Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions
Published: 2003-05-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In the 2000-01 school year, more than 91,000 special education students were removed from their educational settings for disciplinary reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to provide educational services to special education students who are removed from their educational settings for more than 10 days in a school year. Congress asked GAO to determine where disciplined special education students are placed, the extent to which local school districts continue educational services for these students, and how the U.S. Department of Education provides support and oversight for special education disciplinary placements. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a study, using surveys and site-visits, of special education disciplinary placements in three states--Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In the districts and schools in the three states GAO studied, disciplined special education students were primarily placed in in-school suspension rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home, according to survey respondents. These short-term settings were used most frequently because most of the special education students in these schools and districts were removed from their regular educational settings for periods of 10 days or less, according to respondents. Special education students who were removed for longer than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools or homebound placements. In addition to considering the length of the student's removal when deciding where to place disciplined special education students, school and district officials considered the cost and availability of placement options and the nature of the student's offense and corresponding disciplinary action. Schools and school district officials in the three states reported that they provided a range of services to disciplined special education students. However, how the schools and school districts provided these services varied significantly. For example, some school districts used self-paced instructional packages to provide educational services to disciplined special education students. Other school districts, however, used tutoring by special education instructional personnel to provide educational services for similar students. In addition to educational services, some disciplined special education students had access to other services such as counseling. The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school districts for special education disciplinary placements by providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-assessments, improvement plans, and data and conducting on-site data collection visits in selected states. However, according to some state and local officials, this guidance has not been specific enough. In particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples specifying whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In addition, Education's IDEA oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance because it relies on state monitoring efforts, including state self-assessments and discipline data that have been shown to contain some inaccuracies. Education's next generation of its oversight system has recently been approved by the department and will be implemented in calendar year 2003. This new oversight system includes a component to validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the 2000-01 school year, education officials removed more than   91,000 special education students, including students with serious  emotional disturbance and specific learning disabilities, from their current  school settings for disciplinary reasons. This was approximately   1.4 percent of all special education students who received public  educational services that year. Little is known, however, about where local  school districts and schools placed these disciplined special education  students or the extent to which these students continued to receive  services during their removal.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) enacted in  1990, special education students are entitled to specific rights and  services. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the removal of  special education students from their current educational settings for any  violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how long these  students could be removed without educational services. Specifically,  IDEA requires schools to provide educational services to special education  students who are removed from their current educational settings for  more than 10 cumulative days in a school year. Schools are required to  provide these students with the educational and related services outlined  in the student’s individualized education program (IEP). In 1999, the U.S.  Department of Education issued federal regulations that implemented the  new IDEA special education discipline requirements; states and local  school districts have also added their own disciplinary policies.
Because little is known about the disciplinary placements of special  education students, you asked us to determine: (1) where special  education students are placed when they are removed from their  educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local  school districts in selected states continue educational services for special  education students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are  disciplined, and what types of services are provided; and (3) how  Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements  used for special education students.
Because there were limited national data about where special education  students were placed when they were removed from their educational  settings for disciplinary reasons, we conducted an in-depth study of the  use of disciplinary placements for special education students in the middle  and high school grades in three states—Illinois, Maryland, and   North Carolina. We used national data on the number of students served  under IDEA and the extent to which these students were disciplined to  determine the states, school districts, and schools to be included in our  study. These states were selected because they differed in the number and  percent of special education students who were disciplined and the  number of disciplined special education students who were removed from  their educational settings on a short-term or long-term basis. We collected  data for school year 2001-02, the most current data available. In these  states, we surveyed a total of 36 district special education administrators  and 78 school principals from school districts representing a range of  demographic characteristics. We had response rates of 83 percent   (30 school districts) for our district special education administrators’  survey and 63 percent (49 schools) for our survey of school officials.  Some respondents to the district and school surveys, however, did not  answer or provide complete information for all of the questions contained  in their respective surveys.
