DINF Web Posted on December 15, 1997
Secretary Riley's Testimony on IDEA -- June 20, 1995
The information in this document has been superseded by more recent information available elsewhere on this site. This document is for historical purposes only. See http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/ for more current information about IDEA.
5. Focus on teaching and learning
Another aspect of focusing on teaching and learning concerns the twin issues of safety and discipline. As we strive to focus on teaching and learning, we must recognize that over the past twenty years, the implementation of the IDEA has focused on process without sufficient attention to educational results for children with disabilities. Too often the fundamental purpose of the law is lost.
It will be difficult to achieve the significant improvements we propose without accompanying flexibility for educators and changes in how states and locals focus their attention and use their resources. The IDEA must maximize flexibility and the extent to which special education resources are devoted to teaching and learning.
Our proposal for evaluation of children alone could allow states to save millions now spent on tests that do not contribute to educational improvement and free up the time of school psychologists to help students, families, and teachers. The proposals I have described for improving IEPs, reducing state and local application requirements, providing more flexibility in the use of funds, and requiring that mediation be available will also help to significantly reduce paperwork and focus energy and resources on activities with clear educational benefits.
Today's schools are facing new challenges. Our communities are undergoing changes that are bringing additional pressures into the classroom. Twenty years ago, children fought with their fists; today, they use guns. We must have schools that are havens of order and safety for all of our children. This is a paramount concern for so many parents and I share that concern as well.
Because this is an important issue, Judy and I have had a number of meetings with many of the major education groups and the disability community to explore how we might best ensure safe and disciplined schools for all students. I believe that these conversations have been productive, and we plan to continue them.
As the Congress works its way through this difficult issue, we want to share with you what we know on the subject and continue our discussions. The issue of discipline is a deeply emotional issue for all sides. People feel frustrated and levels of trust that have been worn away need to be rebuilt.
I have been at some of these meetings and I have the utmost respect for the sincerity and depth of commitment shown by the school officials and the disability community. These are all good people and they believe strongly in their points of views and that is how it should be.
But our task is different. We need to be as reasoned as possible in searching for an effective balance that ensures the safety of all children while protecting the established rights of children with disabilities. Balance is the key word and I suspect that the best proposal may not be entirely satisfactory to either school officials or the disability community.
As you know, during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act last year, the IDEA was amended so that if a child with a disability brings a gun to school, the school can immediately remove the child from the classroom and put him or her in an alternative placement for 45 days. We believe that this is a sensible and very much needed provision and should be extended to other weapons such as knives.
Second, the Department issued extensive guidance in April to schools on the issue of disciplining students with disabilities. There is a fair amount of misinformation in schools around the country about what disciplinary actions are permissible that needs to be put to rest. The last thing we want is for teachers and principals to feel frustrated about a situation and feel that they have no real recourse.
There is a great deal that a school can do to address misconduct -- from temporary suspensions to alternative placements to long-term expulsions when the child's misconduct is not a manifestation of his or her disability. We want principals to feel secure in taking disciplinary actions in the knowledge that they are well within the guidelines and we want the parents of disabled children to understand these guidelines as well. Good information and a clear understanding of what can be done builds trust on all sides.
Now, prevention is always the best approach to discipline problems -- whether the child is disabled or nondisabled. There are many schools that have learned how to prevent violent and disruptive behavior: early identification of learning problems, consistent rules, teaching how to resolve conflicts peacefully, are all elements of safe and disciplined schools. Effective behavioral management techniques are also being used in some schools to prevent discipline problems and teach children with emotional disabilities to take responsibility for their behavior.
We also know that student misconduct is sometimes caused when the student does not receive the necessary supports and services, such as specialized instruction, so he can understand the classroom materials, or an aide in the classroom to help him work at his own pace. A focus on prevention can keep children in school and off the streets, out of the juvenile justice system, and in the workforce as self-reliant adults.
Based on the meetings Judy and I have held, as well as our consultation with many others, we have developed two proposals that will permit schools to address discipline problems more expeditiously while still protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families.
