- As I walked along the seashore,
- This young boy greeted me.
- He was tossing stranded starfish
- Back to the deep blue sea.
- I said, "Tell me why you bother.
- Why waste your time this way?
- There's a million stranded starfish.
- Does it matter, anyway?"
-
- And he said, "It matters to this one.
- It deserves a chance to grow.
- It matters to this one.
- I can't save them all, I know.
- But it matters to this one
- I'll return it to the sea.
- It matters to this one
- And it matters to me."
-
- I walked into the classroom.
- The teacher greeted me.
- She was helping Johnny study.
- He was struggling I could see.
- I said, "Tell me why you bother.
- Why waste your time this way?
- Johnny's only one of millions,
- Does it matter, anyway?"
-
- And she said, "It matters to this one.
- He deserves a chance to grow.
- It matters to this one.
- I can't save them all, I know.
- But it matters to this one.
- I'll help him be what he can be.
- It matters to this one
- And it matters to me."
-
- I walked through the capitol.
- Some parents greeted me.
- They were helping legislators
- Remember children in all they do and see.
- I said, "Tell me why you bother.
- Why waste your time this way?
- Your issue is one in millions.
- Does it matter anyway?"
-
- And they said, "It matters with this one.
- Children deserve a chance to grow.
- It matters with this one.
- There are other causes, we know.
- But it matters with this one.
- We must help children be all they can be.
- Because it matters to everyone
- What our future turns out to be.
Opportunities To Make A Difference
The
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF) Launches IDEA Rapid
Response Network April 2002
Background and Need for Network
The Disability Rights Education And Defense Fund (DREDF) has launched the IDEA
Rapid Response Network. Comprised of parents of children with disabilities,
advocates and supporters, the Network is:
+ Building a cadre of parents and supporters nationwide who can be called on
to respond to proposed amendments or concepts for changes to IDEA that might
weaken, eliminate or in any way compromise the civil rights of children with
disabilities during the upcoming Congressional reauthorization process; and
+ Educating and informing parents about proposals to amend IDEA. Current
proposals and rumors of proposals to change the IDEA represent the greatest
threat to the rights of children with disabilities since the IDEA was first
enacted in 1975. The civil rights guaranteed in the IDEA for over 25 years are
founded on critical Constitutional principles, namely, the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are not rights or favors that can be
traded away based on politics, expedience, funding and unsubstantiated
educational claims.
The Network will address potentially damaging proposals even before they hit
the streets. Depending on the issue, Network members will be called on to
target specific states, communities within states, and members of Congress who
are key to particular issues. One primary goal of the Network is to provide a
mechanism for parents and supporters to counter weakening proposals by
educating Congress members using qualitative and quantitative data, personal
experiences, and by offering alternatives to proposed amendments. DREDF will
provide Network members with regular updates and alerts on the reauthorization
process and will also coordinate with other organizations providing
information to parents. If you wish to receive email information about
reauthorization activities and/or participate in the Network, please send an
email to preserveIDEA@dredf.org.
Include your name, contact
information (postal address, telephone number, and email) and whether you only
want updates or would also like to participate in the Network.
IDEA PROVISIONS TARGETED FOR CHANGE
Described below are some of the proposals for changes to IDEA being considered
and already under debate:
1. Congress and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) --
Discipline and Funding In the last year, the special education community has
again seen various attempts (extensions of attempts in the Reauthorization of
IDEA in 1997) to weaken the rights of children with disabilities particularly
in the area of "discipline." Discipline amendments were attached to both the
House and Senate bills of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
In late 2001, an agreement was reached to postpone resolution of the
discipline issue until the next reauthorization of IDEA, a process that is
currently underway. Among the most serious proposals were those to permit
cessation of services to children with disabilities and to expand the
unilateral authority of school districts to remove children from regular
school environments considered "disruptive" to alternative (i.e. segregated)
placements. Also as an amendment to the ESEA, the issue of full funding for
IDEA was hotly deba! ted in Congress and ultimately rej ected by the Bush
administration.
2. "Rethinking Special Education for a New Century" - a Blueprint to Weaken
IDEA In a report published in May 2001 by The Progressive Policy Institute and
the Fordham Foundation entitled "Rethinking Special Education for a New
Century," a series of articles sets forth proposals, some of which, if
codified in law, would drastically change IDEA. The presumption in most, if
not all of these articles is that IDEA is deeply flawed. Admittedly, as stated
in the report's preface, these articles were written by individuals who "are
astute observers and practiced analysts for whom this [special education] was
a new topic."
Proposals in "Rethinking Special Education" run the gamut from weakening to
eliminating core requirements of the IDEA. These include:
+ Possible elimination of large numbers of children (particularly children
with learning disabilities) from eligibility to receive special education
services (without a national initiative and funding to provide other
intervention services);
+ A three-tiered system for the provision of services based on disability
label;
+ An emphasis on learning to live with one's disability-related limitations:
"students should be empowered to overcome their disabilities by equipping them
with coping and compensatory mechanisms" rather that expecting an
"accommodation philosophy";
+ A reallocation of financial resources based on "education policy" rather
than civil rights (e.g. more money and resources should go to high achieving
general education students and elimination of the entitlement to services for
children with disabilities in current law);
+ Reduction in the numbers of minority students receiving special education
services based on oversimplified claims regarding the over identification of
minority children;
+ Promotion of school choice "vouchers"; + Ending the "double standards" (in
the area of discipline) permitted in current law; and
+ Elimination of many IDEA procedures so that schools can be more "innovative"
and lessen paper work.