Therefore, for some issues, we report on a subset of the total responses.  Additionally, while we did not verify the reported data, the information  collected during the site visits to selected districts and schools was  consistent with information collected though the surveys. Our results are  not generalizeable to the population of districts and schools in these   three states or nationally. We also reviewed agency documents to  determine the federal role in providing oversight and guidance for  disciplinary placements and examined agency databases for national data  regarding the discipline of special education students. In addition, we  interviewed federal officials, national education organizations’  representatives, and special education experts concerning disciplinary  placements for special education students. We conducted our work  between May 2002 and April 2003 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 that addresses the unique needs of  children with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities, speech  and language impairments, mental retardation, and serious emotional  disturbance. The law mandates that a free appropriate public education be  made available for all eligible children with disabilities, ensures due  process rights, requires an IEP for each student, and requires the  placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.  In school year 2002, more than 6 million children aged 3 through   21 received education services under the act at a federal cost of  approximately $8 billion. In addition, state governments provided more  than $48 billion in additional funding to implement the act’s requirements.
Under IDEA and the 1999 implementing federal regulations on discipline,  schools must follow certain procedures to remove a student from his or  her educational setting for disciplinary purposes. Specifically, schools may  suspend a special education student for up to 10 school days in a given  school year without providing educational services. Under the  regulations, school personnel in consultation with the child’s special  education teacher are required to determine the educational services  needed to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general  curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving the goals set out  in the child’s IEP. In addition, schools may repeatedly suspend a special  education student on a short-term basis (not more than 10 days) even if  the suspensions cumulatively total more than 10 school days, so long as  educational services are provided to the student after the tenth suspension  day in a given school year. The regulations also allow schools to remove a  special education student for up to 45 days to an interim alternative  educational setting if the student commits a weapons or drug violation at  school or is determined by a hearing officer to be a danger to self or  others. Additionally, if school officials request an extension, a hearing  officer may extend this 45-day removal period.
Because school districts are provided considerable leeway in determining  disciplinary placements, they choose many settings to function as  disciplinary placements including, for example, in-school suspension  rooms, alternative schools, out of school suspensions at home, and  homebound placements. The difference between homebound placements  and out-of-school suspensions at home is that homebound placements  were generally used for extended periods and involved service provisions,  while out-of-school suspensions at home were used for short periods of  under 10 days and generally did not include the provision of instructional  services. School personnel and the student’s IEP team are responsible for  making decisions regarding the appropriateness of disciplinary settings. A  hearing officer or court may also make the decisions.
In 2001, we studied how IDEA regulations affected the ability of schools to  maintain a safe learning environment and whether regular and special  education students are disciplined in a similar manner. We found that  IDEA regulations played only a limited role in affecting schools’ ability to  properly discipline students and that in cases of serious misconduct,  regular and special education students were disciplined in a similar  manner. Although the study briefly touched upon the role alternative  placements play in the disciplinary process for special education students,  a description of the characteristics of these settings and the extent of their  use fell outside of the study’s scope. Moreover, the study focused on  serious student misconduct (drugs, weapons, assault, rape, sexual assault,  and robbery) and did not focus on less serious offenses.
section_title: Disciplined Students Were Primarily Placed in In-School Suspension Rooms and Out-of-School Suspensions at Home
paragraphs: Disciplined special education students were primarily placed in one of two  short-term disciplinary settings: in-school suspension rooms or out-of  school suspension at home, according to survey respondents in three  selected states. The length of a student’s removal was a key consideration  in placement decisions. Because most disciplined special education  students were generally removed for short periods of time, these two  short-term disciplinary settings were the most frequently used. Students  removed for longer periods (exceeding 10 days) were more likely to be  placed in settings with greater access to service providers, such as  alternative schools or homebound placements. Other factors affecting  placement decisions included the cumulative number of days a student  had been removed, the cost and availability of placement options and the  nature of the student offense. Our survey results indicated that the  placements of disciplined special education students were similar to those  of disciplined regular education students.
Of the 32 school officials who responded to our survey and could provide  student removal rate data, 31 reported that either in-school suspension  rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home were the most frequently  used placements for disciplined special education students. While district  special education administrators and school officials primarily used short- term placements, such as in-school suspension rooms and out-of-school  suspensions at home, to discipline special education students, they also  reported placing special education students in longer-term disciplinary  placements such as alternative schools and homebound placements.  According to survey respondents, about two-thirds of the districts and  one-quarter of the schools used these types of placements; they were used  much less frequently than short-term settings.
