The Education of Students with Disabilities:
Where Do We Stand? A Report to the President
and the Congress of the United States, September 1989
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004-1107
(202) 272-2004 Voice
(202) 272-2074 TT
(202) 272-2022 Fax
An audio tape recorded version of this
report is available in limited quantities
from The National Council on Disability.
The views contained in this report
do not necessarily represent those
of the Administration, as this document has not been subject
to the A-l9 Executive Branch review process.
MEMBERS
OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Chairperson,
Sandra S. Parrino
Vice Chairperson, A. Kent Waldrep, Jr.
John A. Gannon
Theresa L. Gardner
Margaret C. Hager
Marian N. Koonce
Leslie Lenkowsky
Nanette Fabray MacDougall
Robert Muller
George H. Oberle
Brenda Premo
Joni E. Tada
Phyllis Zlotnick
STAFF
The Education of Students With Disabilities:
Where Do We Stand?
Study Director, Jane West, Ph.D., Jane West
and Associates
Research Associates, Elizabeth Defay, M.PA.; Richard J. Sawyer,
M.A. Ed.
Consultants, Lani D. Florian, Ph.D., University of Maryland;
Michael L. Hardman, Ph.D., University of Utah
Administrative Assistant, Sandra Cawley
National Council on Disability
Acting Executive Director, Ethel D. Briggs
Program Specialist, Kathy Roy Johnson
Executive Secretary, Brenda Bratton
Administrative Officer, B.E. Villanueva
Staff Assistant, Stacey Brown
Student Assistant, Lorraine Graham
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
September 15, 1989
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President
On behalf of all members of The National Council on
Disability, I submit to you a special report. The Education of
Students with Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?
This report is in accordance with the statutory mandate
of the National Council which authorizes special reports to the
President and the Congress regarding the progress of implementing
recommendations contained in the Council's 1986 report, Toward
Independence.
The Council views the education of students with disabilities
as a critical priority. Success in education is a predictor of success
in adult life. For students with disabilities, a good education
can be the difference between a life of dependence and nonproductivity
and a life of independence and productivity.
It is our belief that while significant gains have
been made in recent years in educating students with disabilities,
much remains to be done. For this reason, the key recommendation
of this report is that a two year National Commission on Excellence
in the Education of Students with Disabilities be established.
The Commission would further assess the education of students with
disabilities and make recommendations for improvement.
The National Council has been impressed with the eagerness
of Americans from a wide range of perspectives to participate in
this study. Parents, students, educators, advocates, local, State,
and Federal leaders and employers were all willing to work with
us to begin exploring how our nation might improve the education
of students with disabilities. The National Council on Disability
looks forward to your continued leadership on behalf of Americans
with disabilities. We are eager to work with you as we seek high-quality
appropriate educational services for all students with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the Senate
President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Members of the National Council on Disability
Staff
Mission of the National Council on Disability
Statement of the Chairperson
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: The Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (Public Law 94-142): A Profile
Chapter Three: Findings
A Student and Parent Perspective
Safeguarding the Right to Education: Due Process
at Work
School Reform and Students with Disabilities
Special Education Practices
The Federal-State Partnership
Transition from School to Adult Life
An International Perspective
Chapter Four: Recommendation for a National
Commission on Excellence in the Education of Students With Disabilities
Minority View
Appendix A: Lists of Witnesses who Provided
Testimony
Appendix B: Biographical Information
References
THE
MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY The
National Council on Disability is an independent Federal agency
comprised of 15 members appointed by the President of the United
States and confirmed by the Senate.
The Council is charged with reviewing all laws, programs,
and policies of the Federal Government affecting individuals with
disabilities, and making such recommendations as it deems necessary
to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of the Department
of Education, the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
and the Director of the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation
Research. Whereas many government agencies deal with issues and
programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council
on Disability is the only Federal agency with the mandated responsibility
to address, analyze, and make recommendations on issues of public
policy which affect people with disabilities regardless of age,
disability type, perceived employment potential, perceived economic
need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran, or other
individual circumstances. The Council recognizes its unique opportunity
to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment
opportunities for people with disabilities by assuring a coordinated
approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities
and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community
and family life.
STATEMENT
OF THE CHAIRPERSON The progress our nation
has made in the education of students with disabilities in the past
15 years is remarkable and significant. The fact that a major debate
in the field of special education is the role of separate schools
and the nature and extent to which integration into general education
classrooms should take place is a sign of significant growth and
development. Just two decades ago the major debate was whether or
not students with disabilities should have access to public education
programs. The Council is encouraged by the evolution of our nation's
efforts to educate students with disabilities and is optimistic
about our nation's ability to face the challenges of the future.
Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
National Council on Disability
CHAPTER
ONE Introduction
A good education is a ticket to success in our society;
it is a predictor of success in later life, in terms of employment,
income, and independence. When we examine the educational status
of a group of individuals, we are also, in most cases, examining
predictors of their future.
There is perhaps no group of students for whom education
is more significant than students with mental and physical disabilities.
A good education can mean the difference between a life of dependence
and unemployment and a life of independence and productivity. In
a society too frequently preoccupied with defining people in terms
of their disabilities, a good education offers people an
opportunity to define themselves in terms of their abilities.
Fourteen years ago the U.S. Congress enacted legislation
that has been revolutionary for students with disabilities. The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, guarantees
a free appropriate public education to all students with disabilities.
Students with disabilities are entitled to special education, or
specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the
unique needs of the child. The effect of this legislation has been
significant. It has opened doors that were once closed and created
opportunities where once there were none. It has provided a beacon
which has shown the way for over 4.4 million elementary and secondary
aged students with disabilities and their families to enter through
school house doors.
We are at a point in time where we might say that
the foot of students with disabilities is clearly in the door. Wholesale
segregation and denial of participation to students with disabilities
are for the most part behind us. Where they continue, the mechanisms
to oppose those practices are well established and being utilized.
America's commitment to the right to education for students with
disabilities is known throughout the world.
Today the education of students with disabilities
is at a crossroads. The focus over the past 14 years in educating
students with disabilities has been on processes and procedures
related to special education with access to a public education as
the goal. The time has come to shift the focus to quality and student
outcomes. Simply assuring that services are present or placing students
with disabilities into general classrooms is no longer good enough.
The National Council on Disability undertook this
preliminary study of the education of students with disabilities
in order to begin an examination of what happens to students with
disabilities once they go through the doors into the school house.
The time has come to ask the same questions for students with disabilities
that we have been asking about students without disabilities:
- Are they achieving?
- Are they staying in school?
- Are they prepared to enter the work force when
they finish school?
- Are they going on to participate in postsecondary
education and training?
- Are they prepared for adult life?
Six years ago, in April 1983, a report was issued
that set the stage for educational reforms which continue to this
day. This report, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983) was a report card on American schools
that no parent would want to receive from their child at the end
of a grading period. It was a report card that said in bold letters
"NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."
Since the issuance of that report, educational reform
initiatives have been developed and implemented across the country.
There are magnet schools, increased graduation requirements, and
merit pay programs. Students take more achievement tests than ever
before. Schools are being held accountable for student learning.
These efforts are important and are making a difference. But what
about students with disabilities?
For the most part school reform efforts have not been
directed toward addressing the special challenges that students
with disabilities face. There is a perception that students with
disabilities have a separate system, called special education, that
will address all their needs. There is a separate funding stream
for them, separate classes for them, separate teachers for them,
special rights for them, etc. Many believe that they are well provided
for in their separate system, and in fact better provided for than
many other groups of students.
But when we pause and compare the outcome indicators
for students with disabilities and indicators for students without
disabilities, a different picture emerges. In all cases, it appears
that students with disabilities are significantly lagging behind
their peers without disabilities.
- Where only 15% of all adults aged 18 and over have
less than a high school education, 40% of all persons with disabilities
aged 16 and over did not finish high school (Harris and Associates,
1986).
- Where the dropout rate is 25% for all students,
it is 36% for students with disabilities (Wagner, 1989).
- Where 56% of all students participate in postsecondary
education programs, only 15% of students with disabilities do
(Wagner, 1989).
- While the unemployment rate is about 5% nationally,
a full 66% of all Americans with disabilities between the age
of 16 and 64 are not working (Harris and Associates, 1986). According
to a recent Census Bureau report (U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1989) the unemployment rate of people with
disabilities is 14.2%.
By any standards, these statistics are not acceptable.
They indicate that access to education is simply not enough and
that we have a lot of work to do.
Background of the Study
This report is the culmination of a year-long study
by The National Council on Disability. The study was funded by the
U.S. Congress, which directed the Council to begin studying priority
issues related to the education of students with disabilities.
The status of education for students with disabilities
has long been a priority for the National Council. For years, the
Council has repeatedly heard from parents, students and service
providers across the country regarding concerns related to the education
of students with disabilities. Moreover, education is a strong personal
priority for many Council members, as many are either parents of
children with disabilities or persons with disabilities themselves
who have vivid memories of their own educational challenges.
In 1986, with the issuance of Toward Independence,
and again in 1988 with the issuance of On the Threshold of Independence,
the National Council on Disability called for the establishment
of a national commission to examine the quality of the education
of students with disabilities in America. The Council was concerned
that no independent national assessment of the education of students
with disabilities had taken place since the 1975 enactment of P.L.
94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. In addition,
the Council was concerned that school reform efforts sweeping the
nation were not address ing the special challenges faced by students
with disabilities. While a full-fledged commission was not established,
funds were made available for this preliminary study.
This report is the outcome of several activities of
the year-long study The Education of Students with Disabilities:
Where Do We Stand? including a review and analysis of recent
studies and articles related to the education of students with disabilities,
consultations and interviews with parents, students, professionals
and leaders in the public and private sectors, the development of
issue papers, and four days of formal hearings with over 50 witnesses
providing testimony. (See Appendix A for a list of all witnesses).
Testimony from witnesses provided a base of information
from which the findings in Chapter Three are drawn. Hearings were
organized around key topic areas of national significance related
to the education of students with disabilities. The topic areas
included parental and student satisfaction with educational services;
the unique needs of minority, rural, native American and military
families; effective parent-school partnerships; resolving differences
through due process procedures; the education reform movement and
students with disabilities; Federal leadership, the Federal-State
partnership, the relationship between general education and special
education; the role of separate schools, transition from school
to adult life, employment; and international issues.
Witnesses for the hearings came from across the nation
and were representative of a range of disabilities and a range of
perspectives. The Council heard testimony from parents and students,
general educators and special educators, researchers and teacher
trainers, Federal leaders and State leaders, school principals and
local school board members, State and local directors of special
education, providers of related services and adult services, administrators
of private schools, college teachers, employers and international
researchers and leaders.
Testimony provided by witnesses, as well as other
activities of this study, reinforced the Council's view that a continued
effort to independently assess the nation's efforts to educate students
with disabilities and make recommendations for improvements is needed.
The Council envisions this study as a foundation for a National
Commission on Excellence in the Education of Students with Disabilities.
National Commission on Excellence in the Education
of Students with Disabilities
The National Council on Disability recommends that
a two-year National Commission on Excellence in the Education of
Students with Disabilities be funded by the U.S. Congress. This
recommendation is a reaffirmation of a similar recommendation made
by the Council in its reports to the President and the Congress
in 1986 in Toward Independence and in 1988 in On the Threshold
of Independence.
The National Council believes that the challenge of
improving the education of students with disabilities is one that
can only be successfully met when a range of public organizations,
professionals, government entities, parents and students, and representatives
of the private sector join in partnership to respond. The National
Commission on Excellence in Education of Students with Disabilities
would consider the areas of inquiry outlined in Chapter Four of
this report. The Commission would continue assessing the nation's
efforts to educate students with disabilities and would provide
stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives an opportunity to
participate in developing a vision and strategies for the future
(See Chapter Four of this report for a further discussion of the
Commission). The Council believes that a National Commission on
Excellence in Education of Students with Disabilities will make
a significant contribution in ensuring that our nation is providing
the best education possible for these exceptional students, and
thus ensuring them opportunities to be adults who are contributing
members of society.
CHAPTER
TWO The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act
(Public Law 94-1421):
A Profile
Introduction
In 1975 the U.S. Congress passed one of the most comprehensive
education laws in the history of this country: the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act P.L. 94-142. The Act brought together
various offices of State and Federal legislation into one national
public law, which makes available to every eligible student with
a disability a free and appropriate public education.
The law provides for
- Nondiscriminatory and multidisciplinary assessment
of educational needs.
- Parent involvement in the development of each child's
educational program.
- Education in the least restrictive environment.
- An individualized educational program (commonly
referred to as an IEP).
Nondiscriminatory and multidisciplinary
assessment. Public P.L. 94-142 incorporates several provisions
related to the use of nondiscriminatory testing procedures in the
labeling and placement of students with disabilities. These provisions
include testing children in heir native or primary language whenever
possible, using evaluation procedures selected and administered
by a multidisciplinary team to prevent cultural or racial discrimination.
and using assessment tools validated for the purpose for which they
are being used.
Parent involvement. According
to the procedural safeguards man dated in P.L. 94-142, parents of
students with disabilities have the right o consent in writing before
the student is initially evaluated and receives specialized services.
Parents may request an independent education evaluation if they
feel the school's evaluation is inappropriate. This independent
evaluation is at public expense if a due process hearing decision
concludes that the school's evaluation was inappropriate.
The law mandates parent participation on the multidisciplinary
team that develops the IEP and eventually places the student. Parents
may inspect and review educational records and challenge information
believed to be inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of the student's
privacy. A copy of the information contained in their child's educational
record must be provided to parents on request. Finally, parents
can request a due process hearing when there is disagreement between
the school's proposed education program and the views of the family.
The least restrictive environment.
P.L. 94-142 mandates that students with disabilities receive their
education with nonhandicapped peers to the maximum extent possible.
The law also requires schools to offer a range of placements consistent
with the individual needs of each student. In order to meet this
requirement, schools have developed services ranging from placement
in a general education classroom with support services to homebound
and residential programs. A student may remain in the regular classroom
with consultive services. These services may range from assisting
a regular classroom teacher in the use of tests or modification
of curriculum to direct instruction with students in the classroom
setting.
Another option is for the student to be served in
the regular classroom for a majority of the school day, but attend
a "resource room" for specialized instruction. A resource-room program
is under the direction of a qualified special educator, and the
amount of time a student spends in the resource room varies according
to student need.
Placement for a student with a disability may also
involve full- or part-time participation in a special education
classroom. Some interaction with nonhandicapped peers may take place
for at least part of the school day, either in a formal instructional
setting or during recess periods, lunch, assemblies, field trips,
or during tutoring experiences. It is also possible for a student
to be removed from the regular education facility to a classroom
in a separate facility specifically for students with disabilities.
These facilities include special day schools where the educational
program is one aspect of a comprehensive treatment program. Some
students, because of the severity of their disabilities, do not
attend any school program and receive service through a homebound
or hospital program. If a public school program is not available
to meet the unique needs of a youngster with a disability, the public
school system may pay for the youngster to go to an appropriate
private school.
The Individualized Educational Program.
The Individualized Educational Program (IEP) is developed from assessments
conducted by the multidisciplinary team, and is designed to meet
the individual needs of each student with a disability. The IEP
is intended to provide more continuity in the delivery of educational
services on a daily as well as an annual basis. All IEPs contain
some common elements: (1) a child's present level of performance,
(2) statement of annual goals, (3) short-term instructional objectives,
(4) related services, (5) percent of time in regular education,
(6) beginning and ending dates for special education services, and
(7) annual evaluation.
The 1986 Amendments to the Education of the Handicapped
Act (P.L. 99-457)
It is important to note that the Education of the
Handicapped Act was extended under The 1986 Amendments to the Education
of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 99-457). This legislation, signed into
law on October 8, 1986, establishes: (1) a new mandate to provide
a free and appropriate education for all handicapped children ages
three through five; and (2) a new early intervention program for
infants and toddlers ages birth through two.
Under P.L. 99-457 the rights and protection extended
to school-age children (ages 5 through 21) are extended to three-
and four-year-olds as well. All States receiving funds under P.L.
94-142 must assure that these preschool-age children are receiving
a free appropriate public education by the 1990-1991 school year.
