A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

March 4, 1993

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

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the administration, as this document has not been subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

March 4, 1993

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the members and staff of the National Council on Disability, we are pleased to provide you with a special report, Serving the Nation's Students With Disabilities: Progress and Prospects.

This report is in accordance with the statutory mandate of the National Council, which authorizes special reports to the President and the Congress. It follows the progress of the recommendations contained in the National Council's 1989 report, The Education of Students With Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?

Although significant gains have been made in recent years in educating students who have disabilities, there is still much to be accomplished, particularly in the area of including these students within their own neighborhood schools. The Council views the education of students with disabilities in regular schools as a critical priority. Success in education means 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.

The National Council on Disability looks forward to your leadership on behalf of students with disabilities. We are eager to work with you as we seek quality educational services for all students with disabilities.

Sincerely,

John A. Gannon
Acting Chairperson
February 1993-present

Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
October 1983-January 1993

(This same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, MEMBERS AND STAFF

STUDY STAFF

SPECIAL ADVISORS TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

ADVISORS

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Overview of Public Education for Individuals with Disabilities

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: CURRENT STATUS

SCHOOL REFORM IN THE 1990's

Impact of School Reform on Students with Disabilities
An Assessment and Summary of School Reform Initiatives
Is School Reform Cyclical or Revolutionary?
National, State, and Local School Reform Perspectives

A LOOK AT THE PRESENT: STUDENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND OUTCOMES

A LOOK AHEAD: OUTCOMES AND EXPECTATIONS

MEASURES AND INDICATORS

FINAL REMARKS

NOTES

NATIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES

TABLES

1. Percent of Individualized Education Program Elements Cited in Noncompliance
2. Analysis of the 1991 Regional Inspector General's Audit of Child Count Errors
3. Most Commonly Cited Least Restrictive Environment Areas of Noncompliance
4. OSEP's Education Agency Monitoring Reports Areas of Procedural Safeguards Cited as in
Noncompliance
5. State Education Reform Initiatives
6. Outcome Variables, Measures, and Research
7. States Ranked by Student Graduation Rates
8. National Consumer Survey (1990)

FIGURES

1A. States Ranked by Percentage of 1988 Students with Individualized Education Programs
1B. Agencies Ranked by Percent of Total U.S. Expenditures for Special Education
2. Unexplained Shifts in Numbers of Students by State, 1986-89.
3. Unexplained Placement Shifts by State, 1986-89
4. National Student Placements--All Disabilities, 1985-89
5. National Student Placements--All Disabilities by Age Group, 1988-89
6A. 1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey Data Elementary/Secondary Students (Afro-American::Caucasian Comparison)
6B. 1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey Data Elementary/Secondary Students (Hispanic::Caucasian Comparison)
7. Enrollment Comparisons by Race, 1988 (Special::General Education)
8. Basis of Exit--All Disabilities, 1986-89
9. Basis of Exit, All Conditions, 1986-89 (Alternative Format)
10. Comparative Test Performance--Scholastic Aptitude Tests
11a. Overall Average Mathematics Proficiency--1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment (States by Ability) 78
11b. Overall Average Mathematics Proficiency--1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment (Regions by Ability)
12. NEAP Young Adult Literacy Study Data--Comparison of Proficiency Scale Scores

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The National Council was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed the National Council into an independent agency. The statutory mandate of the National Council at the time of this study assigned the Council the following duties:

• Establishing general policies for reviewing the operation of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR);
  
  
• Providing advice to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on policies and conduct;
  
  
• Providing ongoing advice to the President, the Congress, the RSA Commissioner, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and the Director of NIDRR on programs authorized in the Rehabilitation Act;
  
  
• Reviewing and evaluating on a continuous basis the effectiveness of all policies, programs, and activities concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments or agencies and all statutes pertaining to federal programs, and assessing the extent to which these provide incentives to community-based services for, promote full integration of, and contribute to the independence and dignity of individuals with disabilities;
  
  
• Making recommendations of ways to improve research; the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings; service; and administration affecting persons with disabilities;
  
  
• Reviewing and approving standards for independent living programs;
  
  
• Submitting an annual report with appropriate recommendations to the Congress and the President regarding the status of research affecting persons with disabilities and the activities of RSA and NIDRR;
  
  
• Reviewing and approving standards for Projects with Industry programs;
  
  
• Providing to the Congress, on a continuous basis, advice, recommendations, and any additional information that the National Council or the Congress considers appropriate;
  
  
• Providing guidance to the President's Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities; and
  
  
• Issuing an annual report to the President and the Congress on the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the National Council's January 30, 1986 report, Toward Independence.

