Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2729 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
PAUL
MARCHAND
CO-CHAIR EDUCATION TASK FORCE
BEFORE THE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE
SEBJECT - FY 2000 FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee,
I am pleased to testify on behalf of the Education
Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. The Task Force is
comprised of over 40 national organizations representing children with all types
of disabilities, their parents and advocates, special educators, related
services personnel, and providers. CCD has been involved in federal special
education policy since the development of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. In addition to
our involvement in every reauthorization of IDEA, CCD has pursued increased
federal funding for IDEA on an annual basis throughout its history.
For
background purposes, I am a former special education teacher in Massachusetts,
the father of a now adult son who profited from an (EP under IDEA as a student
with a learning disability educated in Maryland's public schools, and as a
longtime disability public policy professional who was there in 1975 when the
94th Congress wrote and passed P.L. 94-142. I do remember three freshmen
Congressmen, Representatives Jeffords, Harkin, and Dodd, who cast historic votes
in support of the right to a free, appropriate education, as of course did
Senator Kennedy, a lead sponsor of S. 6 in the U.S. Senate.
As you and we
are keenly aware, the Federal government continues to fall far short of its
fiscal promise to schools and its students with disabilities. The legislative
history is clear. It hasn't mattered whether there is a Republican or a Democrat
in the White House. Until the last three years, it hasn't mattered which party
is in control of the U.S. Congress. IDEA's funding history has never come close
to the promise. Despite a doubling of funding in the last three years,
spearheaded principally by the Republican leadership, IDEA state grant funding
is only 12 percent of the excess cost, far less than half-way to the promise of
40 percent excess cost Federal reimbursement.
Before discussing funding
issues in greater depth, CCD would like to make several points. First and
foremost, IDEA works! Nearly six million students with mental or physical
disabilities profit from the law every day. Yet, too many parents have to fight
constantly to protect and secure their child's educational rights. Second, IDEA
saves money. The vast majority of students with disabilities leave school
prepared for higher education, real jobs or less dependency. IDEA has saved
taxpayers billions of dollars by preventing unwarranted, inappropriate, and very
costly institutionalization over 25 years. Third, IDEA is not an unfunded
mandate. Regardless of federal funding, states have a constitutional obligation
to educate all children with disabilities. States and school systems must
educate all students. All means all, regardless of the Federal funding. Fourth,
school systems are hurting and the Federal government must step in to help more.
Fully funding IDEA would help all students, not just those with disabilities.
Conversely, increased funding for general education programs will help children
with disabilities. Fish, IDEA is fragile, despite its quarter century of
achievement. The law is woefully underfunded, certain forces seek to undermine
it, weaken it and repeal it. Although politicians at each level of government
and school officials feel the heat, it is students with disabilities and their
families who bear the brunt of those attacks. Sixth and finally, IDEA has always
received bipartisan support and that bipartisanship must be maintained.
Disability follows no political persuasion, economic condition, religion, race,
or any other factor. CCD pleads that this bipartisanship be maintained.
Now
to the funding issues. Before focusing on IDEA funding, it is important from the
CCD viewpoint to look at the President's budget request from a more universal
perspective. People with disabilities depend on various Federal programs and
benefits to survive, be educated and trained, and become and stay productive
taxpayers. Key disability programs are found in the Social Security
Administration, the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Labor,
Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and others.
Depending on the type of disability, the severity of the disability, the age of
onset, current life status, the availability of family supports and numerous
other factors, many people depend on federally funded programs and benefits at
certain points in their lives. Others, especially those with the most severe
disabilities, are basically dependent on government for basic survival their
entire lives. Most Federal policy is aimed at eliminating dependency and
fostering independence. This committee, through its championing of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Workforce Investment
Act, the Developmental Disabilities Act, the Technology Assistance Act, the
Maternal and Child Health Program, various mental health authorities, and many
other statutes, takes a primary role in authorizing that assistance.
As CCD
analyzes the FY 2000 Administration proposal, there is a mixed reaction. This is
not unusual. Clearly on the negative side, the IDEA request is very
disappointing. This disappointment is somewhat offset by the President's
proposed increases in other education areas. Many other disability programs are
frozen at current levels. A few are actually cut.
