Organizations that Opposed H.R. 1350

These are just a handful of the many organizations that oppose H.R. 1350 because it would completely water down the IDEA, and cause children with disabilities to receive vastly inferior educations, rather than the decent education that all children deserve. Run a search on your favorite search engine to find more.

Congressman George Miller, Ranking Member, House Education and Workforce Committee on H.R. 1350 and the harm it will cause: edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/rel43003.html

After Rep. Miller, these are in rough alphabetical order:

American Speech Hearing Language Association (the national SLP/speech therapist/audiologist organization)

Association of University Centers on Disabilities

Autism Society of America Statement on IDEA Reauthorization

Bazelon Center

CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficity/Hyperactivity Disorder) http://www.chadd.org/pdfs/badidea.pdf

Children's Defense Fund

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (opposing H.R. 1350 because of the grave harm it will cause)
www.c-c-d.org/hr1350statement.htm

Council for Exceptional Children: House Bill Destroys Protections for Students with Disabilities

Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Scroll down on the site to read IDEA Rapid Response Network alerts
You can subscribe by emailing preserveidea@dredf.org

National Association of Social Workers

National Association of School Psychologists

National Center for Learning Disabilities

National Downs Syndrome Society (NDSS.COM) issued several statements opposing H.R. 1350.

TASH[/link

Even the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, which supported H.R. 1350 expressed significant concerns in a letter to the House of Representatives:

April 23, 2003

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the National Association of State Directors of Education, Inc., a nonprofit organization representing the directors of special education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense and the outlying territories and the Freely Associated States (FAS), I am writing to share our comments on H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 (IDEA). This is a critical piece of legislation that will affect the educational outcomes of millions of students with disabilities for years to come. We therefore urge that you give careful consideration to the following issues raised by our members, who have responsibility for implementing and monitoring special education services provided to students with disabilities in your state.

1. While H.R. 1350 authorizes a commitment to full funding of the IDEA, we remain concerned that these funding levels will never be appropriated. We therefore urge you support mandatory full funding for the IDEA.

2. Funding must be restored for the Freely Associated States (FAS) of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. Citizens of these former American territories are fighting alongside our armed forces in Iraq. These islands provide a strategic harbor for American forces in the far Pacific. It is appropriate to provide special education services to these children. We urge that H.R. 1350 include in the definition of outlying area under Part A, Section 602 (19) and (28) the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands and that it be made clear throughout the bill that all references to the outlying areas include the FAS.

3. We urge you to increase the state administrative set-aside for the nine smallest states from $500,000 to $750,000. In H.R. 1350 as it was introduced, this set-aside was increased just slightly to $550,000. However, even this insignificant increase was eliminated during Subcommittee markup. Yet these states are obligated to undertake the same administrative responsibilities expected of all states. Further, state departments of education have to ensure alignment and compliance with those aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act that specifically apply to students with disabilities.

4. NASDSE supports the option for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to use up to 15 percent of their funds for pre-referral activities, but the bill needs to include assurances that IDEA will not bear the entire funding burden for a program that does NOT serve students with disabilities. It is imperative that LEAs use their Title I, Reading First and Early Reading First funds collectively with IDEA funds for this purpose.

5. Our members support the need to streamline the discipline provisions of IDEA. Nevertheless, H.R. 1350s elimination of protections and safeguards for students with disabilities have the potential to lead to such absurdities as suspending students with diabetes from school for eating in class (a violation of most school codes). Our members do not support the elimination of functional behavior assessments, because when they are done correctly, they can help students remain in their regular classroom setting with appropriate supports. NASDSE further believes that all teachers should be properly trained and prepared to work with all students, including students whose emotional or physical disabilities may result in what some may view as disruptive behaviors.

6. There is a great deal of confusion over the incorporation of a definition of highly qualified teacher and exactly what that means for special education personnel. At a minimum, current special education teachers should have the same opportunity that teachers have under No Child Left Behind  that is, until the 2005-06 school year, to meet the highly qualified standards in their state. Additionally, in light of the current personnel crisis in special education, thought should be given to grandfathering in special education personnel as meeting the highly qualified personnel standard for core content areas, if they have met rigorous state standards for certification.

7. Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VII) calls for a statement of transition service needs beginning at age 14 and then beginning at age16, a statement of needed transition services. We believe that there is no need to continue to separate out these as two distinct activities beginning at two different points in the students life. Beginning at age 14, the IEP should include needed transition services that should be updated as appropriate.

8. Our members support the option of a three-year Individualized Education Plan (IEP). However, this must be at the parents option. LEAs must be careful not to impose a three-year IEP for a student when it is determined that that would not be in the best interest of the student. Language throughout the bill that references annual changes to a students IEP should be modified to reflect what would happen in the instance of a three-year IEP. Greater clarity in the language would help understand the intent. For example, make it clear that an annual review does not mean that the IEP must be re-written.

9. Under Section 615, our members support the language that has eliminated the two-tier due process hearing system and they applaud the one-year statute of limitations on complaints. However, under Section 615(b), bill language should more carefully distinguish between those complaints to be resolved through the due process hearing and those that are appropriate for the formal complaint resolution process. Further, it should be made clear that the one-year statute of limitations applies to due process hearing disagreements in addition to the formal complaint process.

10. Our members support voluntary binding arbitration, but recommend that states be allowed to provide it as an option, not as a requirement. While voluntary binding arbitration may be helpful in many states, those states with extremely low numbers of due process hearing requests do not need another process to resolve issues.

11. Our members do not support Section 617(e) as it is currently written. While we support the concept of a pilot program that would allow up to 10 states to be granted waivers of paperwork requirements, the language in 617(e) is too vague and it could lead to the elimination of paperwork of significant importance to parents and/or school and related services personnel. Greater clarity is needed to spell out exactly what paperwork could be waived.

12. With respect to Part D, our members believe that funding under the State Improvement Grants should be available to all states as a formula grant, rather than a competitive grant, because all states have the same responsibilities to carry out personnel preparation.

13. Our members do not support the language that removes OSEPs research function to the new Institute on Education Sciences because the inherent value of connecting research to its practical application in the field could be seriously jeopardized. Our members strongly believe that OSEP should retain its research activities.

We thank you for your support of families and children with disabilities and your commitment to education. Please feel free to contact me or NASDSEs deputy executive director, Nancy Reder, at (703) 519-3800 should you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Bill East, Ed.D.

Executive Director

cc: Dr. Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary, OSERS, U.S. Department of Education

David Dunn, Domestic Policy Council, White House