In addition to the length of the student’s removal, school and district  administrators reported considering several other factors when making  placement decisions, including the cumulative number of days the student  had been removed during the school year, the cost and availability of  placement options, and the student’s offense. First, because federal law  provides that special education students may not be removed for more  than 10 days in a school year without the provision of services, schools  and districts considered the cumulative number of days a special  education student had previously been removed when making placement  decisions for special education students. If a special education student  was about to exceed or had already exceeded the 10-day limit, schools and  districts generally placed the student in settings with access to service  providers, such as alternative schools or homebound settings with  services.
Second, due to cost and administrative concerns, most schools and  districts in the states we visited only placed disciplined students in those  placements to which they had readily available access. Under special  circumstances, such as unique student needs or court orders, schools  would remove students to placements that they did not normally use such  as residential schools that may be located outside of the school district. If  a placement with greater access to service providers was not available or  was too costly, some school and district officials reported that they  reduced the length of the student’s removal or eliminated the removal all  together. In addition, the schools that we visited in our study sometimes  used the practice of “banking” removal days, or allowing them to be  “saved” and served later, to make sure that the total number of days a  student was removed did not exceed 10 for a given school year. According  to national education organization officials, “banking” removal days is not  an uncommon practice because it allows school officials to ensure that  disciplined students do not reach the 10-day limit early in the school year.
Finally, students’ offenses and required disciplinary actions were also  considerations in placing a disciplined student. The schools districts we  visited operated under a student conduct code that required specific  disciplinary action for various offenses. The student conduct code  therefore often dictated placement decisions. For example, a weapons or  drugs offense might require placement at an alternative school, whereas a  lesser infraction, such as being disruptive, might require an in-school  suspension.
Disciplinary placements of special education students were similar to  those of other students, based on our survey results. In addition, schools  and districts generally used the same criteria in determining where to  place students. However, administrators reported considering cumulative  days that a student had been removed when placing special education  students but not when making placement decisions for regular education  students.
section_title: Schools and School Districts Provided a Range of Services to Disciplined Special Education Students
paragraphs: In the 2001-2002 school year, schools and school district officials in the  three states that we studied reported providing a range of services to  disciplined special education students. However, how schools and school  districts provided educational and other services varied significantly.  School district officials reported that they generally did not provide any  services to assist returning special education students in acclimating to  their regular educational setting after a disciplinary placement, and the  provision of such services is not required by law.
subsections: section_title: Schools and School Districts Provided Educational Services, but These Services Varied Significantly
paragraphs: The educational services provided to students in disciplinary settings  varied considerably by the degree to which the service included active  instruction. For example, in one school, educational services for a  disciplined student consisted of an academic packet, which was generally  the material the student would miss when he or she was away from the  regular educational setting. When presented with a packet, it was up to the  student to work through and complete the packet. In another district,  educational services in disciplinary settings included active instruction,  such as tutoring by special education instructional personnel. However,  the amount of time spent giving the disciplined student this instruction  varied considerably. For example, in one district, a special education  student in a disciplinary setting received 6 hours of active instruction per  day, while in other schools they received no instruction. Further,  according to the district officials we surveyed, the qualifications of  instructional staff varied widely across placements and disciplinary  settings. For example, the survey respondents in our study reported that  educators at alternative schools were more likely to be certified, while  instructional staff in in-school suspension rooms and homebound  placements ranged in qualifications from fully certified to uncertified.
section_title: Services Other Than Educational Services Were Sometimes Available, though Their Availability Varied by Placement
paragraphs: Special education students in disciplinary placements may have access to  other services in addition to educational services, although the availability  of these services varied. The type of service provided usually depended on  the needs of the student as defined in the student’s IEP as well as the  availability of services within the school district. In addition to  educational services, other services could be made available during  disciplinary placements to meet the requirements of the IEP, according to  survey results. These services could include: counseling and other related  services.