P.L. 99-457 also established a State grant program for handicapped
infants and toddlers ages birth through two years. Infants and toddlers
who are developmentally delayed as defined by each State are eligible
for services that include a multidisciplinary assessment, an individual
family service plan (IFSP), and case management services
Evaluating the Effectiveness of P.L. 94-142
One of the most unique features of P.L. 94-142 is
that, unlike other Federal education programs, it is permanently
authorized by the U.S. Congress. It never expires and there is no
requirement for periodic congressional review. In the 14 years
since its passage, there has never been a comprehensive evaluation
of the effectiveness of P.L. 94-142, either by Congress or an independent
agency of the Federal government. The only ongoing review of
the law is the U.S. Department of Education's Annual Report to
Congress, as mandated in Section 618(f)(12), Part B of the statute.
This section requires the Secretary of Education to transmit to
Congress "an annual report that describes the progress being made
in implementing the act."
This annual report is primarily a demographic Profile
containing information submitted by the States, results of Federal
monitoring practices, and descriptions and findings from research
conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education's
discretionary grant programs. National statistics on the number
of students with disabilities who receive special education and
related services are presented with respect to type of handicapping
condition and various age groups. The Eleventh Annual Report
(U.S. Department of Education, 1989) also contains information on
placement settings and their relationship to the least restrictive
environment provision of the law.
The remaining sections in this chapter highlight selected
demographic information from both the Tenth and Eleventh Annual
Reports to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1988, 1989),
as well as testimony provided to the National Council on Disability
and other published sources. The purpose is to provide a basic profile
on selected issues relative to the implementation of P.L. 94-142,
including the Federal-State partnership, funding number and type
of students served under P.L. 94-142, student graduation rates,
post-school outcomes, variations in educational placement, and due
process procedural safeguards.
The Federal-State partnership in
the education of students with disabilities. The foundation
of this partnership is the conviction that local autonomy is essential
and that an informed citizenry is central to democracy. Although
education is primarily a State responsibili ty, the process of education
and its outcomes have always been a part of the national interest.
The role of the Federal government in contemporary education has
been characterized as encompassing three areas of concern: equal
opportunity, advancement of knowledge, and capacity building (Evans,
1989). P.L. 94-142 represents the national policy regarding access
to equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities.
The quality of education has emerged as an additional
area of Federal concern since the 1983 publication of A Nation
at Risk (Schenet & Irwin, 1988). National reform efforts designed
to improve the quality of education have rekindled the Federal-State
relationship debate because of the conflict inherent in any national
effort to improve an enterprise whose quality is in large measure
considered to be derived from local autonomy. The challenge for
the Federal government is to develop policies that encourage educational
excellence without sacrificing the commitment to equal opportunity,
the advancement of knowledge, or capacity building.
Access to educational services for
students with disabilities. As reported in the Eleventh
Annual Report to Congress approximately 4.5 million students
with disabilities received specialized educational services in the
1987-88 school year, or 11% of the total school population. This
number represents a 21.2% increase over the figure reported in 1976-77.
The largest single population of eligible handicapped students is
labeled learning disabled (47%), followed by speech impaired (23.2%),
mentally retarded (14.6%), and emotionally disturbed (9.1 % ) (U.S.
Department of Education, 1989).
Funding. An estimated total
of $16 billion in public funds was expended on special education
during the 1985-86 academic year, approximately a 10% increase in
expenditures (when adjusted for inflation) for special education
since 1977-78 (Eleventh Annual Report, 1989, pp. 118- 119). The
$ 16 billion figure represents about 12 % of all expenditures on
elementary and secondary education in the United States.
Federal support from the State grant program of P.L.
94-142 reached approximately $1.5 billion in 1989. Although Federal
funding has now reached approximately 9% of the total outlay of
public funds for special education services (Irwin, 1989), the figure
is well under the government's 40% commitment of the annual per
pupil expenditure for students with disabilities.
Student graduation rates.
Students with disabilities have significantly lower graduation rates
than their nondisabled counter parts. The recently released National
Longitudinal Transition Study reported that among students with
disabilities who take graduation competency tests, almost one in
four failed to pass any part of the exam, a third passed some of
the test, and four students in ten passed the entire test (Wagner
& Shaver, 1989, Table 9, p. 18).
The Eleventh Annual Report to Congress indicates
that 41 % of all students with disabilities fail to graduate from
high school with either a diploma or certificate of completion.
This figure is comparable to data reported in The National Longitudinal
Study (Wagner & Shaver, 1989). This study indicated that over a
two-year period 44% of students with disabilities failed to graduate
from high school. Approximately 3% of all students with disabilities
"age out" of the public schools by reaching the maximum age for
eligibility (21 years old).
Post-school outcomes. Substantial
numbers of students with disabilities are unemployed, live at home,
and have few friends following their school experience. According
to tine' National Longitudinal Transition Study, fewer than half
of students with disabilities who had been out of school for more
than one year had found paid employment. Among those employed, less
than 30% had full-time jobs, as compared to about 40% of all noncollege
high school graduates. Fewer than 15% of youth with disabilities
enroll in postsecondary courses in their first year out of high
school, as compared to 56% of nondisabled youth (Wagner, 1989).
Approximately 31 % of youth with disabilities who
had been out of school for more than 12 months had not engaged in
any productive activity such as postsecondary education, employment,
job training, volunteer work, or child care during the previous
year (Wagner, 1989). Despite these data, students with disabilities
are capable of learning and of becoming active, productive members
of our society. Susan Hasazi, a Professor at the University of Vermont,
told the Council that in a study of postschool outcomes of students
with disabilities, those who have employment experience while in
high school are more likely to be employed during the adult years.
Students who participated in integrated vocational education experiences
were more likely to be employed with better wages following high
school.
Variations in the placement of students
with disabilities. According to the Eleventh Annual Report
to Congress (1989) approximately 27% of students with disabilities
received special education in regular classes, while 43% were served
primarily in resource rooms and 24% were served in separate classes
in regular education buildings. About 6% of special education students
received their education in segregated day or residential schools.
In a study on State variation in placement, Danielson
and Bellamy (1989) reported the overall rate of placement of students
with disabilities in segregated schools has changed little since
1975. However, States vary greatly in their placement of students
in segregated schools, from a rate of nearly 15,000 per million
in the District of Columbia to 600 per million in Oregon. Placement
patterns also vary by disability category. Students served in regular
classrooms or resource rooms were primarily those with learning
disabilities (77%) or speech impairments (92%). Nationally, 56%
of mentally retarded students were placed in separate classes.
The due process procedural safeguards.
Due process procedures were included in P.L. 94-142 as a
way of ensuring that the educational rights of students with disabilities
and their parents would be protected. The due process procedural
safeguards contained in the law are based on the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution, which state that no person shall
"be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law" and that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law." The specific due process procedures
available to parents and children in any matter concerning a child's
identification, evaluation, or placement must include:
- Written prior notice to parents of any change in
their child's program (such notice must be in the parent's native
language).
- Access to school records.
- An opportunity to obtain an independent evaluation.
- The designation of a surrogate parent to advocate
on behalf of children who are wards of the State or whose parents
or guardians are unknown or unavailable.
- The opportunity to present complaints (request
a due process hearing) before an impartial hearing officer in
any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or placement
of a child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education.
- The right of the child to remain in his or her
current placement until the due process proceedings are completed.
- The right to bring a civil action (appeal to court)
if any party is aggrieved by the outcome of the due process hearing.
- The opportunity for parents who prevail in an administrative
proceeding (hearing) or civil action (court) to recover their
attorney's fees and related expenses. (This is a 1986 amendment
to P.L. 94-142).
- Notification (in the parent's native language)
of all due process procedures.
When parents and the education agency disagree about
a child's disability, placement, program, needs, or related services,
a due process hearing may be initiated to resolve the disagreement.
Either side may be accompanied and advised by an attorney, and by
individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the
child's disability. At the hearing both sides present evidence by
calling witnesses and an independent hearing officer decides which
side is correct and what relief is necessary. The entire process
from the time a written complaint is filed to the time a decision
is issued should not exceed 45 days unless a continuance for good
cause is granted. The hearing process varies by State. For example,
some States have a two-tiered hearing process resulting in hearings
at the local and State level. Other conduct hearings only at the
State level. In either case both sides have the right to appeal
the decision of the hearing officer in court. Appeals may be made
all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Since the enactment of P.L. 94-142 almost 15 years
ago, less than 1% of parents of children with disabilities have
requested due process hearings, according to the National Association
of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE, 1985). Witnesses
who appeared before the Council suggested that this may result in
part from a lack of affordable and/or trained attorneys available
to represent parents. They testified also that parents are not uniformly
aware of the safeguards under the law, nor do they always understand
their rights.
CHAPTER
THREE Findings
The findings that follow are the result of the National
Council's analysis of testimony presented by over 50 witnesses in
four days of formal hearings, a review of recent studies and articles
related to the education of students with disabilities, consultations
with parents and professionals throughout the country, and the development
of issue papers on selected topics.
A Student and Parent Perspective
Providing a platform for the perspective of parents
has always been a strong priority of the National Council on Disability.
Some Council members have disabilities; others are parents of children
with disabilities. All Council members are acutely aware of the
important role played by parents in the education of their children.
Furthermore, the Council understands that P L. 94-142 established
parents as im portant agents of accountability and that parents
provide much of the energy and enthusiasm behind the scores of parent
support and disability awareness groups around the country that
have helped to increase awareness and support for appropriate educational
services in our nation's schools.
Finding 1:
Parent-professional relationships too often are strained
and difficult, and parents and professionals frequently view one
another as adversaries rather than as partners.
In testimony before the Council, parents indicated
that in far too many communities the interactions with school personnel
on behalf of their children with disabilities is adversarial. Mrs.
Kathy Mitten, a parent from Georgia, testified before the Council
that when she asked to be part of the decision-making process at
her daughter's Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting,
the response was:
"It is nice you are here. We would like you to be
here, but we are the professionals. We make the decisions." .
. . When I pointed out that I am the professional, since I had
spent 11 years with this child in the severe/profound field, and
the teacher had only spent one year, they kind of backed away
and said, "All right, Mrs. Mitten, we will listen to what you
would like to say."
Research findings indicate that strong parent involvement
in their children's education results in students who perform better.
In describing for the Council a review of over 50 studies of student
achievement, Anne Henderson, Executive Director of the National
Committee for Citizens in Education, reported a remarkable consensus
that parent involvement of any kind results in children who
achieve more in school than do the children of parents who are not
involved. These findings hold true for children and parents in every
social and economic class. In fact, research documents that parent
involvement is most effective when it continues in a variety of
ways throughout the schooling years. Furthermore, children whose
background places them "at risk" of fail ing or falling far behind
will outperform their peers for years if their parents are given
training in home teaching techniques (Henderson, 1988).
Many observers argue that the adversarial nature of
the special education process, including the due process procedures,
unnecessarily pits the parent and the professional against one another.
Parents report that they must remain vigilant to ensure that the
protections afforded by P.L. 94-142 are honored and retained. According
to Mrs. Jamie Ruppmann, a parent who testified before the Council:
We began to realize that the special education process
that is the regulatory, the procedural requirements built up around
the education of handicapped students, was beginning to take on
a formidable construct of its own. In the words of one respected
professional educator. . . "Special education is becoming big
business with a vested interest in perpetuating itself." It was
not unusual for us and other parents to find 10 or 12 educators
and administrators around the table as we met, presumably to discuss
the needs of our child. We often felt outnumbered and overwhelmed
by the process. There was then, and remains to this day, a huge
edifice built around the public school education of students with
disabilities. It is a system that is hard to access and it is
a system that often fails to provide an effective mechanism for
assuring that children like Daniel and Stefan receive competent
teaching.
Finding 2:
Some parents have difficulty finding appropriate services
for their children.
Information provided to the Council from parents and
parent ad vocates from around the country indicates that it sometimes
is difficult or impossible to obtain the services parents believe
are needed by their children. In a letter to the Council, Lynda
Marshall of Pasco, Washington, who works as a community liaison
with a parent training and information center (PAVE), summarized
her experiences:
Parents frequently call me very frustrated with
the education system in this country for one reason or another.
Most of the time they feel their children are not receiving the
services or the educa tion they are supposed to be receiving under
P.L 94-142. They have to "fall behind" before getting help. .
. Part of the problem for our children is motivation, lack of
goals, and lack of training for jobs at the high school level.
If 50 percent or more of the kids who graduate do not go to college,
who is preparing them for jobs? The answer is nobody. There are
a fortunate few who enter some job training, but most of our kids
receive very little in that respect.
When parents must work hard to secure the services
they believe their children need, they often do so at the cost of
becoming "professional parents." In testimony and written accounts
of the period before the Congress enacted P.L. 94-142, and in recent
reauthorization hearings before the Congress and the Council's own
hearings, a recurring pattern appeared. Parents of children with
disabilities, who already have extensive parenting responsibilities,
all too often devote many hours, day in and day out, to assure that
their children receive a free and appropriate education. In fact,
a recent Harris poll indicated that more than half of the parents
surveyed (56%) reported that they had to work hard to obtain services
for their children (Harris and Associates, 1989).
According to this poll, the majority of students with
disabilities need and obtain related services, however, sizable
numbers do not receive the services they need. Of classroom teachers
surveyed, 38% reported that there are students with disabilities
who either have not been identified or are not receiving services
(Harris and Associates, 1989). Mrs. Kathy Mitten, who works in the
Georgia office of Specialized Training of Military Parents, told
the Council:
. . . the states are "evaluating" children to deny
them service. "I don't have this service, and I don't have this
service. We don't have the money for this service. We will need
to re-evaluate." And when they finish their evaluation, the child
is no longer in need of the service. And this is going on again
and again, and again. And it is not just in the South...I deal
with parents all over the United States.
Few school systems can make available all of the options
desired by different parents. Service availability may be such a
major problem for low-incidence disabilities such as hearing and
vision impairments that students are sometimes placed in general
classrooms with inade quate services, with the "least restrictive
environment provision" of P.L. 94-142 cited as a rationale. Some
parents believe they have two service options: full service in a
segregated setting, or few if any services in a general classroom
setting.
Students who are emotionally disturbed may receive
inadequate, fragmented services. Testimony mailed to the Council
by Joyce Robin Borden, the mother of a student with emotional disabilities,
illustrates a common problem across the country: "No one program
has ever met my son's needs because no program from any one system
was able to look at the whole child. Both my child and I were identified
by labels and received services according to the designated label."
Recent testimony before Congress (Forness, 1989) suggests
that students with emotional disabilities are one of the most underserved
and inappropriately served disability groups. Comprehensive and
coordinated services frequently are not available in the community,
so students often are placed in residential settings.
In some cases State funding formulas contribute to
the problem of unavailable services. Mrs. Joyce Altizer, a parent
from a rural area of West Virginia, told the Council that many people
in West Virginia believe that "special ed. is draining resources
from regular education." She went on to explain:
We have a very complicated state formula mechanism
[in West Virginia] where special needs students are triple-weighted.
And that means that for every dollar appropriated for a regular
education student, special needs students are given three dollars.
Sounds good, doesn't it? There is a catch. The catch is that those
funds are not earmarked and that the county superintendent and
his board may spend it on whatever they please. It can be spent
on salary increases for the administrators; it can be spent on
football helmets; it can be spent on regular ed teachers who never
see a disabled child during the course of a day. The truth is,
as I see it, special education is propping up general ed at the
same time we are accused of robbing it.
Some parents testified that some of these problems
could be resolved with a better Federal monitoring process. They told
the Council that the current process does not adequately track how
funds are spent, does not focus on quality issues, results in extensive
delays in the issuance of reports, and excludes parents from parts
of the review process. In West Virginia there was a two-year delay
in issuing a com pliance report that documented serious problems with
least restrictive environments, shortages of related services, and
children not being served. Ms. Altizer described the plight of parents
in West Virginia:
Parents are drowning in despair. We are fighting
case-by-case. We are moving that mountain a teaspoon at a time.
We need the CAP, that Corrective Action Plan, to be able to start
making these needed, positive changes.
Cutting off Federal funds hardly solves the problem
in a State or community that needs improvement in providing services.
Ms. Altizer believes that accountability is such a great problem
in West Virginia that Federal funding for special education should
be increased only after improved monitoring procedures ensure greater
compliance with the law.
Finding 3:
Parents and students report that some schools have
low expectations for students with disabilities and establish inappropriate
learning objectives and goals.
Testifying before the Council, Mrs. Ruppmann, a parent
of two students with disabilities, addressed the problem of inappropriate
educational objectives and goals:
What is lacking is a respect for the kinds of things
that it is necessary for students with disabilities to learn.