The worst dilemma is in
the HUD budget, where no increase is sought for disability housing programs.
This is most problematic, since we know that hundreds of thousands of people
with disabilities are on waiting lists for affordable, accessible
community-based housing.
The jury is still out on the President's Social
Security proposal. CCD is concerned that the Social Security Disability programs
be protected from harm, that disability benefits not be cut or terminated, and
that they be modernized. There are not enough details available yet to fully
assess the Administration's or the Republican leadership's Social Security
proposals. We remain very wary that the disability aspects of Social Security
are not getting the attention they deserve.
CCD gives the Clinton
Administration great credit for putting long term care, a key disability policy
issue, on the map. We applaud the President for his leadership in this area.
Similarly, the Administration's support for the Jeffords-Kennedy Work Incentive
Improvement Act is appreciated, almost as much, but not quite as much, as we
applaud the lead sponsors of this vital bill. The Long Term Care and Work
Incentive Improvement proposals would help hundreds of thousands of people with
disabilities lead better lives.
In regards to the President's specific
proposals for IDEA funding for FY 2000, again the review is mixed. An increase
of one-tenth of one percent for the Part B Basic State Grant is most
disappointing. It does not nearly meet the annual cost-of-living increase nor
does it factor additional children who Will qualify for special education. CCD
recommends the Congress increase this funding by at least a half billion
dollars, staying the course set by Congress over the last three years.
It is
important to remember two important changes to IDEA made in 1997 to assist
states and local school systems. First, now that the "trigger' has been
surpassed, local school authorities can use up to 20 percent of IDEA funding for
general education purposes. Thus, for every additional dollar appropriated, 20
cents is available to shore up general education programs. Second, the Congress
is nearing the second "trigger" which initiates the new IDEA funding formula.
An appropriation increase of $615 million to the Part B State Grant
Program will trigger the new formula. One final point regarding IDEA Part B
funding. CCD is concerned with the Administration's tactic of an "advance
appropriation" of almost $2 billion of IDEA funding. Although we understand the
concept behind this budgetary maneuver, we are apprehensive about the long-term
impact of this strategy on IDEA funding.
President Clinton's budget would
increase IDEA's two early childhood programs, the Section 619 Preschool Program,
and the Part C Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers by 7.6
percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. While this is an appreciated increase,
CCD has always described these two programs as the Head Start equivalent for
young children with disabilities. Historically, IDEA's "Head Start" programs
have been increased at levels significantly below the actual Head Start Program.
This year, the Head Start request reflects a 12 percent increase, essentially
double the IDEA program increase. The IDEA "Head Start" programs and the actual
Head Start Program each serve approximately 800,000 children. The IDEA programs
are currently funded at $744 million, while the Head Start Program is now funded
at $4.7 billion. CCD urges the Congress to achieve "appropriation parity,"
increasing IDEA's early childhood programs at least at the same level of
increase given the Head Start Program.
Finally, in regards to IDEA's Part D
discretionary programs, again our reaction is mixed. CCD strongly supports the
proposed increases in the Parent Training Program, the State Improvement Grant,
and the new Primary Education Intervention Program. We are very concerned with
level funding for the Personnel Preparation Program and the Technical Assistance
and Dissemination Program. Acute shortages of special education teachers and
related personnel in many states are well documented. Too many special education
students are being served by poorly trained and uncertified personnel. Many
teachers and special education administrators who entered the field
approximately two decades ago when P.L. 94-142 was enacted and implemented are
now reaching retirement age. Who will replace them? Much of today's controversy
surrounding special education concerns regular class teachers who are not
trained or supported to appropriately educate students with disabilities.
Instead of removing "disruptive" students with disabilities to segregated
settings, these educators deserve and must receive in-service training to learn
how to deal appropriately with children with disabilities in their classrooms.
It is obvious to us that the enormous pre-service and in-service training needs
in special education cannot be met by a frozen budget. CCD recommends a minimum
10 percent increase in the Personnel Preparation Program.