Counseling by a guidance counselor was also commonly made available to  disciplined students. Related services such as speech pathology and  occupational therapy were less available. The availability of services and  providers was in large part determined by where a student was placed  while being disciplined. For example, students placed in alternative  schools generally had access to most services and providers, whereas  disciplined students placed in out-of-school suspensions at home rarely  had access to services other than educational services. See table 1 for  services and providers by placement type.
section_title: School Districts Generally Did Not Provide Services to Assist Students Transferring from a Long-Term Disciplinary Placement
paragraphs: School districts generally did not provide reintegration services for  disciplined special education students returning from long-term  placements. Education’s regulations do not require the provision of  reintegration services for students with disabilities, and only about one- third of school districts we surveyed indicated that they provided them.  While such services are not required, national education organizations’  officials agreed that the provision of reintegration services helps students  make a successful transition back to their regular educational setting.
When reintegration services were provided, they varied greatly. For  example, in one school district, school officials allowed students to  transition slowly from their long-term disciplinary setting, gradually  increasing the amount of time per day that students spent in their regular  educational settings. However, in some instances, reintegration services  were limited. For example, in one district, officials said that reintegration  services consisted of receiving a folder of information about the students  experiences at the alternative school, and in other schools these services  consisted of a meeting, prior to the student’s return to the regular  educational setting, between the school administrators, the disciplined  student, and his or her parents.
section_title: Education’s Guidance and Oversight of Disciplinary Placements Has Been Limited
paragraphs: Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school districts  for disciplinary placements of special education students by providing  information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-assessments,  improvement plans, and data, and conducting on-site data collection visits  in selected states. However, the guidance on certain aspects of disciplinary  placements was limited. In addition, Education’s oversight system may not  detect possible noncompliance. The system relies on the results of state  monitoring efforts that are not always reliable and discipline data that  contain some inaccuracies. Education’s next generation oversight system,  known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System,  has been recently approved by the department and will be implemented in  calendar year 2003, according to Education officials.  This new system was  designed to focus the attention of the department’s monitoring efforts on  the states that need the most support to improve their performance. In  addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in selected states to  validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
subsections: section_title: Education Provided General Guidance on Special Education Disciplinary Placements
paragraphs: Under its responsibilities for IDEA implementation, Education provided  general guidance to state and local education officials on disciplinary  placement issues. However, according to some state and local education  officials, this guidance was not specific enough. For example, while the  department provided assistance in the form of information and technical  assistance concerning the general implementation the act’s disciplinary  requirements, the assistance generally did not include enough details on  disciplinary placement questions, such as how to determine whether the  days of in-school suspension should be counted as days of removal under  the 10-day rule. Further, national education organization officials also  cited the limited federal guidance on in-school suspension.
According to some district officials, while Education’s regulations  describe IDEA’s 10-day rule, the guidance is limited because the  regulations do not provide illustrative examples concerning how the   10-day rule could be applied to a range of circumstances at the local level.  Under the 10-day rule, schools can discipline special education students  for up to 10 days in a school year without providing educational or other  services specified in their IEPs. However, some school and district  officials indicated that being provided with examples that illustrate how to  determine whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as  days of removal under the 10-day rule would assist them in ensuring that  disciplined special education students are not without their IEP services  for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year.
Education officials suggested that state and local education officials who  need clarification of the 10-day rule refer to the disciplinary section of the  preamble to the regulations and the discussion of comments on the act’s  disciplinary requirements. The information that Education identified  concerning in-school suspension as it applies to the 10-day rule is not in  the federal regulations. Rather, the discussion of in-schools suspension  appears only in a 1999 Federal Register notice, a document that is less  accessible to the public than departmental regulations. As a result, some  school officials may have been unaware that the Federal Register notice  accompanying the IDEA discipline regulations contained criteria to be  used in determining whether days of in-school suspension should be  counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule.  In this notice,  Education provided general criteria for determining whether a day in in- school suspension should be counted as a day of suspension, but it does  not provide details and examples to assist schools and districts in applying  the criteria. Our findings regarding the limited guidance available and  accessible on in-school suspensions are consistent with the findings of the  2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education.
