Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
February 11, 1999, Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2771 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 11, 1999 PAUL MARCHAND CO-CHAIR CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH
DISABILITIES SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS
FISCAL 2000 EDUCATION BUDGET
BODY:
TESTIMONY ON FY
2000 FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
ACT (IDEA) ON BEHALF OF THE CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES
(CCD) EDUCATION TASK FORCE WITNESS: PAUL MARCHAND, CO_CHAIR EDUCATION TASK FORCE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999 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 IEP 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
7 not just those with disabilities. Conversely, increased funding for general
education programs will help children with disabilities. Fifth, 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
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 fife 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 PL. 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 team
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
fear today that some Members of wit 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 unflagging support for IDEA
and other disabilities program benefits.
LOAD-DATE:
February 12, 1999