While many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran, or other individual circumstance. The National Council recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing their concerns and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

Members

John A. Gannon, Acting Chairperson, Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.
Kent Waldrep, Jr., Vice Chairperson, Plano, Texas
Linda W. Allison, Dallas, Texas
Ellis B. Bodron, Vicksburg, Mississippi
Larry Brown, Jr., Potomac, Maryland
Mary Ann Mobley Collins, Beverly Hills, California
Anthony H. Flack, Norwalk, Connecticut
John Leopold, Pasadena, Maryland
Robert S. Muller, Grandville, Michigan
George H. Oberle, P.E.D., Stillwater, Oklahoma
Sandra Swift Parrino, Briarcliff Manor, New York
Mary Matthews Raether, McLean, Virginia
Anne Crellin Seggerman, Fairfield, Connecticut
Michael B. Unhjem, Fargo, North Dakota
Helen Wilshire Walsh, Greenwich, Connecticut

Staff

Andrew I. Batavia, J.D., M.S., Executive Director
Billie Jean Hill, Program Specialist
Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist
Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Janice Mack, Administrative Officer
Lorraine Williams, Office Automation Clerk

*Sandra Swift Parrino initiated this study when she was Chairperson of the National Council on Disability. At the time of the study, Ethel Briggs was Executive Director, Harold Snider was Deputy Director, Katherine Seelman was Research Specialist, and Kathy Roy Johnson was Program Specialist at the National Council.

Mary Raether

STUDY STAFF (Towson State University)

Project Director: Martin Gould, Ed.D.
Research Associates: Margaret Kiley, Ed.D., Deborah Gartland, Ph.D., Robert Wall, Ph.D.
Research Administration: Lynn Johnson, M.A.
Administrative Staff: Dorothy Herd, Patti Miller, M.A., Ruth A. Dunn, M.A.

Robert Hochstein
Assistant to the President
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Washington, D.C.

Anthony R. Santoro, Ph.D.
President, Christopher Newport University
Commonwealth of Virginia
Newport News, Virginia

Frederick D. Bedell, Ed.D.
Robert Bruininks, Ph.D.
Susan Fowler, Ph.D.
Michael L. Hardman, Ph.D.
Susan Hasazi, Ph.D.
Nancy McTaggart, J.D.
Ron Sczypkowski, Ph.D.
Martha Thurlow, Ph.D.
Richard van den Pol, Ph.D.
Barbara Wilcox, Ph.D.

Educational reform is part of the fabric of societal change in America. The 1970s were known as the decade of educational "equity" reforms. The 1980s were hailed as the decade of educational "excellence" reforms. The 1990s are rapidly becoming known as the decade of educational "accountability" reforms. The major education reform of the 1990s is known as America 2000: An Education Strategy, which espouses six goals:

• All children will start school ready to learn.
• Nine out of ten students will graduate high school.
• Students will master a range of basic subjects.
• The United States will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
• Adults will be functionally literate and trained to compete in the work force.
• Schools will be drug-free and safe.

As the language of the goals indicates, all children and students are to be included. No segment of the country's educational population is explicitly excluded from America 2000's reform program. America 2000 and any other education reform efforts will benefit by including the following numbers of students with disabilities:

• 250,000 infants and toddlers served by special education in early intervention programs;
• 65,000 children with disabilities who are enrolled in Head Start programs;
• 4.28 million students served by special education programs in regular school buildings;
• 320,000 students served by special education programs outside of regular school buildings;
• 260,000 students served by special education programs who graduate from high school each year; and
• 2 million students with disabilities who are enrolled in adult and postsecondary education.