section_title: Education’s Oversight System May Not Have the Necessary Information to Determine if Disciplinary Requirements Were Met
paragraphs: Education’s oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance  because it relies on state-submitted information that may not be reliable.  Therefore, Education may be unable to identify the appropriate level of  oversight for particular states. According to Education officials,  Education’s next generation oversight system—known as the Continuous  Improvement and Focused Monitoring System—was recently approved by  the department and will be implemented during calendar year 2003. This  new system was designed to focus the attention of the department’s  monitoring efforts on the states that need the most support to improve  their performance. In addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in  selected states to validate data used by the system to make federal  oversight decisions.
Under IDEA, states have oversight responsibility for monitoring the  implementation of a broad set of requirements under the act, including  disciplinary placements. States have responsibility for monitoring districts’  implementation of IDEA requirements and preparing reports for  Education, documenting the results of their oversight efforts. States  generally fulfill this responsibility by engaging in activities such as  gathering discipline data and by requiring districts to complete reports  documenting compliance with requirements.
Education has responsibility for overseeing state compliance with IDEA  requirements. In 1998, Education implemented an oversight system known  as the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). The  oversight system relies on the administrative review of information  obtained primarily from two sources: (1) state monitoring efforts and   (2) state discipline data. Education uses information obtained from these  two sources to determine the appropriate amount of federal oversight that  a state will receive, such as whether or not a site visit to the state will be  conducted. If the information submitted indicates that the state is in  compliance with IDEA requirements or has proposed strategies to come  into compliance, Education officials continue to track IDEA  implementation but generally do not visit the state. However, if the  department’s administrative review determines that the state did not  effectively identify areas of noncompliance and other areas needing  improvement, Education officials will conduct one or more site visits to  the state to assess the situation and assist the state in developing  improvement strategies.
Under the CIMP oversight system, states are expected by Education to  undertake a number of monitoring activities to demonstrate their  compliance with IDEA requirements. It is the responsibility of each state  to work with a diverse group of stakeholders, including state and local  education officials, parents, and advocacy groups, to evaluate the state’s  effectiveness in achieving compliance with IDEA. This generally involves  conducting a self-assessment and developing an improvement plan to  correct any deficiencies. According to Education officials, states were  strongly encouraged to document state performance, as part of the self- assessment process, by submitting an analysis of their monitoring findings  of the school districts. States were also encouraged to document  corrective actions taken by districts to address the findings and any  enforcement activities undertaken by the state to ensure correction.  Education used this information to document state performance and to  determine if states were meeting their general supervisory responsibilities.
According to Education, some state monitoring systems were not effective  at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements, and the  information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have  contained inaccurate information. During the period July 1, 1999 through  February 25, 2003, Education officials conducted federal IDEA monitoring  site visits to 12 states and the District of Columbia. In 6 of these locations,  Education officials noted that the state IDEA monitoring systems were not  effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance with federal  requirements. For example, in a site visit to one state, Education officials  found that despite the fact that psychological services are supposed to be  offered, five school districts that they visited were not providing them  unless they were required to by a due process hearing. However, the state  education officials had identified four of these five districts as compliant.  Further, Education’s 2001 Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress on the  Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act noted  that many states still do not have effective systems for identifying  noncompliance, or, when they do identify noncompliance with federal  requirements, they do not have effective follow-up or enforcement  strategies to ensure that public agencies correct the noncompliance.
In addition to relying on state monitoring systems, Education also relies  on state-collected discipline data as a source for its administrative review  of states’ compliance with IDEA requirements. However, the discipline  data used by the oversight system contain some inaccuracies, although  according to Education officials, its accuracy is improving. For example,  Education has taken steps to validate the accuracy of the data through the  regular application of data checks by its contractor and by providing  technical assistance to state special education data managers on the  collection of discipline data of the semiannual meeting at the Education  Information Advisory Committee of the Council of Chief State School  Officers. Some reasons for inaccuracies in the data included: unclear  definitions; inconsistent data collection, entry, and verification within and  across school districts; and poor response rates from schools and districts.  The 2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education also  identified data quality issues, including inconsistent reporting and data  formats. While Education officials acknowledged that the special  education discipline data contain some inaccuracies, they indicated that  states were taking measures to improve the accuracy of the data. In  addition, Education officials reported that they expect the accuracy of the  discipline data to improve as school officials become more familiar with  the data collection process. At this point, these data are the only discipline  data available, so Education still is relying on them, although the agency  recognizes their limitations.