Our youngsters get very few governor seals on their high school
diplomas, and that appears to be what we value in this country
right now in the midst of educational reform. And I suggest we
have hundreds and thousands of students who somehow have been
left along the way, despite the edifice, despite the cost, despite
the busing, despite the research, despite the rhetoric, teaching
and learning.
The absence of high expectations for students with
disabilities is both insidious and damaging. Mr. Fred Schroeder,
who is Executive Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind,
and who is himself blind, described being excluded from spelling,
reading, and algebra assignments, yet receiving a graduation diploma
in good standing:
. . . I never was obliged to take spelling, because
it was presumed that I would spend my life listening to tapes,
so why bother having me do spelling? I was exempt from all homework
assignments, virtually all of them as I went through school, virtually
all reading assignments in class. . . I graduated with a high
school education without ever taking algebra, although it's on
my transcript. The teacher said to me, "if you show up every day,
I'll give you a C.". . . [I also went through] without ever taking
biology, without ever taking physical education. So, I was successfully
main streamed and have a high school diploma with a 3.0 grade
point average on it. What in the world did that mean? What it
means is, I had a very, very inadequate education, and the worst
thing that it meant for me is as a young child going through the
program, I felt inferior to sighted kids, and I felt inferior,
I thought, because of blindness. It never dawned on me that if
I had some other kinds of training that I'd be able to compete.
Although a different kind of training was needed,
Mr. Schroeder clearly was not expected to excel. In fact, Mr. Schroeder
told the Council that a blind child is almost incapable of failing,
because "expectations are adjusted down." Mrs. Ruppmann, the mother
of two sons with disabilities, shared with the Council that one of
her sons told her: "People think you are stupid if you are in special
education." Kathy Mitten, the aforementioned parent of a child with
multiple disabilities from Georgia, asked for a report card for her
child with an indication of achieved goals. The teacher refused: "These
kids almost never achieve their goals," she told Mrs. Mitten. The
downward adjustment of expectations is a common problem; successful
students report that their parents often are responsible for setting
high standards for academic achievement. Mrs.
Ruppmann told the Council that the grades of one of her sons went
up after he left special education. Ms. Premo, a Council member
with a vision impairment, commented that she had the same experience:
"I wanted to achieve to the level of the students around me. And
in special ed. there was no requirement to achieve."
Mr. Michael Snyder of Massachusetts Bay Community
College, a former special education student with a learning disability,
gave the Council this suggestion for resource room teachers:
I still feel that there needs to be extra assistance
from, say, the resource room, but the emphasis needs to be different.
Instead of concentrating on teaching remedial skills, they should
take time aside and teach learning strategies,. . . work on teaching
independence,. . . and raising students' self-esteem. I think
so many students have such a low self-esteem. . .
During his testimony, Mr. Snyder described peer tutoring
as a means both of learning and of bolstering self-confidence and
self-esteem.
The Council also heard about the success of many students
with disabilities. In addition to the strong involvement of parents,
students respond to the involvement of caring and skilled teachers
who make an enormous difference in their lives. For example, David
Shawhan, a student from Columbia, Maryland who has visual and gait
impairments, told the Council that a speech teacher persisted in
enrolling him in speech class. The training obviously had a major
impact on the self-confident young man, who convinced school administrators
to install stair railings in his high school auditorium so that
he could claim his high school diploma by walking up the steps and
across the platform with his peers.
Finding 4:
Services often are not available to meet the needs
of disadvantaged, minority, and rural families who have children
with disabilities.
The absence of accessible and culturally relevant
information about parents' rights and service systems is often an
obstacle to full parental involvement. Many parents who are disadvantaged,
are members of minority groups, or reside in rural areas face the
dual challenge of providing for a child with a disability and meeting
the challenge presented by their unique circumstances. Communication
between school person nell and families may be flawed by language
difficulties and cultural differences that affect the manner in
which information is received and understood. As a result, the school
may not be perceived by families as offering a meaningful service.
Some rural communities are difficult to serve because
of their diversity as well as their relatively small populations
and the often large distances between communities. Rural communities
exist in all climates, encompass a wide range of ethnic and cultural
groups, and are characterized by a spirit of independence and ingenuity.
Some are close to major population centers; others are many miles
from the nearest city and isolated by impassable roads or waterways
during winter months.
Several trends have emerged in recent years that indicate
the need for a focus on minority students with disabilities. These
trends include (1) an increase in the number of minority children
attending school, (2) the persistence of poverty in minority communities,
(3) the vulnerability of minority children to developing disabilities
early in life and (4) the overrepresentation of minority students
in special education classes (National Information Center for Children
and Youth with Handicaps, 1987). Projected increases of the number
of minority children and the number of children in poverty combined
with the vulnerably of minori ty populations to factors that increase
the risk of developing disabilities (such as poor maternal nutrition
and low birth weight) indicate that the need for special education
services among minority children will likely increase (National
Information Center for Children and Youth with Handicaps, 1987).
Recent testimony before Congress (Simon, 1989) cited the need for
consistent Federal, State, and local attention to the diverse issues
confronting minority and culturally diverse children and youth with
disabilities and their families.
Although culturally relevant materials and outreach
strategies have become code words among information providers, few
people know what the words mean in practice. Different outreach
strategies work in different communities. Latin-American communities
are varied, as are the cultures of Native American and other ethnic
groups. Different approaches are needed in the American South than
in New York City, and different ones in the Midwest than in the
Far West or Appalachia. The challenges experienced by disadvantaged,
minority, and rural families are many and varied. According to witnesses
who spoke before the Council, they can be summarized as follows:
- Funding inadequacies top the list, especially with
the high cost of transportation in rural areas. It is costly to
move specialized personnel across large distances to serve individual
students. Much of specialists' time is devoted to traveling. American
Indians often lack funds to pay the transportation costs of sending
their children to a school off the reservation. For the same reason--the
cost and difficulty of arranging transportation--it is difficult
to organize or train parents or to involve them in their children's
education. Low budgets, transportation costs, and time requirements
may also make it difficult to provide enough services (staff must
spend considerable time traveling) or to arrange staff development
and training sessions.
- According to witnesses who testified before the
Council, conditions among many low-income families in the inner
city and elsewhere (such as substance abuse, poor nutrition and
substandard sanitary living conditions, children bearing children,
and inadequate health care) are associated with high rates of
disability.
- Parents who focus their energies on basic survival
may find it very difficult to provide the extra attention needed
by a child with a disability. They may lack the skills and energy
needed to push the school to provide needed services. Few parents
in these low-income communities have the time and energy to devote
to volunteering in the schools or advocating for better services,
activities that have resulted in better services in middle-income
communities.
- Recruiting and retaining qualified staff is difficult.
Salaries tend to be low in rural and disadvantaged areas, and
professionals may feel isolated and miss the stimulation of working
with professional colleagues and adequate resources.
Finding 5:
Families in the military are not universally entitled
to the services or the protections guaranteed under P.L. 94-142.
Military families face an unusual set of circumstances.
First, service members are frequently reassigned both within the
continental United States and overseas, meaning that family members
must move frequently. For a number of reasons the difficulty of
frequent moves is increased if a child in the family has a disability.
The 18 schools on military bases in the United States
funded by the Department of Defense, "Section 6 Schools," do not
come under the jurisdiction of P.L. 94-142. Rather, a military directive
states that the services provided by military schools must be consistent
with those provided by schools in neighboring communities. Military
parents do not have due process rights established under P.L. 94-142;
instead they use Directive 1020.1, an Equal Employment Opportunity
process.
Problems in using the Equal Employment Opportunity
process have been reported. For example, the school system at West
Point has refused to evaluate a child with cerebral palsy and does
not provide special services to the child. The family went through
the Equal Employment Opportunity process, which, according to Mrs.
Mitten's testimony, found "West Point Elementary in noncompliance
with Public Law 94-142 and New York State Law. The staff judge advocate,
in agreement with the Garrison Commander, then reversed the determination
of the investigators."
Apparently military families in the United States
are not obtaining recourse under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, either. According to Mrs. Mitten:
The Office of Civil Rights refuses to set foot on
the installation, and to find noncompliance under 504. The regional
hearing officers have absolutely said they will not come onto
the installation and find discrimination. So, you've got a whole
group of military people, citizens of the United States of America,
that will go die, they will die for these rights, and yet they
are told they don't have these rights because the military has
decided to write up their own directives, decided how to read
this law.
Mrs. Mitten added that military personnel are in a
difficult position when it comes to questioning authorities about
their children's education: "You will not find too many military
folks who are going to take on a school system, such as the Department
of Defense system, because they are suing their boss, or they are
causing a problem for their boss and they are very concerned about
their careers."
Parents report that a school in one State is not required
to accept an IEP prepared by a school district in another State.
This situation can mean that children of military parents go through
repeated evaluation processes. When children move in the middle
of the school year, this delay may mean that no services are received
for several months.
In recent years the military organized an Exceptional
Family Member Program, which requires employees to identify all
family members with a disability. Although the program was designed
to reduce costs by assuring that services would be available only
as needed, many military family members report that the service
member may be ordered overseas alone if appropriate services are
not available for the child with a disability. Some families have
reported that Exceptional Family Membership is interpreted as problematic
by military superiors, and membership could reduce a service person's
career potential.
Safeguarding the Right to
Education: Due Process at Work Finding
6:
There is a perception that the outcomes of due process
hearings are biased in favor of the schools.
Parents who testified before the Council reported
feelings of intimidation with respect to actually utilizing due
process procedures. They described feeling vulnerable and a perception
that they do not have an equal chance when up against a school system
with an array of professionals and a seemingly endless supply of
resources. There is some research that supports the parents' position.
For example, less than 1% of parents of students with disabilities
have actually been involved in litigation at the State level according
to the National Associa tion of State Directors of Special Education
(1985). This may be due to the perception that they would not have
an equal chance against the school system, or it may be because
many parents do not know their rights or are satisfied with the
outcome of the process. Moreover, the most frequently cited figure
for parent success regarding hearing outcomes is 33% (Sacker, 1988).
Finding 7:
Many parents are uninformed about their rights under
the law.
Although school districts are required to inform parents
of their rights under the law, witnesses testified that parents
frequently report that they are not informed. Studies of the implementation
of P.L. 94-142 show that, although procedural compliance with the
law has been achieved (for example, notice of parental rights is
routinely sent to parents), obstacles to full implementation remain
(David & Greene, 1983). Very few school personnel take the time
to assure that parents of students with disabilities understand
their rights. Deborah Mattison, an attorney with the Michigan Protection
and Advocacy System, testified before the Council that:
The right to an independent evaluation at public
expense is something that we are finding school districts often
do not notify parents about. We think that there need to be some
recommendations either in a policy or an interpretation, or something
from the Department of Education that notification to the parents
has got to be meaningful. Oftentimes parents are told that they
have the right to an independent evaluation, but they are not
told that it can be at public expense. Sometimes they are and
that is critical. . . parents know that they can bring in evaluators,
but many times they don't have the money to do so, and it would
be very different if they know that they could do that at public
expense.
Finding 8:
Due process hearings are costly.
Although parents and school officials report that
legal or advocate representation is essential from both their viewpoints,
the result is costly. Mary Tatro, from Irving, Texas, testified that
it cost $200,000 to defend her daughter's right to a free and appropriate
public education. Parents who cannot afford representation may not
request a due process hearing even though they may recover their costs
if they prevail. Martha Ziegler, Executive Director of the Federation
for Children with Special Needs in Boston points out that hearings
have an emotional toll as well. Mediation, a voluntary process to
resolve special education disputes, has been adopted by a number of
States in part because of the high cost associated with due process.
In her written testimony, Kristen Reasoner Apgar, Director of the
Bureau of Special Education Appeals for the Massachusetts Department
of Education stated: Mediation is successful in resolving disputes,
because it provides a relatively informal forum, voluntarily chosen
by each party. The parties themselves determine the outcome, and the
proceedings are confidential, permitting free and open discussion
and evaluation of offers of settlement. A substantial number of disputes
over the provision of special education are resolved through mediation
or through the assistance of a mediator. Finding
9:
There is a paucity of attorneys with expertise in special
education law available to represent parents.
Witnesses who appeared before the Council decried
what they described as the absence of a sufficient number of attorneys
with expertise in special education law available to assist them.
Deborah Mattison of the Michigan Protection and Advocacy System
reported that 40% of the annual requests for assistance to the Michigan
Protection and Advocacy System are from those seeking assistance
in the special education arena. Mary Tatro reported that in Texas
the Protection and Advocacy System only takes cases that will affect
a large number of children. "Right now," Mrs. Tatro said, "when
parents call me and say 'Who was your attorney? We need an attorney.'
I say, "there aren't any."
Finding 10:
There are no standard qualification or training requirements
for hearing officers.
The law specifies that hearing officers must be impartial.
This requirement means that the hearing officer may not be an employee
of the agency or unit involved in the education or care of the child.
There is substantial variation in hearing officers' backgrounds;
over half are lawyers or university personnel (Sacker, 1988). Testimony
received by the Council underscores the need for some kind of standardized
training or minimum competencies for hearing officers. Attorney
Mattison noted:
Standards regarding hearing officers and hearing
officer training are very much lacking. There is really no standardized
curriculum for hearing officers. There is no standardized way
to collect the data. The hearing officer decisions are all over
the map, and I don't believe you have to be an attorney to be
a hearing officer, but many of them don't even have the slightest
awareness of procedure. Many times, hearing officers have no sense
of the difference between a Supreme Court decision and an SEA
[State education agency] decision.
Finding 11:
There is no national database that includes the routine
collection of data regarding due process hearings.
Although descriptive data have been collected on the
outcome of special education hearings, these data are reported in
small, inconsis tent segments. For example, Sacken (1988) reviewed
studies on paren tal success rates and found a range of 30% to 60%,
depending on the criteria used to determine parental success. It
is also unclear whether decisions from hearings are considered by
State and local education agencies as they create and refine policies.
The General Accounting Office has completed data collection
for a congressionally mandated study of hearings under P.L. 94-142
to examine the total number of written decisions, civil actions,
number, and types of complaints and prevailing parties. This important
national study has examined data from 1984 to 1988 and is expected
to provide information that has not been readily available to date.
The Council is not aware of any similar, ongoing efforts.
School Reform and Students With
Disabilities Finding 12:
There are several commonly agreed upon characteristics
to describe what constitutes an effective school.
Through a review of the literature, the Council found
common threads contained in the characteristics of an effective
school. These include the following:
- High expectations for success are needed that are
linked with a clear and focused mission.
- Strong instructional leadership is essential, with
frequent monitoring of student progress.
- Effective schools reinforce positive home-school
relations.
- Students should be removed from their regular classrooms
only under circumstances in which their instructional program
is fragmented; student removal from the classroom does not result
in lower expectations; and such removal does not interfere with
maximal use of instructional time (Purky & Smith, 1983; Rosenshine,
1979; Stevens & Rosenshine, 1981).
The Council learned that schools with the above characteristics
produce positive outcomes for all students, including those with
disabilities. In her testimony before the Council, Ms. Ingrid Draper,
Executive Director of Special Education for the Detroit Public Schools,
addressed this issue: "I choose to think of reforms both in regular
and special education as information and knowledge gained from the
growing body of research on effective schools which will help us
raise the performance of our teachers and our students."
Finding 13:
Most school reform initiatives appear to be a response
to declining academic achievement rather than efforts to find ways
for schools to meet the diverse needs of all students.
In testimony from Dr. Arthur E. Wise of The Rand Corporation,
the Council learned of two distinct strands of school reform: State-oriented
(top-down) reform, and client-oriented (school-based) reform. State-oriented
reform is a response to the declining academic performance of students
in our nation's schools, and proposes a standardization of testing,
teaching, and curriculum for all students. In contrast, client-oriented,
or school-based, reform focuses on (1) local school-based management,
(2) empowering teachers in the decision making process, (3) a high
degree of parental access, and (4) individualization of instruction.
Much of the discussion on excellence in the schools
is centered around State-oriented reform, the need to establish
more rigorous academic and curricular requirements, and increased
student testing and evaluation. One primary outcome of State-oriented
school reform is more attention to academic rigor, including increased
requirements for graduation. Some States are even currently considering
the idea of testing for promotion from each grade to the next.
Finding 14:
An essential aspect of school reform is the professionalization
of teaching.
