| Home | Our History |  |
Gov't Affairs | Membership | Publications | Events | Affiliates | Awards | Feature | Members Only |
 |
Government Affairs |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] Governmental Affairs: Advocacy in action. Read current and previous Legislative Network Alerts. View a listing of the Legislative Network Members. Frequently asked questions about the Legislative Network. |
Legislative Network Alerts Alert Number 97 November 19, 2004 For Your Information IDEA Update To: Members of the Legislative Network From: Patricia Leahy, Director of Governmental Affairs For those who read on the run, this Washington Wire deals primarily with the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Conference Report to which (Conference Report 108-779) is scheduled at this time to come up for a vote on both the House and Senate Floors today. Pursuant to calls to Hill staff of earlier this a.m., the omnibus spending bill (which includes the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriation) may come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Accordingly, we will have a complete report on the Omnibus spending bill as soon as that information becomes available publicly. Now, on to IDEA. There is additional information, including a summary of the Conference Report to accompany the bill, H.R. 1350, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, on the website of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. This information which also includes Fact Sheets on various aspects of the Conference Report may be accessed on the Committee's website: http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/idea/conferencereport/confrept.htm Relatedly, today's Washington Post's Editorial Page carries a article, entitled 'Making Progress,' on the legislative process and the reauthorizing of the IDEA, which follows immediately below. Following the Washington Post Article is an article that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times regarding IDEA which was passed onto NRA from Justice For All. MAKING PROGRESS Friday, November 19, 2004; Page A28 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61354-2004Nov18.html 'IT IS A RARE PIECE of legislation nowadays that makes it through the House and the Senate, let alone a House-Senate conference, without ill will, partisan shouting and layers of added pork. For that reason alone, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, now heading toward the House and Senate Floors, deserves a moment's attention. From the beginning, Republicans, Democrats, and advocates were all part of the debate about this law, which reauthorizes the federal rules and funding for special education. Staffers for Sen. Judd Gregg (R.N.H.), Chairman of the Senate education committee, as well as those working for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.Mass.), the ranking Democratic member, also solicited the opinions of outsiders who were not part of organized groups, to better understand the real problems faced by students, parents and teachers. Congressional offices on the House side, notably those of Reps. John A. Boehner (R.Ohio) and George Miller (D.Calif.), did the same. The result is a law that doesn't address every problem with special education but that does grapple with some of the tougher ones. Unlike most education bills, this one involves civil rights issues, namely the right of disabled students to receive appropriate, free education, just like other children. While reinforcing this principle, the law also addresses, for example, the contentious question of whether schools can discipline or expel unruly students with disabilities: they can, but only after an appropriate process and only if they ensure that the special services the child was receiving are not discontinued. While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up between schools and parents in recent years by reducing paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic requirements. The law also brings special education in line with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, establishing the qualifications required for special education teachers, providing funding for teachers to get those qualifications if they don't have them already and taking some steps toward establishing alternatives to assess the progress of disabled children. Ultimately, the test for Congress is not whether this bill finally becomes law, which seems likely, but whether the goodwill surrounding it continues. The special education debate is not over, nor should it be. It is legitimate to ask about the costs of this law, both in terms of time and money; equally, it is legitimate to ask whether schools comply with it because they genuinely believe that special education is worthwhile or because they have to. The answers to both questions will affect the quality of the education all children receive. As different lessons are learned about what works best, for disabled children and for schools, legislators will need to keep the law flexible, and their naturally partisan tempers under control.' 'Compromise Reached on IDEA' From The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com: Conferees Pass Compromise for 6.5 Million Special Education Pupils November 18, 2004 By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO The New York Times WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- A House-Senate conference committee gave near unanimous approval to major changes in the law that governs special education for 6.5 million disabled students, charting new ways for schools to identify children for extra help more swiftly, reduce legal challenges by dissatisfied parents and make it easier for schools to remove disruptive students whose misbehavior is not caused by their disability. The bill, widely expected to have votes by the full House and Senate on Friday, stopped short of more sweeping changes proposed last year in a House bill. That version, which school administrators and state officials supported, drew bitter opposition from the parents of disabled children and their advocates. It would have let governors limit states' reimbursements to lawyers who won suits on behalf of disabled children and would have let schools remove disabled children who violated codes of conduct, whether or not their misbehavior was related to medical conditions. Instead, after weeks of House-Senate talks, a more moderate approach that passed the Senate with a bipartisan majority in May prevailed in most areas. 'A nation, at its best, is evaluated by how it cares for its children,' Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said. 'This is really about hope for children that, too often, don't have it.' Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the departing chairman of the committee, said the bill met 'four basic goals: make sure students are learning, free teachers from burdensome bureaucratic requirements, help parents and schools work together better and create the safest classroom environment possible for all students.' The bill would broaden the ways for schools to identify special education pupils, allowing schools to reach children in earlier grades and, the lawmakers said, reduce the relatively high share of minority children who are tracked toward special education. It would also give districts the flexibility to spend up to 15 percent of federal special education money on services to children who are not in special education, but who may need extra help to succeed in regular classrooms. Regarding the contentious issue of classroom discipline, the compromise bill maintains federal protections that require schools to show that a disabled child's misbehavior is not a result of a disability or of the school's failure to provide services that could have prevented the outburst. But if a review determines that the misconduct is unrelated to the disability, the school could expel the pupil. Diane Smith, senior disability legal specialist at the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, said her organization was more relieved than pleased by the compromise bill. 'Obviously, it's a vast improvement over the House version,' Ms. Smith said. 'It's not an improvement over current law. But it's the best we're going to get.' Advocates and parents of disabled children, who packed the hearing room on Wednesday, complained that they were unsure of exactly what was agreed to, because summaries of the major points were distributed only to the news media and not the public. The precise language of the compromise accord was not released at the hearing. 'You can't get a copy,' said Marilyn Arons, founder of the Parent Information Center of New Jersey, who had traveled here for the committee vote. Ms. Arons said her group had hoped to see the law explicitly permit parents to represent their children at legal proceedings, a point that, as far as she could tell, the bill did not ultimately address. She said, 'We are sitting here absolutely appalled and devastated.' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/politics/18special.html?ex=1101774571&ei=1&en=5c13f88c0319a5d7 Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company # # # |
|||||
| Home | Our History |  |
Gov't Affairs | Membership | Publications | Events | Affiliates | Awards | Feature | Members Only |