Education is planning to implement the next generation of its CIMP  oversight system known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused  Monitoring System (CIFMS), which was approved in April 2003. According  to Education officials, the new system will implement an integrated, four- part accountability strategy, with an emphasis on targeting those states  most at risk for being out of compliance. This strategy includes   (1) verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of states’ monitoring,  assessment, and data collection systems; (2) focusing more oversight and  monitoring attention to states at high risk of compliance, financial, and/or  management failure; (3) supporting states in assessing their performance  and compliance and in planning, implementing, and evaluating  improvement strategies; and (4) focusing Education’s intervention on  states with low ranking performance on critical performance indicators.  This focused approach is aligned with the recommendations of the  President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education and was  designed to focus the department’s monitoring efforts on the states that  need the most support to improve their performance. In addition,  because Education’s monitoring relies so heavily on state-reported data  regarding performance and compliance, Education has developed plans to  ensure the effectiveness of states’ data collection systems. To this end,  Education officials told us that Education staff would visit 20-30 states in  the next year to meet with state officials to verify the effectiveness of their  data collection and monitoring systems.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Each year, the federal government makes a considerable investment to  ensure that a free appropriate public education is available for children  with disabilities. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the  removal of special education students from their current educational  settings for any violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how  long these students could be removed without educational services.  District and school officials in our survey reported that they are providing  a range of services in different settings to disciplined special education  students. However, they reported that additional guidance, especially  more specificity concerning whether the days of in-school suspension  should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule, would be  helpful. Education’s current guidance concerning how these provisions  should be implemented is broad, thus leaving local school and school  district officials flexibility in interpreting how these requirements should  be implemented. Because state and local school district officials may not  have the specific information that they need to comply with federal  requirements, disciplined special education students may not receive  timely protections and services.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education issue supplemental  guidance to state and local education agencies on IDEA’s disciplinary  provisions that includes examples to assist states and local education  agencies in implementing the provisions in the law related to disciplinary  placements. In particular, the guidance should include examples for  applying IDEA’s 10-day rule, including illustrations on how to determine  whether a day of in-school suspension should be counted as a day of  removal.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  Education officials indicated that they provided sufficient guidance on  IDEA’s disciplinary provisions and did not see the need for supplemental  guidance. Education cited four existing documents that discuss IDEA  discipline issues. In addition, Education officials provided new  information in their comments on the draft that indicated that they plan to  validate state discipline data as part of their newly approved monitoring  system. Consequently, we modified the report to reflect Education’s  validation plans. Education officials also provided technical comments  that we incorporated into the report where appropriate.  Education’s  comments are reproduced in appendix II.
We continue to believe that additional guidance is needed; however, we  modified the report to reflect that clarification of how to count in-school  days under IDEA’s 10-day rule was the primary area in which guidance  was needed. Education officials also noted that any guidance should be  provided after IDEA has been reauthorized. We concur with Education’s  proposal to issue any additional guidance after the reauthorization has  been completed.
Education included in its comments new information concerning the data  verification aspect of its IDEA monitoring systems and, as a result, we  withdrew a recommendation on data validation. We reviewed the  information provided—Office of Special Education Programs  Memorandum 03-05, dated April, 8, 2003—as well as technical comments  that described Education’s plans to implement a process to verify state  monitoring, assessment, and data as part of its focused monitoring system.   We acknowledge Education’s efforts in this regard and encourage the  department to continue to periodically validate the information that is  used by its IDEA monitoring systems.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until   30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report  to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and  other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202)   512-7215 or Harriet Ganson on (202) 512-7042 if you or your staff have any  questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Health,  Education, Labor and Pensions asked GAO to determine: (1) where special  education students are placed when they are removed from their  educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local  school districts in selected states continue educational services for special  education students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are  disciplined and what types of services are provided; and (3) how  Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements  used for special education students. In our review of disciplinary  placements, we focused on middle school and high school students and  their placements, but did not include information about disciplinary  placements for elementary school students. Elementary school  information was excluded because National Center for Education  Statistics data indicated that elementary schools experienced fewer  disciplinary problems than middle schools or high schools. Our study  collected information about disciplinary placements from the   2001-2002 school year, the most current full year data available.