Many school reform initiatives propose that university
teacher education programs prepare prospective teachers to work
with students representing a wide range of ability, skills, and
talents. In fact, much of the effective schools literature suggests
that a number of instructional methodologies and techniques (e.g.,
direct instruction, peer tutoring, cognitive and metacognitive strategies,
cooperative learning) are effective for all students. In her testimony
before the Council, Mary Dean Barringer from Michigan State University
stressed that school reformers are seeking new methods of preparing
teachers to "competently work with the most challenging students
in situations where they can be professionally and financially rewarded."
New teaching models are being implemented that emphasize the breakup
of the conventional age grade/structure, the importance of small
groups working together with the assistance of the classroom teacher,
students taking responsibility for other students, and collaborative
rather than competitive learning. Within these new models, effective
teachers are characterized as:
- Taking an active, direct role in the instruction
of students.
- Providing detailed explanations and instructions.
- Offering ample opportunity for guided practice
and review.
- Monitoring student progress closely.
- Consistently providing meaningful feedback to students.
- Creating a positive, expectant, and orderly classroom
environment.
- Engineering a high rate of learning time and student
success.
Finding 15:
School reform efforts have not specifically addressed
the diverse needs of students with disabilities.
The national reports on school reform such as A
Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983), High School (Boyer, 1983) and A Place Called School
(Goodlad, 1984) have not, for the most part, specifically addressed
issues of quality educational services for students with disabilities.
The Council learned that this omission has occurred primarily for
two reasons. First, special education is primarily viewed nationally
as a separate educational system that is disconnected from the regular
education reform movement. The special education system has evolved
as a separate system with its own set of distinct organizational,
educational, and teaching practices. Second, attention to the needs
of students with disabilities may be perceived as running counter
to the emphasis on a more rigorous academic curricula and higher
performance standards. This perception may serve to reinforce stereotypes
of students with disabilities as low-achieving, resulting in low
expectations for students with disabilities.
Special Education Practices
Finding 16:
Evaluation procedures, disability classifications,
and resulting placement decisions vary greatly among school districts
and States, and they often are not related to students' learning
characteristics.
In her testimony Professor Margaret Wang, Director
of the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development
and Education, stated that research indicates most procedures for
classifying children in disability categories are unreliable, invalid,
time-consuming, and costly. She also pointed out that classifications
often result in labeling and stereotyping, and that children labeled
as having a disability are often isolated in special classes. Furthermore,
once children acquire a label, it is rarely lost: throughout the
nation, only a very small percent age of children labeled as disabled
are returned to the regular classroom each year. Although this research
has been challenged (e.g., Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988), an
important discussion about the validity of evaluation and placement
procedures has been initiated.
Mr. Michael Snyder, a student with learning disabilities
at Massa chusetts Bay Community College, clearly explained his perceptions
about labeling during his testimony before the Council:
The problem with labeling is, once you label somebody,
you then categorize them and separate them from others. . . [At
a meeting I attended,] specialists went around in circles discussing
what tests should be used for admission purposes, and how to use
them, but not once did they mention how they should evaluate the
students themselves. . . I know that I do not want to be known
just as a label and just as a number. I feel there's a lot more
to me than that.
Clearly, fundamental questions are being raised about
the accuracy of procedures used for student referral and evaluation.
According to a study by Ysseldyke (1987), more than 80% of the student
population could be classified as learning disabled by one or more
of the definitions presently in use.
Data from 28 large cities indicate that referral rates
vary from 6% to 11 % as a percentage of total enrollment. The percentage
of students who are referred and then placed in special education
varies even more, from 7.8% to 91.8% (Council of Great City Schools,
1986). In addition, Walker (1987, p.110) has pointed out that an
examination of "the variation in statistics between general classroom
placements at the state level and state funding formulas [indicate
that] states that provide financial incentives for separate placements,
or which traditionally have had dual systems of services, place
students disproportionately in more restrictive placements."
Concerns have also been raised about the nearly two
million students identified as learning disabled (47% of all students
with disabilities served in FY 1986-87), and the disproportionate
identification of minority students as disabled:
Although minority students comprise 30 percent of
all public school students, they accounted for 42 percent of all
students classified as educable mentally retarded [EMR], 40 percent
of those classified as trainable mentally retarded [TMR] and 35
percent of those classified as seriously emotionally disturbed
[SED]. The disproportion is greatest among Black students who
comprised 16 percent of the student body but 35 percent of the
EMR students, 27 percent of the TMR students and 27 percent of
the SED students. (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989).
The Council is concerned about the overrepresentation
of minority students in special education, insofar as some of these
students may be improperly labeled and placed in separate settings.
Over and over again, parents and students expressed
frustration with the impact of labels on their lives. A witness
before the Council, Mrs. Cory Moore, a parent and Information and
Education Coordinator of Montgomery County Association of Retarded
Citizens and the Community Organizer for the Maryland Coalition
for Integrated Education, expressed her contempt for labels this
way:
. . . my middle child. . . carries a number of labels,
"mentally retarded," "physically handicapped," "speech impaired,"
developmentally disabled." In our house we call her Leslie.
Another witness, Mrs. Jamie Ruppmann, a parent of
two young adults with disabilities, considers labeling to be a major
problem:
We have always believed that Daniel and Stefan were
more like other children than they were different. One of our
major concerns is that somehow it seems counter-productive to
us, and to other families, that the public schools have assimilated
the language and attitudes of what used to be called "the medical
model" as they have developed special education procedures and
programs. We have routinely encountered the following terms and
phrases, and so have you: emotionally disturbed, learning disabled,
mentally retarded, physically or orthopedically handicapped, hearing
or vision impaired, and inexplicably borderline, or even worse,
severe and profound. . . Who could, or would accept these labels
and characterizations for themselves, or for their children?.
. . Why must we trade our dignity and that of our children for
the special supports and resources provided by the public schools?
It seems to us, and certainly I think a very real concern of teachers
and therapists who work directly with children in the schools,
that the act of diagnosing and labeling students places both of
us, educators and families, in a very difficult and, we believe,
distorted relationship, just at a time when we need to begin to
develop trust and effective working relationships.
Dr. Margaret Wang testified that specific labels have
not been shown to be related to instruction and that the learning
characteristics of many students with mild and moderate disabilities
can be accommodated without the use of extensive and expensive assessment
procedures. This assertion challenges conventional wisdom, which
states that learning problems must be diagnosed through assessment
procedures in order to assure proper remediation.
Finding 17:
A highly emotional discussion is taking place about
the role of separate schools and the unique instructional needs
of students with specific disabilities such as deafness.
During the hearings and review of the literature,
the Council heard a clarion call from some witnesses for the full
integration of all students into general classrooms. Calls for full
integration are based on an equal rights principle, a strong distaste
for segregation and all it implies, and evidence of poor outcomes
for students with disabilities who have been educated in segregated
classrooms and facilities.
The Council also heard articulate arguments that separate
schools have an important place in educating students with disabilities.
The demand for a continuation of special schools is based on the
facts that appropriate services for low-incidence populations such
as blind and deaf students are unavailable in many regular classrooms,
that many students with disabilities fail in regular classrooms,
and that, for deaf children, adequate language and psychological
development and cultural and socialization opportunities can only
be found in special schools.
Mr. Fred Schroeder, Executive Director of the New
Mexico Commission for the Blind and former director of the Albuquerque
public school program for blind and deaf children, testified that
blind children often need highly specialized training in special
schools to prepare them to compete on terms of equality with their
sighted peers in a mainstreamed environment. Mr. Schroeder maintains
that young blind students require specialized and intensive instruction
in Braille for literacy, in white cane traveling for mobility, and
in typing skills to enable them to prepare assignments and express
themselves in writing. He emphasizes that these skills are important
to the development of self-esteem:
For a young blind child to really develop a self-concept
so that he or she can compete, that child has to have the tools
to compete. . . If you put a young blind child in a classroom
with sighted kids, and the young blind child does not have the
skills to compete, then the child will be at a disadvantage and
will come away feeling inferior. . . that "I can't compete because
I am blind."
Mr. Schroeder stated that the least restrictive environment
for the blind child, the most appropriate placement, often is a
residential school for the blind so that child will "acquire the
skills he'll need to go and truly be integrated in a meaningful
way later in his educational pursuit."
Ms. Roberta Thomas, Executive Director of the American
Society for Deaf Children and the parent of a teenager who is deaf,
told the Council that the "critical issues for deaf children are
communication, language acquisition, and identity":
Deaf children need to acquire language visually
through the same natural interaction, exposure and language inundation
available to all hearing children every day of their lives. Deaf
children also need to feel that it is all right to be deaf.
Most deaf children live in households where no one
communicates in sign language. As a consequence, many deaf children
have little or no language skill before they reach school. Furthermore,
they live isolated lives at home and at school. According to Ms.
Thomas:
Everywhere in this country there are deaf children
with neither speech nor sign, placed in regular classrooms with
almost no support services. No communication, no language, no
socialization, no education, no opportunity to acquire even the
most basic life skills. These children often become emotionally
disturbed. Their desperately depraved condition is consistently
blamed on their deafness and not the program.
Ms. Thomas maintains that even a child such as her
son, who is completely fluent in both English and American sign
language, is inadequately served when placed in a mainstreamed environment:
I know that mainstreaming is intended to normalize
deaf children, but the opposite can more easily happen. Mainstreaming
does not usually support deaf children's identity, and puts them
at such a disadvantage socially and educationally that they often
cannot reach their potential. Their poor performance reinforces
the stigma of deafness in the world's view that deafness is something
wrong with the people that have it.
Jesse Thomas and Anna Scott, deaf students who testified
before the Council on different panels, both told the Council that
obtaining an education by focusing all day on an interpreter when
in a mainstreamed classroom is extremely difficult. Interpreters
often are poorly qualified and may not sign English well, and students
find that focusing on a single person all day is both tiring and
boring.
According to Ms. Thomas, even if special classes are
provided in a collaborative program, deaf children end up in pockets
of isolation called "self-contained classrooms," because
Proximity is not integration. . . deaf children
cannot communicate with their hearing peers, they cannot chat
in the halls, hang out in the locker room, tell dirty jokes, talk
to another teacher, the dietician, the secretaries, the janitor,
anyone. Most critically important, they have no deaf adults to
look up to.
Ms. Thomas and many advocates for persons who are
deaf maintain that access to deaf culture is absolutely essential
to the development of self-esteem in the deaf child:
. . . deaf language and culture provide deaf human
beings with a powerful, positive identity, and a self-image as
adequate people, rather than as imperfect hearing people, and
this self-image makes it possible for them eventually to function
better in the hearing world. The unconscious, but terribly destructive
message that a deaf person often receives in the mainstream is
that his adequacy and success depends upon resembling hearing
people.
Quality remains a primary concern in deaf education.
The Commission on Education of the Deaf began its report with this
statement: "The present status of education of persons who are deaf
in the United States is unsatisfactory. Unacceptably so" (Commission
on Education of the Deaf, 1988, p. viii). However, despite the deaf
community's dissatisfaction with the quality of education received
in deaf schools, these schools are strongly supported because they
are believed to be essential components of deaf culture. In fact,
Ms. Thomas told the Council that 95% of the testimony before the
Commission on Education of the Deaf had to do with the interpretation
of least restrictive environment and mainstreaming, "with parents,
educators and deaf persons testifying that least restrictive environment
was used as a terrible basis for an inadequate education for deaf
children, causing deprivation everywhere."
Parents and educators of students with learning disabilities
have also written and spoken at length about the devastating patterns
of failure and loss of self-concept experienced by these students
when placed in general education classrooms without special services.
Many students with learning disabilities suffer the frustration
of low achievement and the teasing and poor self-image that comes
with both poor performance in the regular classroom and the social
isolation and stigma of being pulled out for special services.
The nature and quality of services was a critical
issue raised by witnesses who spoke about the necessity for special
schools. In addition, the unavailability of services, the absence
of Braille instructors, for example, or teachers who sign or teachers
with the ability to help students compensate for a learning disability
or change a behavior pattern, combined with a preference for service
delivery within public schools, has too often resulted in integration
without services.
Finding 18:
Special education is a relatively separate system of
service delivery.
P.L. 94-142 requires that each student with a disability
receive an appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment.
Although the law emphasizes identification and classification, the
prescribed evaluation process does not demand separate categorical
programs. In considering placement for an individual student, standards
of both appropriateness and least restrictive environment should
be met. A standard was established by an 1983 Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision, Roncker v. Walker:
Where a segregated facility is considered superior,
the court should determine whether the services which make that
placement superior could feasibly be provided in a non-segregated
setting. If they can, the placement in the segregated school would
be inappropriate under the Act. (Roncker v. Walker, 700
F.2nd, 1058, cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 196).
In their analysis of the factors that produced the
current separate system of special education, Gartner and Lipsky
(1989) noted that the law has had a strong impact. For example:
. . partly as a result of a narrow reading of the
stricture that federal aid supplement and not supplant local efforts,
school practices in remedial education, so-called bilingual education,
and special education have favored separate, "pull-out" programs
. . . Teacher training programs in general and in special education,
the absence of alternative models and paradigms of integration,
made unlikely any other outcome. Additionally, given the reduction
in support for remedial education programs in their period, school
systems had limited resources with which to support options within
general education. McGill-Franzen (1987) points out that the increase
in the number of students identified as learning disabled neatly
matches the decline in Chapter I participants over the past decade.
Past discrimination and exclusion of students with
disabilities from educational services led to provisions in the
law that support separate systems:
While underscoring that it intended to remove the
medical treatment model as the basis on which public policy should
be set, P.L. 94-142 established the right of students with handicapping
conditions to be treated equally and on an individual basis in
determining their school needs. But without adjusting the organization
of services within schools, changing attitudes toward disability,
altering the substantial state and local funding streams that
make it difficult to treat disabled students as part of the mainstream,
nor collapsing the categorical definitions that define the population
as being different, P.L. 94-142 may have served to reinforce a
hybrid structure, one with elaborate protections to assure the
rights of disabled students, but carried out by a separate delivery
system of special education services, which remains in many instances
outside the normal scope of school business (Walker, 1987, pp.
107-108.)
Finding 19:
In practice, special education has been defined more
as an organizational approach to delivering instruction, as part
of a placement continuum, than as a specific body of professional
expertise.
Today many people, educators, administrators, parents,
and students, tend to think of special education as an array of
special services delivered in separate classrooms or pull-out programs.
However, special educators are trained in how to assist students
with a broad array of learning characteristics to develop educational,
social, and practical living skills. That expertise need not be
limited to separate settings. With thought and preparation, that
expertise can be employed effectively in any setting for the benefit
of all students.
Special education specialists have a great deal to
contribute to the education of all students. No two students
learn at the same rate or in the same manner. Special educators
are trained to assist students in applying their skills and abilities
to different learning situations, and to adapt the learning situation
so that more students can learn effectively. The pedagogical implications
of the effective schools literature suggest that one effective role
for special educators is as consultative teachers, assisting regular
classroom teachers in devising and delivering learning programs
for individual students, and consulting about instructional strategies
and classroom aides.
As a rule, regular education teachers do not receive
training in pedagogical techniques for students with disabilities.
The 1989 Lou Harris Survey, A Report Card on Special Education,
concluded that "the majority of both principals and teachers have
not had adequate training in special education, and many are not
very confident in making decisions concerning handicapped children"
(p.5). Furthermore, the survey reported that while regular education
teachers have an average of 3 to 4 handicapped students in class
for at least part of the day, only 40% have had training in special
education (p.6). Many classroom teachers are hesitant to attempt
to teach a student with special needs in a regular classroom given
their many other responsibilities and lack of training and experience
in working with students with disabilities.
On the other hand, few special educators possess the
curriculum content expertise of regular educators, and many are
uncomfortable about the prospect of teaching a rigorous academic
curriculum. Working as teams in the delivery of services, special
educators and regular educators can combine their expertise for
the benefit of all students. As Mary Dean Barringer, a Teacher Educator
in the College of Education, Michigan State University, pointed
out in her testimony, special education needs to be defined as a
pedagogy, not a separate service delivery system.
Finding 20:
Current pedagogy regarding effective schools and teaching
practices can facilitate the integration of special needs students
into general classrooms.
Data indicate that in the near future special needs
children, students with disabilities, students who are "at risk,"
and disadvantaged students, will increase significantly (National
Information Center for Children and Youth with Handicaps, 1987).