IDEA's Technical
Assistance and Dissemination Program also warrants at least a 10 percent
increase. With the anticipated release of the final regulation to implement the
1997 amendments to IDEA, it is vital that the Department of Education provide
more technical assistance to states, local school systems, parents, and all
other parties involved in IDEA. It is very clear to CCD that there is still
widespread misinformation and disinformation about the new provisions in IDEA.
Massive training initiatives are imperative if the new law is to be implemented
effectively and efficiently. That cannot be accomplished without significant
increased funding.
IDEA's other discretionary authorities, Research and
Innovation and Technology and Media Services, frozen in the Administration's
budget proposal, deserve at least a cost-of-living increase to maintain current
effort.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, CCD wishes to leave you with several
important messages. One concerns program accountability and enforcement of IDEA.
In the past three years, school systems have received almost $2 billion
additional dollars under IDEA. CCD questions where this money went. We have
dozens of questions. Here are a few. Did teachers get trained? Were classroom
aides hired to support the teachers? Are the children learning better? Have
school systems put in place the required positive behavior intervention programs
to better address discipline and disruption issues? Have drop-out rates
decreased? Are more students graduating with real diplomas? Do students leaving
school all have a transition plan to best prepare them for adult life?
In
regards to Federal enforcement, CCD continues to be concerned with how the U.S.
Department of Education will monitor and enforce the new amendments. We agree
with the Department that technical assistance and training were more important
than most monitoring activities this past year as everyone attempted to learn
about and properly implement the new law. It is now time, however, to refocus
efforts on monitoring and enforcement. The Congress provided the Department new
and important tools to enforce the law. The Department must not let more time
slip past before they reinvigorate their monitoring and enforcement efforts. CCD
recognizes that three monitoring teams cannot cover 50 states and approximately
16,000 local school systems. States know they won't see a Federal special
education official but once every four years on a monitoring visit. In addition
to providing more staff to the Office of Special Education Programs to carry out
their monitoring and enforcement responsibilities, this committee ought to do
more oversight of the Department's oversight activities to make sure states and
schools are in compliance and that students are learning. We further recommend
that the committee press the Department to use the new tools available to them
to more effectively enforce IDEA.
CCD also recognizes that the continuing
debate over education will most likely center this year on the reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In these discussions, we hope
that disability interests will be allowed to participate. Much is at stake. We
believe that improvements in general education will help students with
disabilities. We know that most administrators and general education teachers
need and desire training in special education. To fail in this endeavor will
result in continued discomfort with and attacks against students with
disabilities. We urge this committee to explore how ESEA can
assist in the training and retraining of all education personnel about
disability.
The debate on social promotion must consider its impact on
students with disabilities. How will the elimination of social promotion affect
those students with mental impairments whose very disabilities will result in
not being able to stay on track academically with their non- disabled peers?
Will this policy result in more segregated placements for certain types of
students with disabilities? How will the new policy affect implementation of the
long-standing "least restrictive environment" provision of IDEA?
In concept
lower class sizes should spur student learning. However, that would be unlikely
for a student with a disability in a classroom with an untrained teacher.
Smaller class sizes mean more teachers and more classrooms. Students with
certain types of disabilities, such as mental retardation, have an almost
impossible opportunity to access regular classrooms now. Given the pressures to
reduce class size, their opportunities may shrink more.
Finally, Mr.
Chairman, CCD sincerely hopes that every Senator and every Member of the House
recognizes that there are equally, if not more important, issues within IDEA
than money. Indeed, many parents live in fear today that some Members of
Congress and some school authorities are on a path to erode or eliminate the
rights protections under IDEA. For those parents whose children with significant
disabilities pose tremendous challenges every day at home and in school, a
strong message from this Congress that IDEA is secure and will not be weakened
would be the best possible news. For them, a $100 or $1,000 per child increase
in Federal funding is totally meaningless, if their child ends up totally
segregated in school or suspended or expelled. Thus CCD hopes Congress will send
two messages to these parents and students this year. First, the Congress will
do no harm and will not erode any of the due process rights in IDEA. Second, the
Congress will provide increased funding so that every student will be able to
learn and thrive in our nation's schools.
Thank you very much for allowing
CCD to present this testimony. We are greatly indebted to the members of this
committee for their un.flagging support for IDEA and other disabilities program
benefits.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 19, 1999