Federal and state education policymakers should recognize that students with disabilities offer a wealth of human potential and resources. For our nation to be able to compete internationally in the next century, it is essential that these students be included in all efforts to reform and improve our education system.

Prior to the enactment of federal laws providing public education entitlements to all students with disabilities, vast numbers of these students either received an education that did not meet their needs or received no education at all. It was not until 1975, when the U.S. Congress passed P.L. 94-142 (now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA, P.L. 102-119), that conditions began to change substantially. The purpose of P.L. 94-142 was to guarantee that all children and youth with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, relying in large measure on input from parents into decision-making activities.

In 1988, the National Council on Disability held formal hearings on various aspects of the implementation of P.L. 94-142. Based on those hearings, the National Council presented its report to the President and the Congress in 1989. Entitled The Education of Students with Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?, the report provided 31 findings, posed questions for future study, and offered specific recommendations for the improvement of public education for all individuals with disabilities who have special education and related service needs.

Many of the findings of that report revealed that special education is a relatively isolated service system in which student placements varied widely among and within school districts and parents were uninformed about their children's educational rights. As a direct result of its findings, the National Council raised questions concerning the relationship between educational settings and student outcomes, the feasibility of enhanced federal-state partnerships, and the consolidation and improvement of special education and general education systems for all students.

Seventeen years have passed since the enactment of P.L. 94-142. Nationwide, special education enrollments have risen to about 4.6 million. Federal, state, and local spending for special education has increased to about $20 billion annually, and yet many parents of students with disabilities remain dissatisfied with the education their children are receiving. At the same time, America is now in the process of reassessing its educational systems generally and rethinking the way all students are taught. It is, therefore, an appropriate time to reconsider the effect of our educational system on students with disabilities.

The National Council commissioned this study to determine how the federal special education law is working, what outcomes children and youth with disabilities are achieving, and how the system can be improved in the context of current education reform initiatives. This report examines these critical questions:

• Where do students with disabilities fit into current education reforms, such as America 2000 and the National Education Goals Report of 1991: Building a Nation of Learners?
  
  
• Do students with disabilities receive equitable treatment in assessment and research programs?
  
  
• Are traditionally neglected and underrepresented students segregated from nondisabled peers and placed in programs that do not meet their needs?
  
  
• How can special education and general education systems work together across federal, state, and local levels, to ensure that students with disabilities will achieve desired outcomes?

In answering these questions, the National Council's study involved policy analyses, an evaluation of program implementation, and a review of the data bases of the Department of Education (i.e., Office of Special Education Programs, National Center for Educational Statistics, and Office for Civil Rights) and the Census Bureau. The study focused on several policy themes, including the individualized education program, least restrictive environment requirements, procedural safeguards, and multicultural and multidisciplinary issues, and on several educational outcomes, including academic achievement, school and work readiness, quality of life, and minimal instructional time lost. Supporting documentation for the study is available in a supplement to this report.

Policy Themes

Theme 1 - The development of the individualized education program (IEP) and its impact, or the lack thereof, on the quality of education and related services for students

The IDEA statute requires states and local school districts to develop an IEP for every eligible student of special education, at least annually, at a meeting between a qualified representative of the local school district, the teacher, the parents or guardians, and, whenever appropriate, the student. Following the 1982 Supreme Court decision in the case of Board of Education v. Rowley (102 S.Ct. 3034), lower courts and administrative bodies have begun to consider whether an IEP was designed to address a student's educational progress. Courts have held that a school district must consider a student's potential for educational progress and advancement when developing the student's IEP.

A small but growing body of research data and expert opinion has focused on the IEP and its impact on the quality of education for students. In the 26 Final State Compliance and Monitoring Reports issued by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), analyzing 1,618 student IEPs from April 1989 to February 1992, 150 of the 165 local public agencies visited were cited to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state IEP mandates. The following table presents the results of analysis of IEP noncompliance in the 26 Final State Reports:

Based on a study of 21 states, involving 40 local school districts and the IEPs of 2,000 students, the 1991 Regional Inspector General's Audit of Child Count Errors Report stated that slightly more than 9% of students with disabilities either do not have an IEP or have not been properly evaluated. This level of noncompliance constitutes a violation of federal law. Moreover, without student IEPs and evaluations to rely on, it is difficult for policymakers and others to judge whether students are receiving adequate services and programs.

