The Honorable Charles Norwood
House of Representative
1707 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Norwood:

The American Association of School Administrators would like to thank you for your effort to address the issue of school safety and contradictions in current law. All children should be safe at school. Teachers cannot teach, and students cannot learn in an atmosphere of fear and disruption. Yet Congress and the federal regulations have tied the hands of teachers and administrators to fulfill this responsibility to all children. Your amendment to H.R. 1501 responsibly addresses these issues in a consistent manner.

Although well intended, provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandate a double standard for violent and disruptive behavior in our schools. We know what works to improve school safety and discipline: clear discipline codes that are fairly and consistently enforced. IDEA, as currently written, makes that impossible. 

Schools should be able to adopt a simple, fair system of discipline. Your amendment would allow them to do just that. Students committing identical infractions should not be treated differently depending on whether or not they are identified as disabled. As schools and parents work to include special education students in the general curriculum, the disparate treatment of students misbehaving in the same way in the same classroom aggravates this problem. 

The top priority of public school parents regarding public schools is students’ safety and classroom discipline. This was made abundantly clear by the tragic incidents of the last school year. Parents are genuinely frightened for the safety of their children and are demanding, appropriately, that schools respond by ensuring a safe learning environment. We are in danger of losing the public’s trust, if we do not address the issues of discipline, including disciplining students with disabilities.

Effective education for citizenship and achievement is not possible when students either feel that they are exempt from punishment or that the punishments are unfair. The objective must be to treat students the same and to keep them all safe. The challenge is to reach that objective, fairly, and efficiently. The prohibition against total cessation of services should be maintained and states should be required to develop alternative settings for students who commit infractions that merit expulsion or long term suspensions. 

When students are punished, it is AASA’s position that every state should implement a system of alternative schooling for dangerous students administered by juvenile authorities that are experienced in serving such students. In this setting, students would continue their education, but other students would not be imperiled. This system should be administered by an agency skilled at working with incarcerated and dangerous youth, where dangerous students can be schooled until they are able to rejoin their peers in a regular public school or complete their education in safety. The public concern for safety and the issue of fairness calls for action now. 

Some may say that the states cannot afford a system of alternative schools. That is simply wrong. The states are awash with surpluses from the strong economy. Even if state coffers were not overflowing, the number of dangerous students is so small (about 6,000) that the cost would be negligible when spread across 50 states. For example, 6000 students could receive an education funded at the national per pupil average of $6,700 for only $40 million, a tiny fraction of current state surpluses. Moreover, this amount represents a diminutive portion of the funds states receive from the federal government through the crime bill, the juvenile justice bill and the safe and drug free schools act.

Thank you again for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Bruce Hunter
Director of Public Affairs