To respond to this inquiry, we conducted an in-depth review of the use of  disciplinary placements for special education students at middle and high  schools in three states—Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These  states were selected because they represented different levels of  disciplinary activity, such as the number and percent of special education  students who were disciplined and the number of disciplined special  education students who were removed from their educational settings on  either a short-term (10 days or less) or long-term (more than 10 days)  basis. In these states, we surveyed a nonprobability sample of 36 district  special education administrators and 78 administrators from school  districts of varying characteristics. In addition, we reviewed U.S.  Department of Education documents to determine the federal role in  providing oversight and guidance for disciplinary placements and  examined Education databases for national data regarding the discipline  of special education students. We also interviewed federal officials,  national education organizations’ representatives, and special education  experts concerning disciplinary placements for special education students.
subsections: section_title: State Selection
paragraphs: We selected three states in which to conduct our study of disciplinary  placements based on several criteria. To ensure sufficiency of data to  analyze, we identified 19 states that disciplined 1,000 or more special  education students during the 1999-2000 school year. These 19 states were  divided into three categories, (above average, below average, and average)  depending upon the percent of special education students disciplined per  year, with the national average being 1.12 percent. We then chose  candidates from each category and spoke with state administrators to  determine the extent to which these states collected discipline data. On  the basis of these criteria, we selected Maryland (above average: 1.80  percent), Illinois (below average: 0.55 percent), and North Carolina  (average: 0.89 percent) for analysis.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: In each state, we visited two school districts of varying characteristics.  The districts were selected for variance in the number of special education  students served, their geographic location—urban, suburban, or   rural—and when possible, their overall rate of free and reduced school  lunches (with the objective of gathering information from schools and  districts serving a range of family incomes). During these visits, we met  with district administrators; high school, middle school, and alternative  school principals; administrators; and teachers when they were available.  We also toured disciplinary placements.
Additionally, we visited state Departments of Education and spoke with  special education directors about their state’s policy and procedures for  disciplinary placements.
section_title: Surveys
paragraphs: We distributed 2 survey questionnaires—one to selected school district  special education directors and one to middle and high school  administrators—in Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These surveys  focused on the use of disciplinary placements for special education  students during school year 2000–2001. The school district survey was sent  to 12 selected school district special education administrators in each  state for a total of 36 surveys. The surveyed districts were selected using  criteria similar to that used in determining the sites to be visited—variance  in the number of special education students served, their geographic  location—urban, suburban, or rural—and when possible, their overall rate  of free and reduced school lunches. We received 30 responses to the  survey (83 percent). A second survey obtained information concerning  special education disciplinary placements from selected middle and high  school administrators. Using similar selection criteria to the school district  survey, we distributed surveys to 26 middle and high school administrators  in each state for a total of 78 school surveys. We surveyed one middle  school principal and one high school principal from schools located within  the 12 districts selected for the district survey. We also selected an  additional two principals from large, urban districts to address size and  diversity issues. We received 49 responses to the survey (63 percent). This  nonprobability sample review of schools and districts in three states does  not allow us to draw conclusions about all schools and districts covered  by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorization.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Tamara Fucile and James Kim made significant contributions to this  report, in all aspects of the work throughout the assignment. In addition,  Katherine Bittinger contributed to the initial design of the assignment,  Ronald La Due Lake assisted in the design of the school district and school  surveys; Lise Levie assisted in the management of the school survey;  George Quinn, Jr., conducted the data analysis for both surveys;   Behn Miller provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou assisted in the  message and report development.