More Protections Than Required by IDEA
paragraphs: Our analysis of principals’ responses showed that 86 percent also operate  under one or more special education discipline policies that are different  from the federal IDEA discipline policy because the local policies provide  additional protections for special education students. These differences  can be characterized as two types: (1) disciplinary actions permissible  under IDEA but prohibited under local policies and (2) actions not  mandated by IDEA but required by local policies. IDEA and local policies  most frequently differ on actions related to student suspension. According  to information provided by responding principals,   64 percent are not allowed to suspend a special education student for  more than 10 cumulative school days during a school year,  36 percent are required to provide services to the student throughout  the suspension period, and  24 percent are required to determine whether the student’s behavior was  a manifestation of his or her disability whenever suspension is being  considered.
In contrast, IDEA final regulations allow schools to suspend special  education students for more than 10 cumulative school days in a school  year and require neither of the latter two policies listed above for all  suspensions. Table 5 summarizes differences between IDEA and local  policies that were derived from responses to our survey. See appendix II  for details of the reported variations between districts’ special education  discipline policies and IDEA.
section_title: Principals’ Reactions to Local Policies Are Mixed, but Few Are Negative Toward Overall Discipline Policy
paragraphs: Responding principals generally viewed favorably or neutrally those  special education discipline policies not mandated by IDEA but required at  the local level. For example, 87 percent of principals who are required to  offer services to suspended students and 72 percent who are required to  conduct manifestation determinations rated these local policies as having a  positive effect on their ability to properly discipline special education  students or were neutral toward these policies. In contrast, they generally  viewed more negatively those policies where actions are permissible under  IDEA but prohibited at the local level. For example, of principals who  reported that they are unable to suspend special education students for  more than 10 school days over a school year, 50 percent rated this policy as  having a negative effect on their ability to properly discipline special  education students, while 50 percent rated it as having no effect or a  positive effect (see table 5).
Responding principals generally regarded their overall special education  discipline policy, which essentially is a combination of IDEA and any local  policies, as having a positive or neutral effect on their schools’ levels of  safety and orderliness (see fig. 2). Specifically, 74 percent of responding  principals rated their policies as having a positive or neutral effect on the  safety level at their school (although the remaining 26 percent rated the  policies as having a negative effect). Likewise, 76 percent rated their local  policies as having a positive or neutral effect on their schools’ level of  orderliness.
Among all principals who responded to our survey, the most frequent  comment (expressed by 26 percent of all responding principals) in  response to our open-ended questions was that the special education  discipline policy under which they operate is not fair or equitable to  teachers, students, and/or parents.
Other comments included that the IEP meetings and documentation  requirements associated with IDEA discipline procedures are burdensome  and time-consuming (20 percent); special education discipline policies  limit the school’s ability to appropriately discipline special education  students (19 percent); and concern about the maximum number of school  days that special education students can be suspended or placed in an  alternative educational setting (13 percent).
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The schools responding to our survey experienced a relatively small  number of incidents of serious misconduct over the course of a school  year. Regular education and special education students alike had engaged  in serious misconduct, but the rate among special education students was  higher than that of regular education students. This may be due, in part, to  behavioral responses associated with some disabilities, which can manifest  themselves in inappropriate behaviors. Despite little difference in the  actions taken by schools in our survey to discipline regular education and  special education students, a sizable minority of principals voiced concern  that their schools’ discipline policies impeded proper disciplinary action.  Some of these comments may have resulted from the additional time and  resources that principals reportedly must use to discipline special  education students compared with regular education students.
Although the 1997 IDEA amendments and final federal regulations gave  schools more flexibility in handling discipline issues, our analysis showed  that local school district policies can provide additional protections when  compared with provisions in the final federal regulations. Where it exists,  the local policy that limits the suspension of special education students to  no more than 10 cumulative school days per year is viewed negatively by  about half of the principals who operate under it. This 10-school-day  suspension limit may reflect school districts’ continuation of policies  developed from the proposed IDEA federal regulations that were out for  public comment through May 1999 but were replaced by the final  regulations. Where restrictive local policies are applied, they may alter the  balance between protecting the rights of disabled students and ensuring  that administrators are able to maintain the safe and orderly environment  that the Congress and Education sought to achieve. Because the more  common concerns we identified about different treatment for special  education students resulted largely from local policy, changes to federal  law will not address these concerns.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on the draft report the Department of Education stated that  the report provided valuable factual information about special education  discipline policy and practices. Education staff also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Education’s comments  appear in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, relevant  congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies will be  made available to others on request.