It has been argued that the special needs population will become
too large a population to label as "different" and segregate into
a separate educational system. Some suggest that effective pedagogy,
combined with increased resources, must be used in the general classroom
to increase the achievement of more students.
Research on subject-matter learning and syntheses
of research have identified effective approaches and instructional
methods of enhancing learning for children with a wide diversity
of learning characteristics. Many of these methods have been developed
by special educators, and their expertise, if used creatively and
constructively in our schools, can contribute to greater educational
gains for larger segments of the school population.
Two principals testified before the Council about
how students were integrated into general classrooms in their schools.
Dr. Verneta Harvey, Principal of the General John F. Reynolds School
in Philadelphia, commented on the importance of in-service training
for general education teachers. She also cited the need for teacher
incentives and administrative supports for full integration. In
her case, she was able to free com mon planning time for teachers
involved in the integration project.
Mr. Arthur Chambers, Principal of the Harry L. Johnson
Elementary School in Johnson City New York, described the "Outcomes
Driven Developmental Model" that was used to establish fully integrated
schools in Johnson City. Mr. Chambers told the Council that the
planning process is anchored in four questions:
- What do we want in regards to integrating and mainstreaming
handicapped children?
- What do we know? What do research and experience
say?
- What do we believe about what we can do?
- What shall we do? How shall we change the way,
for example, a school is organized, the way people work together
to make a difference?
Mr. Chambers described the change process as "a matter
of working with people to change beliefs and change practices. It
has been well worth it."
During the question and answer period, Mr. Chambers
stated that the most difficult aspect of change from a school leader's
perspective is the need to change the culture of the school from
one of individual teachers, working alone, to an environment in
which everyone shares and works together on teams. He also reiterated
the need for primetime planning time: 40 minutes during each day
for each team. He noted that, in addition, substitute teachers are
arranged if more planning time is needed.
Tom Skrtic, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Special
Education at the University of Kansas, and Arthur Wise, Ph.D., of
The Rand Corporation, emphasized during their testimony before the
Council that changes in the way schools are organized and administered
must take place if schools are to more effectively meet the educational
needs of all students. Effective schools share a number of organizational
and operational characteristics, including empowerment of teachers,
teacher collaboration, integrated classrooms, parental involvement,
and effective teaching practices.
The Federal-State Partnership
Finding 21:
A strong Federal role in educating students with disabilities
is essential.
The Federal role in providing leadership and a national
policy for the education of students with disabilities enjoys widespread
public support and has made a significant difference in the lives
of students with disabilities and their families.
Dr. Franklin Walter, Superintendent of Public Instruction
for the State of Ohio testified before the Council as follows:
. . . in terms of P.L. 94-142, there is no question
but that it is a good public policy, and I say that with a great
deal of conviction, because in my career as a teacher and as an
administrator I well remember the days that we did not serve handicapped
youngsters. We simply said to parents of handicapped [children],
"There's no place for your child in our school." It doesn't seem
possible, but we actually could say to a parent, if we were a
school district administrator, "We cannot educate your child."
The 1986 Lou Harris and Associates, Inc. survey of
Americans with disabilities reported a powerful endorsement of the
role of the Federal government in giving better opportunities to
persons with disabilities. Furthermore, Lou Harris and Associates
observed that the strength of this endorsement for Federal programs
is unsurpassed since the Harris firm began measuring public support
for Federal programs and laws.
Finding 22:
The Federal government has not fulfilled its promise
of 40% funding of the cost of providing education to students with
disabilities.
While states are required to comply with the many
requirements of P.L. 94-142, they have never received the funding
they were promised by the Federal government to provide the required
services. Although P.L. 94-142 is authorized to provide funding
equal to 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure times
the nation's special education child count, the Federal contribution
has never exceeded 12% and is currently less than 10%. An analysis
of Federal expenditures in the context of State and local expenditures
reveals that over the last 10 school years the Federal contribution
to the total elementary and secondary educational enterprise decreased
from a high of 9.2% in 1979-80 to 6.2% in 1986-87 (Evans, 1989).
It is noteworthy that so much has been accomplished under P.L. 94-142,
considering how significantly underfunded it is.
Dr. Franklin Walter, testifying before the Council,
expressed one State's perspective on the unfulfilled promise of
the Federal government.
The Federal role in the education of the handicapped
has been a policy role rather than a funding role, and I think
this is too bad, because when 94-142 was enacted, it was enacted
based on the assumption that there would be an increasing Federal
investment in educating the handicapped as a matter of national
policy. This promise has not been fulfilled by any stretch of
the imagination. About 6% of the funds to educate handicapped
youngsters in our State come from the Federal government, and
that means that promise has resulted in costing the State more
money. I don't resent that, because the education of the handicapped
should be and is a priority, but in terms of a commitment we would
like very much to see a greater commitment of Federal funding
toward the objective of educating handicapped youngsters.
Finding 23:
Federal monitoring is an essential aspect of the Federal
State partnership.
The Council finds that, although monitoring is an
essential aspect of public accountability, the monitoring process
must be appropriate to the Federal role. The Federal role in this
case is to assure that all children with handicaps, regardless of
the severity of the handicapping condition, have access to an equal
educational opportunity. This is achieved by a monitoring process
winch is sensitive to State compliance with both the letter and
the spirit of the law. For example, a school district that sends
annual notification of parental rights in the parents' native language
but does nothing to assure that the parents understand the notice
has achieved procedural compliance but has not assured that the
spirit of the law has been implemented.
The complaints of parents who testified before the
Council raise two distinct but related issues. The first is that
procedural problems with the monitoring process such as long delays
in issuing reports belie the Federal role in assuring accountability
and compliance with the law, and in fact. may exacerbate compliance
problems.
The second is that there is confusion about what the
monitoring process is and what it can achieve. While the quality
of education is a legitimate Federal concern, it appears to be difficult
for the Federal monitoring process to directly assess issues pertaining
to quality given the decentralized evolution of the educational
enterprise and the deeply rooted social conviction that quality
emerges from local control. Nevertheless, the Council believes that
an appropriate monitoring process can strengthen the Federal/State
partnership and notes that some federal efforts to monitor educational
achievement outcomes have been undertaken, such as the National
Assessment of Educational Programs.
Transition
From School to Adult Life Finding 24:
Upon leaving school students with disabilities and
their families often have a difficult time accessing appropriate
adult services and/or postsecondary education and training programs.
Information presented to the Council strongly indicates widespread
concern regarding outcomes for people with disabilities as they
exit school. These include:
- Many graduates exiting public schools are not adequately
prepared for employment, and are unable to access resources that
enhance their participation in community life.
- The unemployment rate for people with disabilities
is significantly higher than for people who are not disabled.
Approximately 66% of all adults with disabilities between the
ages of 16 and 64 are not employed (Harris and Associates, 1986)
whereas the overall unemployment rate in this country is about
5%.
- Young women with disabilities are unemployed at
rates significantly higher than young men with disabilities or
young women without disabilities (Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon
& Hull, in press).
- Many of the services necessary to assist adults
with disabilities in the community are not available at graduation
due to long waiting lists for vocational and residential programs.
- Fewer than 15% of special education exiters who
were out of school more than one year were participating in postsecondary
education and training (Wagner, 1989) compared to 56% of high
school exiters without disabilities (Jones, 1986).
- The arrest rate for students labeled seriously
emotionally disturbed who have been out of school more than one
year is 44% (Wagner, 1989), whereas it is between 3.9% and 4.7%
for all youth ages 16 to 24 (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
1987).
- Parents are not actively involved in the transition
of their son or daughter from school to adult life. This occurs
despite the critical role parents play in the development of appropriate
educational programs.
Finding 25:
Effective transition planning for high school students
with disabilities can facilitate their success in adult life.
Schools are most effective in preparing students with
disabilities for life as adults when there is an emphasis on the
development of skills necessary to function in actual community
settings, or the students participate in appropriate postsecondary
programs. However, testimony to the Council from several sources
suggested that graduates exiting school have not been adequately
prepared for employment or post secondary education or training
and generally have not had access to resources and services that
would enhance successful adult living. Compared to graduates without
disabilities, these individuals also tend to experience less social
involvement and are more likely to live with relatives than on their
own. This may be associated with the fact that in many states services
designed to support adults with disabilities have not been available
at graduation.
One purpose of transition planning is to identify
the necessary services for students with disabilities prior to graduation,
and connect students with these services. In testimony before the
Council, George Salembier of the University of Vermont and Deborah
Patterson of Vermont Rehabilitation Services Administration indicated
that transition planning must (1) begin early in a student's high
school program (no later than 14 or 15 years of age), (2) be coordinated
between the school, adult service agencies, and postsecondary programs,
and (3) focus directly on adult life outcomes.
Finding 26:
Graduates with disabilities are more likely to be employed
following school if (1) comprehensive vocational training is a primary
component of their high school program and (2) they have a job secured
at the time of graduation.
Traditionally, many high schools have focused their
employment preparation programs on a general assessment of student
interests and strengths, and the teaching of vocational readiness
skills in a classroom setting. This approach places high schools
in a passive role in preparing students for employment. The instruction
focuses more on general preparation for employment rather than training
for a specific job(s). Recently, the schools have been urged to
broaden their focus to include vocational preparation and job placement
in community sites. The em phasis on community-based job preparation
stems from research and demonstration programs over the past decade,
which have provided strong evidence that individuals with disabilities
have greater probability of taking their place within a community
work force if they had comprehensive vocational training during
the school years. It is important that these training programs be
initiated while the student is still in school so that valuable
instructional time is not lost. In an eight-year follow-up study
on school experiences that relate to successful employment as an
adult, researchers at the University of Vermont found that students
who were employed prior to leaving high school were more likely
to be employed as adults, and that participation in vocational education
was related to eventual employment and higher wages.
A recent study (Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, &
Hull, in press) indicated that the employment status of students
with disabilities upon graduation is a predictor of their employment
status over time. When a student with a disability has a job secured
at the time of graduation, he or she is likely to be employed during
subsequent years. Conversely, if a student does not have a job secured
at the time of graduation, he or she is likely to remain unemployed
during subsequent years. Having a job secured at the time of graduation
is a critical educational goal for students with disabilities who
choose to work following high school.
These findings are corroborated by other research
in transition planning that suggests high school programs should
focus on outcomes that result in greater independence and increased
participation in the local community. The extent to which these
outcomes are achieved is significantly influenced by the opportunity
to work. Work is important not only for financial incentives but
also personal identity, status, and contribution to the community.
In a related finding, the U.S. Department of Education's
National Longitudinal Transition Study reported that paid employment
during high school is becoming a more common occurrence with 42%
of students with disabilities placed in a community vocational or
employment program. However, it is important to note that one out
of four of these students work less than ten hours and are paid
below minimum wages. Most of these students are in service and manual
labor positions.
Finding 27:
There are insufficient partnerships between the business
community and schools for the purpose of enhancing employ ment opportunities
for students with disabilities.
Employment during the school years is highly predictive
of postsecondary school employment for students with disabilities
(Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985). However, it appears that business-school
partnerships serving students with disabilities are a rare occurrence.
Some successful business-school partnerships do exist
for students with disabilities, and the Council obtained testimony
regarding two such collaborative efforts. Businesses are most effective
when they play an integral part in program design, recruitment,
curriculum development, and program evaluation. Testimony from employers
indicated that substantial actual work time at a real work site
is critical for both the employer and potential employee. Such experience
can include an internship or actual paid employment. Workplace integration
during school years can provide students with a clear understanding
of what employers' expectations are and what a work experience is
about, and can provide critical exposure to a range of jobs and
career possibilities. Employers benefit by gaining an appreciation
of what individuals with disabilities can offer, what their needs
may be, and what their capabilities and potentials are. This process
is instrumental for breaking down attitudinal barriers and stereotypes.
Mr. Mark Donovan, Manager of Community Employment
and Training Programs for Marriott Corporation, provided testimony
to the Council regarding a program involving the integration of
high school seniors with moderate and severe disabilities into a
hotel to receive hands-on training and work experience in a variety
of areas. The program was very successful, resulting in full-time
competitive employ ment for most of the students. Another business
representative, Mr. Bill McMullen representing Texas Utilities Services,
described a successful program, Computer Programmer Training for
the Physically Challenged, which was dependent on collaboration
between a junior college, the utility company, rehabilitation agencies,
and local government. It was noted that students from this program
were successfully competing with applicants who had four year degrees
in Computer Science and Business Computer Systems.
Employers have also highlighted the need for strong
collaborative efforts with local governments, rehabilitation agencies,
and community colleges.
Finding 28:
Parent participation during high school facilitates
the successful transition of students with disabilities from school
to adult life.
Parent involvement is an essential element of an effective
transition process during high school. As stated by Ms. Cory Moore,
parent of an adult with a disability and as well Parent Information
and Education Coordinator in the state of Mary land: "If the school
years are to be successful . . . educators, adult service providers,
employers, and families must work together in the development of
an optimally realistic transition plan for each student with a disability."
According to a recent Harris poll (Harris and Associates,
1989), a majority of students with disabilities aged 17 and over
did not have transition plans as part of their Individualized Educational
Program. Less than half received job or educational counseling.
When students did receive transitional assistance and job counseling,
less than half of their parents considered it to be effective.
In the past few years the Federal government has funded
projects to provide information and training to parents so that
they are able to become more fully involved as members of the education
team. Such training programs help parents to exert more influence
on the development and implementation of their son or daughter's
education program. These parents become more familiar with the types
of decisions necessary for a successful transition into postsecondary
education programs and adult services. Parent involvement is a powerful
predictor of post-school adjustment. Another study suggested that
people who maintained employment in a community setting came from
families in which parents had a major influence on the individual
and held strong values for work. It is clear that parents are faced
with some difficult decisions as their son or daughter exits public
school programs.
An International Perspective
Finding 29:
Legislation supporting the education of students with
disabilities in integrated school settings has been enacted in many
countries throughout the world.
The Council learned from testimony provided by the
international panel of experts that the underlying values about
the importance of education for students with disabilities are similar
across national boundaries as evidenced by legislation in various
countries. In 1971 Italy passed the first national law mandating
the integration of students with disabilities in regular education
classes. Various studies in Italy had documented that students with
different language dialects were being placed in special education
programs with very limited improvement in educational and social
performance. Once placed in special education programs, these students
tended to remain there until they dropped out or exceeded the compulsory
school age. As a result, the Italian Parliament established the
framework for the dissolution of all special schools, and eventually
all special classes, in the Italian educational system. France also
mandated the education of all handicapped children in public schools
in the same year.
The French Loi d'Orientation (General Law for the
Handicapped) establishes the right to a free education, work, and
life in the community for all people with disabilities. In addition,
the Loi d'Orientation provides financial aid for families that follow-through
with mandatory medical screening from birth to age six. In 1978
the Danish Parliament passed an act promoting the social integration
of students with disabilities by placing more emphasis upon education
within the regular schools and classes.
England passed legislation in 1981 stating that, although
it mandated parental involvement, a written assessment of educational
need, and a multiprofessional team, the law did not provide financial
resources to aid local education authorities. The English law also
established a "noncategorical" approach to delivering educational
services. As discussed by panel member Klaus Wedell of the University
of London in his testimony before the National Council, the law
focused on the need of each individual in relationship to the demands
of the environment rather than a "categorical label" in determining
eligibility and service patterns.
Other countries, such as Australia, Germany, and Switzerland,
have undertaken national initiatives to support the integration
of students with disabilities in regular schools and classes. Testimony
from panel member Jorgen Hansen, Superintendent of Special Education
in Denmark indicated, "There is a world-wide movement toward integration."
Finding 30:
Although the integration of students with disabilities
is receiving attention in countries throughout the world, there
are some significant differences in both legislative and practical
definitions of the term.
As stated by Seamus Hegarty of the National Foundation
for Educational Research in England and Wales, "What becomes clear
is that people have very different understandings of integration."
For example, in the United States the term "least restrictive environment"
is defined as the educational placement that meets the needs of
the child as dictated by the individualized education program. As
mandated by Public Law 94-142, children with disabilities are to
be educated to the maximum extent possible with their nonhandicapped
peers. As such, any move away from the regular education classroom
must be clearly justified in each child's individualized program.
The law supports a continuum of educational placements that range
from the regular class to a special school. This is in contrast
to Italian law, which mandates that all students with disabilities
are to be educated in the regular education classroom. The initial
implementation of Italian law was, however, beset with significant
problems, including inadequate resources and technical assistance
to support the regular education teacher. The law was eventually
amended in 1977 to establish a maximum of 20 nondisabled students
in any regular class that included students with disabilities. The
amendments also stipulated that no more than two students with disabilities
could be placed in any given regular education class.