First, as I mentioned earlier, we believe the rule adopted last year, which allows a school to immediately remove a disabled child from the classroom and put him or her in an alternative placement for 45 days for bringing a gun to school, should be extended to include knives, and other weapons as well. This makes good sense.
A second proposal relates to process. When a child poses a substantial danger to others, even without a weapon, school officials need to be able to remove a child from a classroom quickly. Currently, if the child's parent objects to the removal, the child must stay in his or her current placement until the dispute is resolved, unless the school district goes to court and obtains a temporary restraining order permitting it to remove the child.
We have learned that some school administrators and teachers find it difficult to go to court. Therefore, we believe that schools should have the additional option to go to local hearing officers -- officials who already exist in every state to address special education issues -- to obtain a quick decision about whether a child is dangerous and should be removed from the classroom.
I believe that these two proposals are balanced and fair, and will help to create safer schools. Coupled with our new guidance on discipline and the expansion of mediation into other states, they may help to frame and create the new balance we are seeking. We emphasize the value of mediation in addressing discipline problems because the obstacles to changing a child's placement under current law arise only when the parent and the school disagree about an appropriate placement.
These new provisions clearly do not address all the concerns that your will hear -- and we plan to continue our meetings with the education and disability communities as we search for solutions to these difficult issues. We want to share with you what we know and what we are learning and work with the Congress during this process to come to grips with this issue.
As I said before, we need to develop a reasoned and balanced approach on a very emotional issue. Much of our success will depend on our collective ability to build up some new levels of trust among all the parties involved.
I want to be very direct in saying that we need to keep our focus on what is important. A school that is safe for all children, including the child with a disability, is necessary for children to learn. The key here is balance, making sure all children are safe without chipping away at the integrity of the established rights of children with disabilities, that have, over the course of time, done so much good for the entire community.
6. Strengthen early intervention to help ensure that every child starts school ready to learn.
Early intervention means working with infants and toddlers and their families as soon as a disability is identified or suspected. By starting early, problems resulting from the disability can be alleviated and additional problems can be prevented.
A critical element of the IDEA is the Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program (referred to as Part H). Part H was enacted nearly 10 years ago to help States better meet the needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities, or at risk of developmental delay, and their families. Early intervention has clear benefits for families and for children. For example, a mother from Idaho recently told us about her son who, as a toddler, fell into a canal and almost drowned -- an accident that could happen to any of our children. As a result, he has physical and mental disabilities. Within two weeks of the accident, an early intervention center began giving therapy to the child and training to the family. After 6 to 8 weeks, this child, who had been close to death, could sleep for short periods on a regular basis and attend to his mother's voice. The mother learned how to do therapy at home and encourage her son's social development so that he would be able to achieve his full potential. Research shows that early intervention such as this can lead to better results in later school years.
The Part H program provides states with an opportunity to expand and improve early intervention services to families through an interagency state system of services for children with disabilities from birth through age 2 and their families. In a typical state, more than half a dozen state agencies participate in the financing and delivery of early intervention services under the Part H umbrella. At a time when we all want more comprehensive and better coordinated services for families with less duplication and overlap, the Part H program is a program that can help provide the infrastructure to make a system work.
Part H is a relatively young program, which has just recently been fully implemented in the majority of states. While states and communities have made tremendous progress in implementing their early intervention systems, there remain two major challenges: ensuring that all eligible infants and toddlers receive services, and supporting prevention of developmental delays by expanding the inclusion of at-risk infants and toddlers within the Part H comprehensive system of services. To address these challenges, we will propose to draw on the best expertise in the nation to identify an appropriate definition of developmental delay in infants and toddlers in order to help states ensure that all children in need are identified and served. We will also propose greater flexibility for states in their efforts to identify and serve infants and toddlers at risk of developmental delay. We believe that these proposals will improve services to infants and toddlers and their families, while also increasing state flexibility in the administration of the program.
Conclusion
These proposals will help local communities in their efforts to create safe, disciplined schools that have high expectations for all their students, that have well prepared teachers, and that will strengthen the involvement of students with disabilities and their families in their children's education. We look forward to working with you as we all strive to improve the IDEA in order to improve results for children with disabilities.
-###-
| Top |