Some of the special education problems identified in this report do require
attention. For example, most of us agree that there needs to be a greater
emphasis on prevention, early intervention and educational results. However,
nothing in the IDEA in any way hinders early intervention and prevention
initiatives. Moreover, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 added provisions to address
an emphasis on educational results, particularly the provisions regarding
access to the general curriculum, participation of special education students
in state and district-wide assessments, the development of alternate
assessments and performance goals and indicators. Many states have done a very
poor job of implementing these provisions. The problem of low educational
outcomes is not caused by current law but by a misunderstanding of the law's
requirements and the failure to implement and enforce current law.
However, it is likely that the Fordham Report contains concepts we will see in
the administration's proposed amendments to IDEA. Some advocates believe that
the administration has already prepared a draft of their version of the IDEA
to be unveiled to the public at some undisclosed time, incorporating many of
these concepts. (For additional analysis of "Rethinking Special Education" see
the response of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities at
http://www.c-c-d.org/Fordhamresponse.htm
).
3. The President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education The President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education was established on October 3, 2001, by the Bush
administration to make recommendations on policies for improving the
educational performance of students with disabilities. While this may be a
laudable goal, as described above, provisions were added to IDEA in the 1997
reauthorization to improve account ability for performance but the federal
government has permitted states to continue to receive their federal grants
despite the fact that states have not complied with these new requirements. It
is left unexplained why schools would comply with any other system of
accountability that purportedly focuses on "educational results." It is
unlikely, however, that the words "monitoring" and "enforcement" will be part
of the Commission's vocabulary.
Moreover, the President's Commission does not include representation of some
constituencies most knowledgeable about special education and children with
disabilities. For example, institutions of higher education engaged in state
of the art instructional research and teacher training, especially for
children with more significant disabilities were not included, and the people
most knowledgeable about the needs of children with disabilities -- there are
only two parents of children with disabilities on the Commission and none
representing advocacy organizations able to represent the perspective of large
groups of parents regarding weaknesses or strengths in the law or its
implementation. Those representing the organized civil rights community
nationally that have a tremendous interest and stake in the education of
minority children are also excluded from the Commission. The Commission's
recommendations, slated to be published in July 2002, are likely to mirror
many of the con! cepts set forth in "Rethinking Spe cial Education for a New
Century."
The Commission is also likely to propose additional changes ostensibly to cut
back on paperwork. These could include proposals to limit the length and
content of IEPs and to make IEP reviews less frequent (one review every two or
three years), essentially limiting any meaningful parent participation.
With respect to minority issues, the administration as well as authors of
"Rethinking Special Education" have repeatedly identified the over
identification of children from minority backgrounds as an issue to be
remedied in the next reauthorization, claiming that the problems of these
children are primarily problems of literacy not disability. The administration
neglects to mention the companion problem of under-identification of minority
children often rooted in low academic expectations for such children.
While strong literacy and reading programs may preclude the necessity of
providing special education services for some children, in many places, these
early intervention reading and literacy programs simply do not exist and may
not for a long time to come. Moreover, such literacy programs will require an
intensive teacher training initiative and funding to support it. In redefining
the learning difficulties of some minority children as literacy problems, many
children may be denied special education services without the provision of or
entitlement to other intervention services.
4. The U.S. Department of Education At various public meetings over the last
few months, members of the Bush administration and the leadership in the
Department of Education have been roundly critical of some of the key
provisions of IDEA such as the IEP process. The proposal is that the IEP
should become a very short, general document that essentially would give
little specific information about the educational needs of students with
disabilities and the specifics of services that address those needs. Other
administration statements have forcefully criticized the use of attorneys and
advocates by parents and propose to cap the fees such attorneys can receive
from school districts when parents win their cases (caps on publicly funded
attorneys representing school districts have not been mentioned).
This would mean that the use of attorneys already inaccessible to most parents
would be beyond the reach of even the few who do have access under current
law. Capping parents' attorney fees would represent a major departure from
other civil rights laws. According to administration officials supporting such
proposals, the conflicts between parents and school districts are largely the
fault of parents and their avid attorneys eager to challenge and go to battle
against well meaning but helpless administrators. Bush administration
officials have also stated that they do not intend to be "cops" with respect
to enforcement. This is the clearest statement yet that compliance with
current law or an amended law will be (or continue to be) largely up to the
discretion of states and local school districts.
Finally, the proposals described above and others we are likely to see will
use as their rationale, the need to base educational practices on sound
"scientific research" and may explicitly limit the use of certain practices.
However there is considerable debate about what constitutes "scientific
research." The IDEA's current requirement that states and school districts
adopt promising practices already recognizes and promotes change based on
positive evidence. It is important that parents not be intimidated by
"scientific research" lingo and continue to promote practices that work for
their children. IDEA is not a one-size-fits-all educational program.
This is just the beginning - a preview of what is to come. At another time, we
might see these proposals or the seriousness of these proposals as paranoid
and alarmist. But anyone who has been following recent events knows that this
is not just some background chatter. It is real. The sum and substance of IDEA
-- the most important piece of civil rights legislation for children with
disabilities ever passed in this country -- will be dismantled unless a large,
organized and coordinated network and other response systems are ready and
able to respond quickly and effectively to ill-advised amendments. Moreover,
as parents and advocates for children with disabilities we must guide the
agenda if there are to be changes in IDEA.
In order to succeed with the Rapid Response Network, DREDF intends to work
closely with and collaborate with other organizations and networks working on
IDEA issues for parents and others representing the interests of children with
disabilities. We look forward to working with you and preserving the IDEA.
If you wish to receive email information about reauthorization activities
and/or participate in the Network, please send an email to
preserveIDEA@dredf.org
Include your name, contact information (postal address, telephone number, and
email) and whether you only want updates or would also like to participate in
the Network.
Please pass this along.
Here are links to articles about proposed
changes.
Special
Education Group Suggests Three-Year IEP Interval
