Disabilities advocates criticize ‘flawed’ bill

Last in a series on inclusion in special education and how it affects students, parents, educators and lawmakers.

By: Cynthia Koons
   Incorporating special education students into the general education curriculum is not done hastily.
   Beyond being monitored by parents, disabilities advocates and school districts, it is a practice that is governed by federal law.
   That law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, was enacted 28 years ago with the intention of improving special education by requiring public schools to educate students with a variety of disabilities in the "least restrictive environments" possible.
   The law promised in 1975 that 40 percent of the funding for IDEA would come from the federal government, but the federal government has yet to contribute more than 16 percent to the districts, said Joe Jakubowski, director of special services in Upper Freehold Regional School District.
   "The controversy comes in that, if we believe as a society that a child needs these services, should the cost fall on the local taxpayers?" he asked.
   In subsequent reauthorizations of the law, in 1997 and the most recent one currently under consideration, advocates have pushed for the full 40 percent federal funding.
   Last week, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1350, the latest version of IDEA, which promises 40 percent federal funding within the next seven years. Yet this promise comes at the mercy of an annual appropriations process that may not carry this policy into action, critics of the resolution say.
   In fact, many parents, advocates and educators are critical of the latest version of IDEA, which imposes stricter adherence to school codes of conduct. This would allow teachers and administrators to discipline special education students who act up even when their behavior is a result of their disability, said Elizabeth Shea, a lawyer from New Jersey’s ARC, a disabilities advocacy group.
   Discipline issues, Mr. Jakubowski said in an interview before the bill’s passage, are highly controversial in special education.
   "Discipline in terms of record-keeping, the potential for different consequences for different children makes it very controversial," he said.
   Currently, districts cannot suspend disabled children for more than 10 days. A child with a disability cannot be disciplined for manifesting his or her disability, Mr. Jakubowski said, nor can a disabled child be expelled.
   Yet Ms. Shea said the latest version of the law would change these regulations.
   "If this bill passes through the Senate and gets signed, it will mean that if a child acts out in violation of the school’s code of conduct they can be disciplined," she said. "Even if it’s something related to a child’s disability."
   Ms. Shea’s organization serves 13,000 families in New Jersey. In Upper Freehold, ARC works with the parents group RISE, Recognizing Issues in Special Education.
   To make themselves heard before the House resolution was voted on April 30, disabilities advocates staged a national meet, write and call-in day.
   On April 29, Ms. Shea said, ARC statistics showed that 1,000 letters were sent and 15,000 phone calls were placed to New Jersey representatives as part of the campaign against the resolution.
   Members called in "for a variety of reasons," she said. "The bill was very, very flawed. Just about every disability organization that I know of was opposed."
   The top three reasons that advocates were campaigning against the bill were the discipline provisions, the leeway it’s allowing in the Individualized Education Plan development and the funding requirements, according to Ms. Shea.
   The current law requires that Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) are updated annually in order to monitor and guide a child’s special education. The resolution that passed in the House last week was touted for reducing paperwork and criticized for eliminating the annual review in favor of an optional three-year IEP process.
   The latest version of IDEA also eliminates short-term objectives from IEPs, which are used in tracking students’ development.
   "(Short-term objectives) are the things that are necessary to make sure a student is making progress during the course of the year," Ms. Shea said.
   Kelly Borden-Joye, the chairwoman of RISE and a parent of a special education student in the Upper Freehold Regional School District, said she and at least three other members of her organization contacted their representative.
   "Personally I called (Rep.) Chris Smith’s office and my husband faxed a letter," she said. "You basically talk to one of their aides and you explain why you’re calling and what your concern was. They’ll send you a letter back that says ‘thank you for your concern.’"
   Rep. Smith was one of the 251 members of the House who voted in favor of the resolution. The vote was opposed by 171 members.
   Mr. Smith’s aide, Nick Manetto, said his office received some correspondence from parents opposed to the bill. He said he was not able to tabulate the specific number of calls against the bill.
   He said Mr. Smith has been working on an autism-specific bill and pushed for an autism amendment to the resolution that just passed.
   The Senate is drafting its version of the special education bill, to be introduced later this month.
   Ms. Borden-Joye said she believes her organization will make a concerted effort to communicate with senators when their vote on the bill is scheduled.
   To Ms. Shea, any support for the bill signifies regression in special education policy.
   "If this goes through we’re taking tremendous, gigantic steps backwards from all the progress we’ve made in the disabilities field in the last 25 years," she said.