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please call  me at (202) 512-7215. Another GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix describes the methodologies used in our review of IDEA and  student discipline policies. All data collected were self-reported and we did  not independently verify their accuracy. We did our work from January  2000 to December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Interviews With Special Education Experts
paragraphs: To obtain a broad perspective on the issues surrounding IDEA and special  education discipline we interviewed researchers, public policy advisers,  attorneys, and representatives of organizations that have an interest in  special education and discipline policy in public schools in general. We  asked for their opinions about the discipline of special education students  in public schools and how IDEA affected the ability of school  administrators to maintain safe and orderly schools. We gathered anecdotal  data about different disciplinary treatment of special education and regular  education students, but no group was able to provide us with national data  on the disciplinary actions taken with regular education or special  education students.
section_title: Review of Existing Data
paragraphs: We sought data available from Department of Education sources on  discipline for special education and regular education students. No  national data from any of Education’s current data collections existed that  would allow us to compare disciplinary actions taken with students from  the two groups. Education now is collecting by means of a survey new  information on discipline and special education issues as required by IDEA.  We met with the Education staff and their contractor who are responsible  for this survey. We also met with or had telephone conversations with state  officials who were responsible for their respective state IDEA-mandated  data collection efforts. The first-year data collection effort had not been  completed for all states, and the processing and cleaning of the data was  still in its early stages in spring 2000. Moreover, these data did not include  discipline data on regular education students that we needed to address  one of our objectives. Therefore, while we had hoped to use information  generated by this new data collection effort, we had to collect our own  data.
section_title: Original Data Collection
paragraphs: Because no national comparative discipline information was available, we  developed a survey instrument to gather data at the middle school and high  school level for school year 1999-2000. We chose to collect data at the  school level because principals were the group most likely to have  information on outcomes of serious misconduct by special education and  regular education students. We eliminated elementary schools from our  sample because our review of Department of Education and Department of  Justice reports indicated that elementary schools were much less likely  than either middle or high schools to experience or report any type of  serious misconduct. We mailed questionnaires to principals from 500  randomly selected public middle schools and high schools. We drew our  sample from the most recently available address listing from the 1997  Common Core of Data maintained by the Department of Education. In  addition, we surveyed the 70 largest schools drawn from that same list. We  pretested our survey instrument with principals in area high schools in  Maryland and Virginia.
After we drew our samples, we learned that 50 of the randomly sampled  cases were not public middle or high schools, so we excluded them from  our sample and drew replacements. After receiving responses to our  survey, we had to exclude an additional 35 cases from the random sample  of 500 because these schools had closed, had moved, had been  consolidated with other schools, or otherwise were no longer appropriate  for inclusion in our sample. Despite several follow-ups, only 60 percent of  the principals from the random survey responded. This response rate is too  low to permit us to produce estimates that are nationally representative.
The 70 largest schools were predominantly located in California, Florida,  New York, and Texas. Our response rate for the 70 largest schools was 27  percent. Most of the schools failed to respond to the survey despite  repeated mailings and numerous telephone contacts. We also met with  officials from New York City schools, which accounted for more than 25  percent of the large-school sample, and even though they reassured us that  they would cooperate, no additional schools responded. The response rate  from the large schools was too low to permit us to conduct a comparative  analysis of large and small schools.
We augmented data from our mail surveys with information from site visits  to three states: Louisiana, New York, and Wisconsin. On these site visits we  met with state officials, nine district superintendents, special education  directors, assistant principals, school security staff, and principals from 45  schools. We selected these states in order to visit with school staff from a  variety of settings (urban/rural, large city/suburban), where IDEA and  discipline issues were reported to be of significant concern. We discussed  with these school officials their experiences with state and local district  policy concerning school discipline for special education and regular  education students and the impact that IDEA law and regulations have had  on their ability to maintain safe and orderly schools.
section_title: Comments From the Department of Education
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, the following persons made important  contributions to the report: George Erhart, Brett Fallavollita, Elspeth  Grindstaff, and Behn Miller.
section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)