Other countries also have contrasting views regarding
integration. The Soviet Union espouses that integration is facilitated
by placing children with disabilities in special schools to better
prepare them for society, whereas Australia is moving in the direction
of placement for all students in regular education classrooms.
The international panel that provided testimony to
the Council also stressed the approach in some areas of the world,
specifically the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, which is to focus
on integration as the local school's responsibility. When a child
is not integrated it is the problem of the school not the individual
student. Mr. Hegarty suggested: "It is not the child that is failing.
It is the school that has been unable to meet the needs of that
child."
Finding 31:
There are many common areas of interest and concern
throughout the world in the education of students with disabilities.
In a conference of high-level government officials
from 24 nations sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) in 1986, several areas of interest and concern
regarding services for people with disabilities emerged as common
threads across the countries. These issues were reported to the
Council in testimony from David Thomas representing OECD. The following
affirmations were developed as a result of the 1986 OECD conference:
- The label "handicapped" as an individual characteristic
is unacceptable. The term "disability" is preferable. Whether
or not a disability becomes a handicap depends on the interaction
with the environment, other people, and the organization of society.
- Although integration within the school is the first
essential step, such a policy has important consequences for resource
allocation, the development of curricula and pedagogy, and quality
teacher education.
- Adolescents with disabilities have the same human
rights as others and thus the right to adult status. Income maintenance
is not enough and pensions for people with disabilities should
not become disincentives to seeking paid employment. Paid employ
ment must be the main objective.
- People with disabilities must be involved in decisions
that affect their future, and in creating an environment that
will promote their self-esteem, independence, and capacity to
cope.
- The failure to coordinate policies and services
across government agencies is a primary barrier to effective support
for people with disabilities (Organization of Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1986).
CHAPTER
FOUR Recommendation For a National Commission
on Excellence in the Education of Students with Disabilities
The National Council on Disability recommends that
a two-year National Commission on Excellence in the Education of
Students with Disabilities be funded by the U.S. Congress. This
Commission would be a continuation of this study, The Education
of students with Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?. The Commission
would be chaired by the National Council on Disability's chairperson,
with members appointed by the National Council on Disability. Members
would include parents of students with disabilities, students with
disabilities, special educators, regular educators, State and Federal
policymakers, teacher trainers, school administrators, educational
researchers, local school board members, employers, rehabilitation
professionals, and providers of related services. The Commission
would continue an assessment of the status of the education of students
with disabilities and make recommendations regarding how the quality
of education for students with disabilities could be enhanced and
how improved student outcomes (such as a decreased dropout rate,
an increased postsecondary education and training participation
rate, an increased employment rate after school and increased achievement
levels) could be realized. The following twenty questions would
be explored by the Commission.
Question 1:
How can the special education community join the general
education community in a partnership to assure that the goals of
equity and excellence are pursued simultaneously in national school
reform efforts?
Equity and excellence are basic American values associated
with education. Participation of all youngsters (regardless of race,
socio-economic status, or disability) in programs that meet their
individual needs is an expectation in our society. Since the enactment
of P.L. 94-142, our nation has made significant progress in achieving
equity for students with disabilities. In the 1980s, the question
of whether or not the goal of excellence is being met for this nation's
youth has been a priority. Numerous reports focusing on the need
to restructure American education have been published. Many school
restructuring efforts have been inspired by studies documenting
that American students lag substantially behind their counterparts
in other industrialized countries, that achievement test scores
of high school students have steadily declined in recent years,
and that American schools have an unacceptably high dropout rate.
In response to the status of American schools, several
reform initiatives have been proposed through such reports as A
Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983), A Place Called School (Goodlad, 1984), and High
School (Boyer, 1983). These reports in conjunction with congressional
and legislative initiatives have moved school reform into a position
of center stage as evidenced by the general public's growing concern
about the quality of education in our schools. School reform is
a significant national issue. Although current proposals to reform
schools have had little to say about the quality of education programs
for students with differences, specifically those with disabilities,
there can be little doubt that what makes a school effective for
nondisabled students will be effective for students with disabilities
as well.
The overall aims of reform can best be met when all
education professionals and students are actively included in the
cooperative venture of establishing effective schools. Professionals
associated with special education will enhance collaborative efforts
if they define and represent their field as a specific body of professional
knowledge and expertise, rather than as a separate and distinct
instructional delivery system. If these professionals choose to
maintain the perception of the field as a separate instructional
delivery system, their involvement in the reform initiatives will
be significantly impeded. Professionals in special education have
unique contributions to make to reform efforts. Special education
possesses a rich knowledge base related to quality educational programming
for students that must be tapped within the process of school restructuring
efforts.
The Council is supportive of reform efforts that focus
on academic rigor as a means to establish excellence in the schools,
but is also concerned that such a narrow emphasis may result in
an inequitable system for large numbers of students. While rigorous
academic coursework, graduation requirements, and competency tests
have the potential to increase academic achievement, they also can
increase the dropout rates of many students, including students
with disabilities, if no appropriate alternatives are available.
The question is how do effective schools promote meaningful educational
experiences for not only the best and brightest of students, but
also for students with significant challenges? How will schools
organize resources to promote learning across a group of students
with diverse needs and functioning levels? Success in school must
be measured by both outcomes related to academic achievement and
by successful preparation for independent living.
School reform initiatives that are solely "top-down"
or State-oriented reflect a strong orientation to college-bound
and high achieving students. These reform efforts, especially at
the secondary education level, are designed to better prepare students
making the transition to postsecondary education. Students who elect
not to pursue postsecondary education may suffer if their high school
programs are not considered equally important in the context of
educational reform.
Dr. Arthur Wise, in his testimony before the Council,
argued for a balanced approach to school reform that promotes individualization.
He stated that, ". . . The improvements that we need to make in
public education are ones that cause the system to be more responsive
to the interests of individual students." As school reform initiatives
move throughout the country, they must include students with disabilities
and accommodate student differences, recognizing that excellence
in education must be a goal for all students.
Question 2:
How can the special education community and the general
education community collaborate to further consolidate the special
education and general education systems for the benefit of all students?
Efforts should continue to provide appropriate, individualized
services for students with disabilities in the regular classroom
setting. The Council believes that if integrated, effective programs
providing for strong parent involvement and appropriate services
are carefully implemented in neighborhood schools, parents, teachers,
and students will come to prefer those schools. Researchers, general
and special educators, and parents need to continue to explore how
public schools can best provide more integrated educational services
while at the same time safeguarding the hard-won rights and funding
guarantees so integral to P.L. 94-142.
A first step in promoting further consolidation of
the two systems is to engage the general education community and
policy-makers in the effort to improve the educational outcomes
of students with disabilities. This requires a fundamental change
in the relationship between the general and special education systems,
a change in which special education will be seen as an integral
support system for general education, which is responsible for the
education of all students, including students with disabilities.
Question 3:
What steps can be taken to assure that the movement
toward providing services for students with disabilities in their
neighborhood schools continues and that the services are appropriate?
Encouraging change requires incentives, changing attitudes,
and commitment on the part of policymakers. Witnesses told the Council
that most school board members and many general school ad ministraters
know very little about special education. Furthermore, few policymakers
and general educators assume responsibility for the educational
outcomes of students with disabilities in neighborhood school classrooms.
Local school boards throughout the country should
be encouraged to include students with disabilities when establishing
and monitoring standards of excellence. Standards should include
outcomes of employment or continuing education upon graduation,
and inclusionary prac tices throughout school life.
Resources must be channeled into general education
classrooms in a manner that increases the learning of all students
while protecting the due process rights of parents and assuring
that additional resources reach students with disabilities who have
special needs. While supporting the general principle that all children
should be educated in an in tegrated environment, the Council recognizes
that the general education classroom may not be the appropriate
environment for all students at all times. Always the focus must
be on outcomes, that is, the educational environment that in the
long run will provide each student with the ability to function
productively as an adult within the integrated community. In most
instances, this goal implies education within an integrated setting
in the neighborhood school.
Question 4:
How can the pedagogy associated with special education
be brought to bear in general education classrooms?
Teaching difficult material to a class with a wide
range of abilities and learning styles is not an easy assignment
for any teacher. As one means of encouraging greater collaboration,
special educators should begin exploring way of sharing their expertise
with regular classroom teachers. For example, special educators
can write articles for general education journals that explain how
consultations with special educators can lead to more effective
classrooms. Specific teaching strategies, such as peer teaching,
can also be explained in articles and presentations to general educators.
As more and more students with special needs are integrated
into regular classrooms, the consultative services of special educators
need to be made available to general education teachers. Ways also
should be explored to use pre-service and in-service training to
build effective relationships between general and special educators.
Question 5:
What is the relationship between the educational setting
and student outcomes?
The Council is encouraged by the debate regarding
the role of separate schools and full integration and views it as
a reflection of the growth and evolution of the nation's efforts
to educate students with disabilities. Whereas access to public
education was the focal point of attention twenty years ago, today
attention has turned to the quality of services and the extent to
which fully integrated services should become a national policy.
The Council supports an active continuation of the
current discussion regarding the range of educational settings for
students with disabilities. including general education classrooms,
private schools for students with a particular disability, such
as a learning disability, and public schools for students with a
particular disability, such as deafness or blindness. The Council
encourages this discussion to focus on educational out comes for
students with disabilities who are in various educational settings.
The Council concludes that integration without services
under mines the established national policy of delivering individualized,
appropriate services to students in the least restrictive environment.
At the same time, the Council wishes to underscore its strong support
of a public policy that generally requires the delivery of individualized,
appropriate services in fully integrated settings. Full integration,
however, includes providing the special education and related services
necessary to enable a child with a disability to receive the same
educational opportunities offered to children without disabilities.
Integration without services does not achieve this. What is needed
for the l990s and beyond are newly conceptualized models of service
delivery which will result in integration with adequate services.
Question 6:
In the 1990s what is the appropriate Federal role in
the education of students with disabilities as we continue to focus
on developing excellence in educational services for students with
disabilities?
The critical role played by the Federal government
in leading the nation to provide access to education for all students
with disabilities cannot be overstated. As we shift our focus from
access to education to the quality of that education, a continued
strong Federal role is essential. The Council reaffirms the importance
of a continued Federal role in the education of students with disabilities.
Question 7:
What can be done to further enhance the Federal-State
part nership that is so critical to the effective implementation
of P.L. 94-142?
States were promised significantly more funding by
the Federal government when P.L.94-142 was enacted in 1975. For
years they have operated under the law with about one-fourth of
the funding originally anticipated. Strategies that would result
in full Federal funding for P.L.94-142 should be explored so that
States could provide a greater array of services and programs for
students with disabilities as well as improve the quality of services.
Other means of enhancing the Federal-State partnership, such as
spotlighting exemplary programs, should be considered.
Question 8:
How can Federal compliance monitoring for P.L. 94-142
be improved to (1) more meaningfully involve parents, (2) be more
timely, and (3) ensure full compliance with the law?
Federal monitoring is an essential component of public
accountability. The critical role of parents in holding the service
delivery system accountable for the delivery of appropriate, individualized
services in the least restrictive environment is well established
in P.L.94-142. Parents are knowledgeable about the educational process
and the extent to which and how well school districts are meeting
their responsibilities.
Parents testifying before the Council complained bitterly
that the Federal monitoring process is not effective in assisting
to ensure that States are in compliance with the law. Parents reported
that the monitoring process was not timely, and in some cases it
took up to two years for a final monitoring report to be issued.
Additionally, they felt that the process did not address issues
pertaining to the quality of special education programs.
Question 9:
How can effective parent-professional relationships
be established and maintained as a component of an appropriate educational
program for students with disabilities?
The interests and concerns of students and families
are as varied as the educational settings and opportunities available
to students with disabilities. Although a wide range of important
challenges were identified by parent and student witnesses, the
Council was impressed by the quality of services available in some
parts of the country and by the dedication of the many parents and
professionals who share the com mon goal of improving the quality
and availability of educational services for students with disabilities.
Their efforts provided the Council with invaluable information about
how services can and should be improved in the next decade.
Elizabeth Milizia, a parent from Vermont, and Mary
Sherman, a teacher from Vermont, testified before the Council about
how positive steps can be taken to improve teacher-parent relationships.
The Parent Professional Partnership Work Group in Vermont identifies
and promotes the value and best practices of parents and professionals
working together to make education successful for all students.
The Work Group has developed a parent handbook for parents of students
with disabilities and a conference on model parent involvement in
the schools. In some districts parents are involved in hiring decisions,
policymaking activities, and councils. States with strong parent-professional
partnerships in place can provide good working models for other
school districts that wish to improve the quality and effectiveness
of parent-professional relationships.
Question 10:
What steps can be taken to assure that students with
disabilities in minority, rural, and disadvantaged communities have
full access to appropriate educational services?
Students with disabilities in urban minority communities,
rural areas, and disadvantaged areas appear to be less likely to
receive adequate educational services than students who are not
in these communities or areas. Special efforts need to be made to
ensure that students with disabilities who are also challenged by
other circumstances, such as poverty or rural location, are provided
with appropriate educational services.
Question 11:
How can students with disabilities whose parents serve
in the military be afforded the same equal educational opportunity
as all other eligible students?
The Council finds it unconscionable that our nation's
military families are not enjoying the same access to educational
services as other U.S. citizens.
Question 12:
What steps can be taken to assure that all parents
of students with disabilities are fully informed of, and understand
their rights under P.L. 94-142?
Ensuring that parents understand their rights under
P.L. 94-142 is a shared responsibility. Schools, parent organizations
such as the federally funded Parent Training and Information Centers,
and information organizations such as The National Information Center
for Handicapped Children and Youth all have important roles to play
in providing information to parents about their rights under P.L.
94-142 and in ensuring that parents understand the information presented
to them. The Federal Office of Special Education Programs should
explore how P.L. 94-142 compliance monitoring efforts could assess
the degree to which States comply with the procedural safeguards
in P.L. 94-142.
Question 13:
What are the minimum competencies and training requirements
for due process hearing officers?
Unevenness in training and knowledge of hearing officers
throughout the States may contribute to unevenness in implementation
of P.L. 94-142 across States. Some degree of standard requirements
for hearing officers will facilitate consistency and well-informed
decisions.
Question 14:
How can information about the due process system, in
cluding outcomes of due process hearings and relevant court decisions,
be disseminated nationally to parent organizations, State and local
policymakers, and other entities concerned with the education of
students with disabilities?
A lack of a national base of information regarding
due process hearings, including the issues addressed in due process
hearings and the outcomes of those hearings, leaves an information
gap in the policymaking cycle. Without the benefit of an analysis
of relevant hearing officer and court decisions on issues related
to educating students with disabilities, policy-makers at the State
and local levels do not have the benefit of utilizing such information
when making and revising policies. Such information would also be
of significant use to parents and parent organizations.
Question 15:
Is there an expanded role for institutions of higher
education in the development of innovative personnel preparation
programs that prepare educators to work with students who have a
range of diverse needs?
One of the great accomplishments of the education
reform movement has been to spotlight the need for improved teacher
training. This applies to special educators as well as regular educators.
The Council supports efforts to design a professional course of
study that prepares educators to teach students with a wide range
of disabilities. Teacher education programs should prepare regular
and special education teachers to work collaboratively in meeting
the needs of all students within the school. Teacher education candidates
in elementary and secondary education, as well prospective school
administrators, need information and direct field experiences focusing
on the development of strategies for educating students with disabilities.
Specific strategies may include how to work with students with disabilities
within the context of the regular education curriculum, how to assist
students with disabilities in becoming involved in the school's
social network, and the development of effective pedagogy.
Although there is ample evidence that schools face
a severe short age of special education teachers and other specialists,
(Carriker, 1989) the Council wishes to note that a move to integrate
more students with disabilities into regular classrooms does not
imply a lesser need for special education teachers. Their role in
fully integrated schools will be to assist regular education teachers
in implementing the special in structional methods that will enable
all students in their classrooms to master the curriculum, working
at their own ability levels. Defining special education as a pedagogy,
rather than a service delivery system, implies an expanded role
for special education teachers within the general education system.
Question 16:
How can schools provide an individualized transition
plan for every high school student with a disability and ensure
coordination between the school and adult service agencies or postsecondary
education and training programs?