The 1990 Forging a New Era--National Consumer Survey, a nationally representative study involving 13,075 people with developmental disabilities, reported that 15%-25% of respondents (i.e., parents and individuals with disabilities) were dissatisfied with their current educational services. Of ten reasons cited for their dissatisfaction, the chief reason was that educational services were "not suited to their needs." Specific consumer ratings of educational services by setting or program included the following:

Theme 2 - The concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) and its impact, or lack thereof, on education for students

The IDEA statute further requires school districts to develop and implement LRE procedures to ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children and youth with disabilities will be educated with children and youth who are not disabled. In OSEP's monitoring of 26 states for the period April 1989 to February 1992, 143 of 165 local education agencies visited were cited to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state LRE mandates.

The following table presents the results of the analysis in the 26 Final State Reports with respect to the two most commonly cited areas of noncompliance by school districts with federal and state LRE mandates: (1) placing the students and then developing the students' IEPs, thereby following an improper sequence of LRE determination; and (2) automatically placing students with certain disability labels (e.g., mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments) into separate classes or schools.

Various local school districts reported three general reasons for noncompliance with LRE mandates: accessibility problems with public schools; systemic-related service configuration patterns; and preexisting transportation service arrangements.

A national "student placements for all disabilities data set," which reports LRE data for 10 different student groups, shows the following trends for the years 1985 to 1989:

• Regular class placements increased from 27% to 31.3%.
  
  
• Resource room placements decreased from 42.5% to 37.3%.
  
  
• Separate class placements increased from 23.8% to 24.4%.
  
  
• Separate facility placements remained at 5.2%.
  
  
• Residential facility placements decreased from 1.3% to .9%.
  
  
• Home and hospital placements increased from .08% to 2.6%.

Theme 3 - An evaluation of the procedural safeguards system and how that system impacts on parents of students with disabilities

Procedural safeguards are the cornerstone for equal access for parents of children and youth with disabilities to special education and related service programs. Procedural safeguard systems establish the right of a parent (or a school system) to protest certain government actions that could affect a child's right to special education under federal and state laws. The basic list of procedural safeguards includes notification, evaluation and placement, periodic evaluation and reevaluation, access to and confidentiality of records, surrogate parents, prior notice, parent consent, content of notice, access to due process hearings, hearing rights, and right to civil action.

The 26 Final State Monitoring and Compliance Reports indicated that 152 of 165 local public agencies visited were cited as being in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state mandates regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's procedural safeguards system. Based on those Final State Reports, the following are average levels of noncompliance across all 26 states:

• 54% of the mandated procedural safeguards reviewed by the federal monitoring teams were not established.
  
  
• 62% of the mandated procedural safeguards reviewed by the federal monitoring teams and which are required to be in notices given to parents were not included.

Another segment of the procedural safeguards system established by federal special education law involves secretarial review--review by the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)--of parent and school system complaints. From 1981 to the present, there have been 173 complaint requests for secretarial review. Of those complaints, 156 (or 90%) have been requests for review made by parents or parent organizations, and only 2 of the 173 requests for review have been granted.

Theme 4 - Multicultural and multidisciplinary issues related to the education of students with disabilities

One of the new provisions of IDEA emphasizes meeting the needs of traditionally neglected or underrepresented populations. According to some estimates, by the year 2000, nearly one-third of all school-age children and youth will be members of minority populations. In addition, an increasing number of newborns who have unique disabilities and individuals from groups recently identified by IDEA must be served by school districts.

Shifting demographics among resident populations are forcing communities to rethink and redesign the structure of their public school systems. School enrollment trends suggest that some school districts are having difficulty delivering appropriate services to their increasingly diverse student populations. In some states, the percentage of students enrolled in special education has increased while the general school population has declined.

For instance, a 1991 report issued by the Massachusetts Department of Education, A Review of the Eligibility Criteria for Children with Special Needs, notes that 17% of students ages 3 to 21 were taught in special education classes during the 1990-1991 school year. The report acknowledges that "overreferrals" to special education are a direct result of imprecise eligibility definitions, nonexistent or ineffective prereferral processes, and untrained or undertrained school personnel.