Coordinated planning between schools, State and local
adult service agencies, and postsecondary education and training
programs is essential in a successful transition from school to
adult life for a student with a disability. In her testimony before
the Council, Dr. Susan Hasazi, Professor of Special Education at
the University of Vermont, emphasized the need for cooperation between
special education, vocational education, vocational rehabilitation,
developmental disabilities, and employment and training agencies.
This collaboration can take many forms at different stages in the
transition process. It may include, for example, participation in
IEP development and instructional planning, information sharing
about available resources, programs to help students identify postsecondary
education and training options, formal interagency agreements to
provide ongoing follow-up services, and financial incentives that
subsidize individuals during job training. Means of ensuring that
such transition planning is available need to be explored for every
student with a disability.
Question 17:
What steps are necessary for schools to provide (1)
a comprehensive curricula that includes extensive community-based
vocational experiences as a primary component of each high school
student's individualized educational program and (2) job placement
at the time of graduation for all students who want to work?
The Council recommends that schools explore the establishment
of high school vocational preparation programs for students with
disabilities that:
- Reflect the job opportunities available within
the local community.
- Take place in actual community job sites.
- Are designed to sample the individual's performance
across a variety of economically viable alternatives.
- Provide opportunities for continuous interaction
with people without disabilities in a work setting.
- Culminate in specific job training and placement.
- Include comprehensive transition planning to support
the individual's full participation in the community.
Although people with disabilities continue to have
the highest rate of unemployment and underemployment in the nation,
there is overwhelming evidence that individuals with disabilities,
including those with severe disabilities, can work if they are provided
with appropriate training and support. Creating more employment
options for individuals with disabilities will require significant
changes in the way in which both educational and adult service programs
are structured. Besides offering comprehensive employment training
in community settings during high school, there is a need to develop
adult employment pro grams that provide ongoing support to individuals
in community set tings and to remove the financial disincentives
to State agencies for providing integrated rather than segregated
employment options for individuals with more severe disabilities.
With the evidence that job placement at the time of
graduation is a predictor of future employment (Hasazi, Johnson,
Hasazi, Gordon & Hull, in press), the Council believes that Federal,
State and local programs which aim to find jobs for people with
disabilities should make a special effort to involve themselves
while students are still in school.
Question 18:
How can schools and businesses effectively form partner
ships, particularly at the local level, to collaborate on employment-related
curriculum and training programs for students with disabilities?
School reform efforts have inspired the development
of partnerships between schools and businesses to enhance curricula
and employment-related training for students. Programs such as The
Fairfax County Public Schools Education Foundation have been successful
in linking schools and businesses for the benefit of students (Sugawara,
1989). The Council heartily endorses partnerships between schools
and businesses and believes that students with disabilities should
be included in such efforts.
Question 19:
How can the special education community take the lead
in educating the business community about the abilities and talents
of students with disabilities and the contributions they do and
can make in the workplace?
Awareness training and outreach regarding disability
need to be enhanced As Mark Donovan of Marriott Corporation testified,
"A critical barrier toward employment efforts is that employers
come into the game with lots of stereotypes, with lots of phobias,
largely built out of lack of understanding, or information." The
business community needs continued education regarding the fact
that persons with disabilities offer them an additional resource,
an additional source of strong, able, committed applicants that
have not yet been fully tapped.
Question 20:
How can the United States best coordinate with other
countries in sharing information and resources regarding effective
educational practices for students with disabilities?
The Council heard testimony that many countries do
not have a counterpart to the National Council on Disability, and
that there is no single independent organization focusing directly
on the needs of people with disabilities from an international perspective.
Yet these countries are facing many comparable issues in providing
services to people with disabilities, including those currently
being addressed by the National Council on Disability in its examination
of the education of students with disabilities in the United States.
Consideration should be given to the establishment of an international
body with representatives from countries around the world who could
structure a continuing dialogue focusing on education, independent
living, and social policy issues related to persons with disabilities.
Such a body could coordinate worldwide dissemination of effective
practices.
MINORITY
VIEW OF LESLIE LENKOWSKY Although I agree
with much of what is contained in "The Education of Students with
Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?" I do not feel it goes far enough
in identifying the issues that need to be examined if we are to
make good on the commitments of P.L. 94-142 to handicapped children.
Three areas particularly trouble me:
First is the undue emphasis the report gives to the
ideal of "integrated education" at the neighborhood level for students
with disabilities. The report hedges this by insisting that "appropriate"
or "effective" services must also be available. However, while this
may indeed be a worthy goal, our real objective should always be
to serve the best interests of the child. As the report notes, several
segments of the disability community now believe that this cannot
be accomplished for some children in the context of mainstream schools.
Any study of the education of students with disabilities needs to
examine this contention seriously, rather than dismiss it with ambiguous
qualifiers like "appropriate services" or visions of a possible
return to a segregated system, as this report does.
Second is the unquestioning endorsement this report
gives special education teachers. One of the most important accomplishments
of the educational reform effort of the past decade has been to
spark a healthy debate about the qualifications and preparation
of regular classroom teachers. We need to do no less for those in
special education. Many parents of children with disabilities have
had ample reason to question the "expertise" special educators claim
to possess; within the profession itself, disputes about the best
methods of diagnosing and teaching students with particular disabilities
are rampant. It does children with disabilities little good to call
for a greater role for special educators, as this report does, without
examining carefully how to make that role more productive.
Finally, there is the question of federal funding.
P.L. 94-142 did commit the federal government to providing a much
larger share of the costs of the education of children with disabilities
than it actually did. However, this failure does not relieve states
and local school systems of their responsibility to provide an appropriate
education for all children, including those with disabilities. All
too often school administrators have used the inadequacy of federal
funding as an excuse for providing inadequate services. Instead
of implicitly lending support to that claim and re-opening a fruitless
debate, this report should be asking how the current level of resources
is being used and whether it could be used more effectively.
"The Education of Students with Disabilities" does
perform an im portant service by demonstrating how little we really
know about the achievement of students with disabilities nearly
fifteen years after the passage of P.L. 94-142. And I fully agree
with the recommendation for a more comprehensive study that would
bring the benefits of the educational reform movement of the past
decade to these children. However, if such a study is to be valuable,
it must ask the right questions and look at the right issues without
worrying about "sacred cows." These views are intended to contribute
to that objective.
APPENDIX
A List of Witnesses Who
Provided Testimony
The Education of Students with Disabilities:
Where Do We Stand?
May 15, 1989
Panel I
An International Perspective
Mr. Jorgen Hansen
Superintendent of Special Education for Denmark
Mr. David Thomas
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France
Professor Klaus Wedell
University of London
Dr. Seamus Hegarty
National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales
May 17, 1989
Panel I
A Family Perspective
Mrs. Jamie Ruppmann
Mr. Heinz Ruppmann
Mr. Stefan Ruppmann
Vienna, VA
Panel II
Reaching Out To Families
Gloria Odom Stokes, Ed.D., parent
Parents Reaching Out Services, Inc.
Washington, DC
Mrs. Joyce Altizer, parent
Vienna, West Virginia
Marie Acoya, parent
Education for Parents of Indian Children with Special Needs
Bernalillo, New Mexico
Mrs. Kathy Mitten, parent
Specialized Training of Military Parents, (STOMP)
Columbus, GA
Panel III
Effective Parent-School Partnerships
Anne T. Henderson
National Committee For Citizens in Education
Columbia, MD
Virginia Richardson, parent
Pacer Center
Minneapolis, MN
Elizabeth Milizia, parent
Vermont Parent Professional Partnership Work Group
South Burlington, VT
Mrs. Mary Sherman, parent and teacher
Swanton School
Swanton, VT
Panel IV
A Student Perspective
Dori Spittel, Senior
Centennial High School
Ellicott City, MD
Anna Scott, Freshman
Centennial High School
Ellicott City, MD
Stephanie Adams, Freshman
Bowie State College
Bowie, MD
Chris Urkuhart, Freshman
University of Maryland
Baltimore County
David Shawhan, Employee
Pharmacia E and I Diagnostic
Ellicott City, MD
Panel V
Resolving Differences: Due Process In Action
Deborah Mattison, Attorney
Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service
Lansing, Michigan
Kristen Reasoner Apgar, Attorney
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
State of Massachusetts
Dan Brewer, parent
Bluefield, West Virginia
Mary Tatro, parent
Irving, Texas
June 7, 1989
Panel I
Education Reform & Students with Disabilities: An Overview
Dr. Arthur E. Wise
Director
Center for the Study of the Teaching Profession
The RAND Corporation
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Tom Skrtic
Associate Professor of Special Education
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS
Dr. Fred Bedell
Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services
White Plains Public Schools
White Plains, NY
Panel II
Education Reform and Students with Disabilities: Implementation
and Parent Perspectives
Mary Dean Barringer
Teacher, Educator
Office of the Dean
College of Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Ingrid Draper
Executive Director of Special Education
Detroit Public Schools
Detroit, MI
Doris Braxton, Parent
Detroit Public Schools
Detroit, MI
Panel III
Federal Leadership
Judy A. Schrag, Ed.D.
Director, Special Education Programs
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
U. S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
Panel IV
Beyond Special Education
Alan Gartner, Ph.D.
Professor and Director of Research
Graduate School
City University of New York
New York, NY
Dorothy Lipsky, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Graduate School
City University of New York
New York, NY
Arthur J. Chambers
Principal
Harry L. Johnson Elementary School
Johnson City, NY
Panel V
Regular Education and Special Education Working Together
Margaret Wang, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education
Philadelphia, PA
Verneta Harvey, Ed.D.
Principal
Gen. John F. Reynolds School
Philadelphia, PA
Ms. Sabrina Chambers, Parent
Philadelphia Public Schools
Philadelphia, PA
Sharon Freagon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL
Gail A. Harris, Ph.D.
Practitioner, Speech and Language Pathology
Tucson, AZ
Panel VI
Transition to the World of Work
Mrs. Cory Moore
Parent Information and Education Coordinator
Montgomery County Association for Retarded Citizens
Community Organizer
Maryland Coalition for Integrated Education
Bethesda, MD
Susan Hasazi, Ed.D.
Professor
Department of Special Education, Social Work, and Social Services
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
Mr. George Salembier
Lecturer
Department of Special Education, Social Work, and Social Services
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
Ms. Debbie Patterson, M.Ed.
Transition Consultant
State Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Waterbury, VT
June 8, 1989
Panel I
The Role of Special Schools
Mr. Richard Lavoie
Director of Eagle Hill School Outreach
Eagle Hill School
Greenwich, CT
Ms. Roberta Thomas
Executive Director
American Society for Deaf Children
Silver Spring, MD
Mr. Jesse Thomas
Eighth Grade Student
Earlwood Junior High
Montgomery County, MD
Mr. Fred Schroeder
Executive Director
New Mexico Commission for the Blind
Santa Fe, NM
Panel II
Transition to Adult Life
Mr. Bernie Thomas
Director of Upward Bound Program
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA
Glenn Gabbard
Division Chairperson for Basic Education
Massachusetts Bay Community College
Wellesley Hills, MA
Michael Snyder
Student
Massachusetts Bay Community College
Wellesley Hills, MA
Panel III
A State Perspective
Frank E. New
Ohio State Director of Special Education
Dr. Franklin B. Walter
Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction
Columbus, OH
Panel IV
Employers and Schools Working Together
Mr. Mark Donovan
Manager
Community Employment and Training Program
Marriott Corporation
Kalamazoo, MI
Mr. Bill McMullen
General Chairman
Business Advisory Council
Computer Programming for the Physically Challenged
El Centro Junior College
Dallas, TX
Mr. Clint McDonald
Computer Programmer
Texas Utilities Services
Dallas, TX
Panel V
From the Educational System to the Adult Services System
W. Grant Revell, Jr., M.S., M.Ed.
Research Associate
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
Mary Beth Gahan
Educational Coordinator
Access Living Center
Chicago, IL
Mr. Joil A. Southwell
State of Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division
Salem, OR
APPENDIX
B Biographical Information
SANDRA SWIFT PARRINO
Sandra Swift Parrino, of Briarcliff Manor, New York,
was appointed Chairperson of the National Council on Disability
in 1983 by President Reagan. She has been actively involved in issues
concerning people with disabilities for many years. Her 23-year-old
son, Paul, has been severely disabled for most of his life. Her
12-year-old son, Alex, has a learning disability. Mrs. Parrino is
best known as a spokesperson for parents of children with disabilities
and a national leader in advocating for the rights of Americans
with disabilities.
Mrs. Parrino serves on numerous boards and councils.
She has been director of the Office of the Disabled in Ossining
and Briarcliff Manor, New York: she has served on the board of Westchester
County Homes for the Retarded: and she is a member of the New York
State Assembly Task Force on the Disabled, which reviews pending
legislation in the State of New York. Through her efforts, many
local advances have been made to improve accessibility for persons
with disabilities, such as setting up transportation services and
installing voting machines for persons with disabilities, fund-raising
to provide interpreter services for persons who are deaf, and supervision
of her local school district's compliance with Federal regulations.
Mrs. Parrino was instrumental in the inception of the Council's
comprehensive equal opportunity proposal, "The Americans with Disabilities
Act," which has been supported by President Bush and is currently
being considered by the U.S. Congress.
Mrs. Parrino is also a member of the board of Parent
Chain, and has served as an American Representative to the United
Nations and UNICEF for the International Year of Disabled Persons.
She is currently the North American vice president of Rehabilitation
International, a worldwide service, information, and advisory organization.
She has also been asked by the Department of Health and Human Services
to co-chair an ad hoc committee on the prevention of disabilities.
ALVIS KENT WALDREP, JR.
Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr. of Plano, Texas, is the president
and chief executive officer of the Kent Waldrep National Paralvsis
Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to finding a treatment
and cure for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. He is responsible
for all phases of daily operations including fund-raising, budgeting,
and public awareness, through its national office in Dallas. From
September 1982 to June 1985, Mr. Waldrep was president of the American
Paralysis Association.
From June 1979 to December 1981, Mr. Waldrep founded
and served as chief executive officer of the Kent Waldrep International
Spinal Cord Research Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization
that became the American paralysis Association.
He was responsible for planning and implementing all
programs designed to meet the objectives and goals of the foundation.
Mr. Waldrep served as assistant sports information
director for Texas Christian University from April 1977 to June
1979. There, he assisted the sports information director with all
sports promotion programs, including media communication, brochure
preparation, and compilation of statistics and advertising sales.
This followed three years of intensive physical therapy for a cervical
spinal cord injury from a football injury in 1974, which resulted
in quadriplegia with paralysis from the neck down.
He is a member of several community and professional
groups, including the board of the Dallas Rehabilitation Institute
and the National Society for Fund-raising Executives. He has been
the recipient of many awards for his achievements in the area of
disability. Mr. Waldrep was selected by the United States Jaycees
as one of the ten outstanding young men in America for 1985. Mr.
Waldrep was recently named chairman of the Texas Governor's Committee
on Disabled Persons.
JOHN A. GANNON
John A. (Jack) Gannon of Washington, D.C., is the
founder of John A. Gannon and Associates located in Columbus, Ohio:
Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado: and Washington, D.C. In September
1988 he was elected President Emeritus of the International Association
of Fire Fighters (IAFF). He had served as president of the 170,000
member organization since 1980. As IAFF president, he successfully
led the organization through an intense financial crisis. During
his administration, he gave guidance and direction to a series of
programs designed to develop greater safety and health protection
for fire fighters working in their hazardous profession. Under his
leadership the IAFF greatly expanded its role in matters of occupational
safety and health by sponsoring research on safer protective garments
and equipment and spurring the national movement for improved hospital
care for burn victims.
A working fire fighter in his native city of Cleveland,
Ohio, for more than 30 years, he was an active leader of the IAFF's
Local 93. Starting as a committeeman, he was subsequently elected
to higher offices and was the local's president for 10 years before
being elected to national office.
Mr. Gannon was elected vice president of the American
Federation of Labor and Congress on Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO),
to which the union is affiliated. In addition, he is vice president
of the Public Employee Department of AFL-CIO. On the AFL-CIO Executive
Council, he is a member of several specialized committees. He serves
on the board of the National Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations,
and in 1982 served as its chairman.
He is a member of the board of the Muscular Dystrophy
Association. He also has fostered the development of the IAFF Burn
Foundation to raise money for research on the care of burn victims.
In his hometown, Cleveland, the Metropolitan General Hospital in
1987 dedicated a John A. Gannon Burn and Trauma Center in recognition
of his support for the hospital and his personal campaign to induce
the hospital to establish a specialized burn department.
Mr. Gannon attended Miami University in Ohio and Glasgow
University in Scotland; and he also studied at Baldwin-Wallace College
and Cleveland State University.
THERESA LENNON GARDNER
Theresa Lennon Gardner of Washington, D.C., was nominated
by President Reagan to the National Council on Disability after
more than two decades of professional service as an educator and
volunteer working with disabled youngsters.
Mrs. Gardner began her efforts with disabled children
in the early 1960s, when she worked at the D.C. Society for Crippled
Children. At that time, Mrs. Gardner was successfully completing
her degree work at the Washington Montessori Institute. Mrs. Gardner's
commitment to quality education for our younger student population
was evident in 1966, when she founded the Georgetown Montessori
School in Washington. For twelve years Mrs. Gardner administered
the sixty-student Montessori pre-school, which educated children
of diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the Nation's capitol. She
also founded and funded an inner-city Montessori facility near the
capitol, which later became a model for Washington Head-Start program.
As a mother of two girls, Mrs. Gardner has been active
in a variety of cultural and social enrichment programs for Washington
area youngsters. As a member of the Women's Heart Board of Washington,
D.C., Mrs. Gardner chaired the Children's Heart Party. She also
has taught therapeutic riding to multi-disabled youngsters from
numerous Washington area residential facilities.
Besides her civic responsibilities, Mrs. Gardner attended
Trinity College in Washington and received a degree in education
in the spring of 1988. Mrs. Gardner is also a frequent visitor to
educational and disabled-person facilities throughout the United
States, Europe, and Africa. [n 1982 Mrs. Gardner served as the official
U.S. hostess to thousands of Kenyan school children who visited
the U.S. exhibit on telecommunications while her husband was serving
as President Reagan's am bassador to a United Nations' Conference
in Nairobi.
MARGARET CHASE HAGER
Margaret Chase Hager resides in Richmond, Virginia.
She and her husband have two boys. Her husband contracted poliomyelitis
from the oral Sabin polio vaccine in August 1973. Initially, she
helped her husband with his rehabilitation. Subsequently, she became
interested in and involved in various aspects of the disability
field.
Since 1985, Mrs. Hager has been a member of the City
of Richmond, Mayor's Commission for the Disabled, of which she is
the current chairperson. She is a member of the Executive Committee
of Richmond's Office of Human Services Advocacy. In addition, she
has served as the City's Festival Coordinator and Consultant for
"ABLEFEST," a disability awareness festival showcasing significant
abilities in sports, recreation, cultural arts, and entertainment.
She holds executive positions in numerous local and
national organizations focused on promoting the quality of life
for persons with disabilities: "Very Special Arts. Virginia" (an
affiliate of "Very Special Arts" of the Kennedy Center, Washington,
D.C.) and the Employment Committee of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Board for the Rights of the Disabled. She is a member of the Executive
Committee of the Japan-Virginia Society and the Virginia Committee
of the Jefferson Poplar Forest Foundation. Along with her husband,
she is politically active.
Mrs. Hager received her B.A. degree from Wheaton College,
Norton, MA in 1963. Her avocation is accessible residential design
for individuals with disabilities. Her article on this subject was
published in the September 1987 issue of Builder Architect magazine.
She is a consultant and speaker in architectural accessibility and
disability awareness.
MARIAN NORTH KOONCE
Marian North Koonce, of Santa Barbara, California,
is the mother of six children. Two are physically handicapped from
birth and a third contracted multiple sclerosis as a young adult.
Along with the great amount of time and attention she gives to her
family, she has held many administrative and leadership positions
in business, most recently as chairman of the board of a Santa Barbara
independent bank.
She is involved in numerous local and national organizations.
She was chairman of the Santa Barbara County Reagan-Bush 1984 Committee.
She served as a delegate to the Republican National Conventions
of 1976, 1980, and 1984.
From 1980 to 1981 Mrs. Koonce was vice president of
recording for the Blind Auxiliary. She serves on the boards of the
Santa Barbara Symphony Association, the Las Positas Park, and the
University of California, Santa Barbara. She is also chairman of
the Channel Islands Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
LESLIE LENKOWSKY, PH.D.
Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky is the president of the Institute
for Educational Affairs, a nonprofit organization in Washington,
D.C., devoted to encouraging innovative think ing in higher education,
philanthropy, and public affairs. He is also an adjunct professor
of public policy at Georgetown University and an adjunct scholar
for public policy research for the American Enterprise Institute,
where he specializes in social policy issues. He is also a director
of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a member of the board
of advisors to the president of the Naval War College.
From 1976 to 1983, Dr. Lenkowsky was the director
of research at the Smith Richardson Foundation in New York. He has
served as a consultant to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and was
an assistant to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare. He has also been deputy director of the United States
Information Agency and a member of the National Voluntary Service
Advisory Board.
Dr. Lenkowsky completed his undergraduate education
at Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His doctoral
degree was awarded from Harvard University. Dr. Lenkowsky is the
author of many books and articles. He lectures frequently on philanthropy,
social policy, and other issues.
NANETTE FABRAY MacDOUGALL
Nanette Fabray MacDougall, a resident of Pacific Palisades,
California, is a renowned actress who developed a progressive hearing
disability. Following four operations, the condition that had threatened
her with total deafness was cured. She has continued to be active
in organizations benefiting hearing impaired and other disabled
persons.
Mrs. MacDougall was regional chairperson of the National
Easter Seal Society and the National Mental Health Association.
She is past chairperson of the National Advisory Committee for Education
of the Deaf. She currently serves on the board of the National Captioning
Institute and the Better Hearing Institute in Washington, D.C.,
as well as the House Ear Institute and the Museum of Science and
Industry.
Among the many awards she has received are the President's
Distinguished Service Award (1971), the Eleanor Roosevelt Humanitarian
Award (1964), and the Screen Actors Guild's Humanitarian Award (1986)
for outstanding service. Mrs. MacDougall and Helen Keller are the
only two women ever to have received the annual Public Service Award
of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. She
has three honorary doctoral degrees, from Gallaudet College, Western
Maryland College, and MacMurray College. She was one of the original
members of the National Council on Disability, and was reappointed
by President Reagan.
ROBERT S.MULLER
Robert Muller of Grandville, Michigan, joined Steelcase
Inc. in 1966 and is currently in administration. He is an adjunct
assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Aquinas College
and in the Department of Education at Calvin College in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. He serves on the board of trustees for Hope Rehabilitation
Network in Grand Rapids, which serves 1,400 adults with disabilities.
In April of 1981 he received an honorary degree in educational psychology
from the Free University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Mr. Muller
holds a B.S. degree in business administration from Aquinas College
and in 1978 was voted Outstanding Alumnus of the Year. Mr. Muller
has lectured at several colleges and universities, both nationally
and internationally. He is a board member of a number of national,
State, and local organizations. In May 1987 he and his wife, Carol,
hosted a first-time event at the White House with the Vice President.
The "Celebration of Disabled Americans at Work" was cosponsored
by several major corporations throughout the United States. He presently
serves as chairman of the National Roundtable on Corporate Development
for Americans with Disabilities. In May 1985 Mr. Muller was awarded
the Liberty Bell Award by the Grand Rapids Bar Association for his
work toward "Liberty and Justice for All."
GEORGE H. OBERLE, PH.D.
Dr. George H. Oberle of Stillwater, Oklahoma, has
been a professor and director of the School of Health, Physical
Education and Leisure, Oklahoma State University, since 1974. He
also serves as a consultant to many agencies and organizations in
the area of administration and adaptive physical education In 1988
he worked with the Kennedy Foundation to organize and direct a new
program thrust of unified sports in special olympics. He has more
than 35 years of experience in the field of health, physical education,
and recreation, beginning his career as a high school teacher and
coach.
Dr. Oberle is active in many local and national organizations,
including chairman, College and University Administrator's Council
(1980-82); president of the Association for Research, Administration,
professional Councils and Societies (1984-87): board member of the
American Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance (1985-89).
Among the many awards he has received are the Centennial
Award (1985) from the American Association of Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance; Meritorious Service Awards from the States
of Indiana and Oklahoma; Selected to Men of Achievement (1975) and
recognized in Who's Who of the Southwest (1977).
He received his doctoral degree from Indiana University
in administration and adapted physical education. Dr. Oberle is
the author of many books and articles. He lectures extensively in
the areas of wellness promotion, adapted physical activity, sports,
and recreational activities for persons with disabilities.
BRENDA PREMO
Brenda Premo is a native of Southern California and
currently resides in Stanton, California. Ms. Premo has a small
fraction of the vision many people take for granted. She is legally
blind, one of the characteristics of albino persons, along with
pale skin and snow white hair.
Ms. Premo received her B.A. degree in psychology from
California State University at Long Beach. While attending college,
she became acquainted with other disabled students and became part
of an activist group that helped to found the Disabled Students
Services at the University. After college, while working for the
Orange County Department of Education, Ms. Premo became part of
a task force that surveyed disabled persons in Orange County and
called for an independent living center to provide information and
services to people of all disabilities. The Dayle McIntosh Center
was launched in November 1977 with Ms. Premo, then age 25, as its
first director.
She was asked to go to Washington, D.C., on a peer
review team evaluating other independent living centers, was active
on the State Independent Living Advisory Committee, served as vice
president of the California Association of the Physically Handicapped,
and served two years as chairperson of the California Coalition
of Independent Living Centers. In 1981 she chaired the Orange County
Task Force on the International Year of Disabled Persons. Ms. Premo
was recently elected president of the California Foundation of Independent
Living Centers.
Ms. Premo has been the recipient of many awards for
her outstanding service to the disabled community. She received
the Handicapped Californian Award from the California Association
of the Physically Handicapped (1978); the regional Service to Mankind
Award from Sertoma International (1987); and the California Professional
Handicapped Woman of the Year Award from the Pilot Club (1987).
JONI EARECKSON TADA
Joni Eareckson Tada is a resident of Woodland Hills,
California. Mrs. Tada was paralyzed from the shoulders down by a
diving accident in 1967, at the age of 17. She developed a latent
artistic talent by painting with her mouth during two years of rehabilitation.
Her experiences were catalogued in an autobiography that has been
translated into 35 languages.
As founder and president of the Christian Fund for
the Disabled, Mrs. Tada's goal is to help churches reach out and
meet the spiritual and practical needs of persons with disabilities.
This is accomplished through books, films, record albums, videos,
tapes, printed materials, seminars, and workshops. Also a five minute
radio program, Joni and Friends, is aired every weekday over 400
religious stations in the United States.
Among the many awards she has received are the Golden
Plate (1979) from the American Academy of Achievement; Penwoman
of the Year (1980) from the National League of American Penwoman;
Layperson of the Year (1985) from the Courage Rehabilitation Center;
and the Excellence and Accomplishment Award (1985) from the Patricia
Neal Rehabilitation Center.
PHYLLIS ZLOTNICK
Phyllis Zlotnick of West Hartford, Connecticut, has
been employed by the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Handicapped
and Developmentally Disabled Persons in Hartford, since 1983. Born
with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ms. Zlotnick is widely recognized
as a successful advocate for the rights inherent with full citizenship
for all disabled people. As a highly respected lobbyist in Connecticut,
she is responsible for changes in the State Building Code; removal
of architectural barriers; access to public transportation, housing,
education, voting, employment, and parking; and handicapped driver
training programs. She has lectured, published articles, received
numerous awards, and served on many boards and advisory councils.
Ms. Zlotnick formerly was the Director of External
Affairs for the Easter Seal Society of Connecticut; later she served
as an aide to the former Speaker of the House in the State and General
Assembly. She currently is a legislative consultant to the Protection
and Advocacy Office in Connecticut and the chairperson of the State
Personal Care Assistance Advisory Council.
REFERENCES
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report
on secondary education in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Carriker, W. (1989, April 3). A free appropriate
education: But who will provide it. Testimony presented to the
U. S. Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, U. S. Congress, Washington,
DC.
Commission on Education of the Deaf. (1988). Toward
equality: Education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
Council of Great City Schools. (1986). Special
education: Views from America's cities. Washington, DC: Author.
Danielson, L. C., & Bellamy, G. T. (1989). State
variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated
environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448-455.
David, J. L. & Greene, D. (1983). Organizational barriers
to full implementation of P.L. 94-142. In J. G. Chambers & W. T.
Hartman (Eds.), Special education policies: Their history, implementation,
and finance (pp. 115- 135). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
(P.L. 94-142). 20 U S.C. Enacted November 29, 1975.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act Amendments
of 1986 (P.L. 99-457).20 U.S.C. 1485. Enacted October 8, 1986.
Evans, A. (1989). Education funding issues for
FY90 (CRS Issue brief No. IB89039). Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, U. S. Department
of Justice (1987). Crime in the United States (Table 33:
Total Arrest Distribution by Age). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Forness, S. (1989, April 3). Statement of the National
Mental Health and Special Education Coalition regarding the reauthorization
of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Testimony presented
to the Subcommittee on the Handicapped, U. S. Congress, Washington,
DC.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989, June). Equity
and excellence for all students. Written testimony presented
to the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Harris, L., & Associates. (1986). International
Center for the Disabled Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled
Americans into the Mainstream. New York: Author.
Harris, L., & Associates. (1987) International
Center for the Disabled Survey II: Employing Disabled Americans.
New York: Author.
Harris, L., & Associates. (1989). International
Center for the Disabled Survey III: A Report Card on Special Education.
New York: Author.
Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & Roe, C. A. (1985).
Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth
exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children,
51, 455-469.
Hasazi, S., Johnson, R. E., Hasazi, J., Gordon, L.
R., & Hull, M. (in press). Employment of youth with and without
handicaps following school: Outcomes and correlates. Journal
of Special Education.
Henderson, A. (1988). The evidence continues to
grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. An annotated
bibliography. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens
in Education.
Irwin, P. (1989). U. S. Department of Education:
Major program trends, 1980-1990 (CRS Report No. 89-144EPW).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Jones C. (1986). High school and beyond: 1980 sophomore
cohort second followup. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1988).
Arguable assumptions underlying the regular education initiative.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 6-11.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). The current situation.
In D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond special education:
quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read:
Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research quarterly, 22,
475-490.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, Inc. (1985). Information on due process hearings,
appeals, and litigation in states. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983).
A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Toward
independence. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1988). On
the threshold of independence. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
National Information Center for Children and Youth
with Handicaps (1987). Minority issues in special education:
A portrait of the future. Washington, DC: Author.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) (1986). Young people with handicaps: The road to adulthood.
Paris, France: Author.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools:
A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.
Roncker v. Walker, 700 F. 2nd, 1058. cert.
denied, 104 S. Ct. 196 (6th Cir. 1983).
Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time, and direct
instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on
teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA:
McCuteham.
Sacken, D. M. (1988). Reflections on an adversarial
process. The confessions of a special education hearing officer.
Monographs of Administrators of Special Education, Inc..
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Schenet, M. A., & Irwin, P. (1988, October). Education:
The challenges. CRS Review (Vol. 9(9)). Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Simon, R. (1989, March 7). Testimony to the Subcommittee
on Select Education regarding the reauthorization of the Education
of the Handicapped Act Discretionary Programs. Testimony presented
to the U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education,
U. S. Congress, Washington, DC.
Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. (1981). Advances in
research on teaching. Exceptional Children Quarterly, 2(1),
1-9.
Sugawara, S. (1989, June 18). Companies and classrooms:
Fearing for the future, business is taking a more active role in
education. The Washington Post. Washington, DC.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
(1989). Labor force status and other characteristics of persons
with a work disability: 1981 to 1988. Current Population Reports,
Special Studies (Series P-23, No. 160). Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
U. S. Department of Education (1989). Eleventh
annual report to the Congress on the implementation of the Handicapped
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U. S. Department of Education. (1988). Tenth annual
report to the Congress on the implementation of the Handicapped
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Wagner, M. (1989). The transition experience of
youths with disabilities; A report from the national longitudinal
transition study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. & Shaver, D. M. (1989). Educational
programs and achievements of secondary special education students:
Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International.
Walker, L. J. (1987). Procedural rights in the wrong
system. In A. Gartner & T. Joe (Eds.), Images of the disabled/disabling
images. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1987). Classification of handicapped
students. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Vol. 1.
Learner characteristics and adaptive education. New York: Pergamon
Press.
|