Several research reports have indicated that certain racial groups of students are more likely to be enrolled in special education (National School Boards Association 1990). A federal study (Hayward 1987) of high school juniors reported that 66% of special education students as compared to 72% of non-special education students were Caucasian, 25% as compared to 15% were African American, and 8% as compared to 8.5% were Hispanic American. Disproportionate representation of cultural and racial groups in special education populations can be caused by inaccurate perceptions of students' competencies and behaviors.

A 1991 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, entitled Within-School Discrimination: Inadequate Title VI Enforcement by the Office for Civil Rights, painted a bleak picture of the status of federal monitoring and enforcement of some civil rights violations in public education. Two GAO findings about the limitations of the OCR in determining Title VI violations included OCR regional offices' and investigators' (1) lack of training in and (2) lack of staff expertise for investigating ability grouping, tracking, or assignment to special education cases.

Educational Outcomes

Student Accomplishments and Outcomes

The only source of annual national outcomes data from OSEP is the Basis of Exit Data Set, which represents only 5% of America's special education population of 4.54 million students. This data set includes the number and percentage of students who graduated with diplomas, graduated with certificates, reached maximum age of entitlement, dropped out, or had some other basis of exit. A review of this data set reveals the following national trends for the years 1986 to 1989:

• Students with disabilities who graduated with diplomas and certificates decreased from 60% to 52%.
  
  
• Students with disabilities who dropped out and who had other bases of exit increased from 37% to 44%.
  
  
• Students with disabilities who reached their maximum age of entitlement remained at relatively stable levels of 3% to 4%.

A review of special education student graduation rates by state/agency for the period 1988-1989 demonstrates a large range of variation from 25% to 97% across state/agency education systems. Overall, among the population of students with disabilities, the following national trends are revealed:

• Students with hearing impairments graduate with diplomas at a higher percentage rate than any other student group, ranging from 56% to 65%.
  
  
• Students with mental retardation graduate with certificates at a higher percentage rate than any other student group, at a rate of about 20%.
  
  
• Students with speech impairments have shown the highest rates among all student groups of leaving schools for undetermined reasons, ranging from 19% to about 43%.
  
  
• Students with multiple disabilities have the greatest likelihood of any student group to reach the maximum age of their school entitlement, at an average rate of about 12%.
  
  
• Students with serious emotional disturbances are at the greatest risk among all student groups of dropping out of school, at a rate of about 40%.

School Reform in the 1990s: Federal, State and Local Initiatives

From 1990 to 1992, there have been numerous education reform initiatives proposed to improve education for all students, and school reform efforts have moved forward across the country. The impetus for these efforts is that America's schools are failing to prepare an overwhelming majority of its youth for their futures. With all this reform activity, we must ask whether the needs of students with disabilities are adequately being taken into consideration. A review of eight major federal initiatives involving school-age children and youth shows that six did not include specific provisions for students with disabilities. It is still too soon to tell how students with disabilities will participate in the remaining two initiatives.

On April 18, 1991, then-President George Bush released America 2000: An Education Strategy, a long-range plan intended to move communities toward the six national education goals adopted by the President and the National Governors Association on February 25, 1990, at the historic education summit held in Charlottesville, Virginia. Under this initiative, three fleeting references to students with disabilities and students who receive special education services can be found in America's "education report card" entitled The National Education Goals Report of 1991: Building a Nation of Learners. There are no identifiable measures or indicators that specifically reflect the accomplishments of students who receive special education and related services.

As of April 15, 1992, 43 states and the District of Columbia had officially adopted America 2000 or a variation of it. In addition to state reform efforts, a number of cities or regions are beginning their own education initiatives, which are also variations of the America 2000 program. Some of these state and local education reforms propose to include individuals with disabilities and students who receive special education services; however, many state and local initiatives are silent in this regard. Even though 13 states publish--and tout--assessment reports related to their statewide education reform programs, the majority of the states do not disaggregate performance data for students with disabilities or students who receive special education services. Many states report only enrollment statistics related to these special student populations.

There remain many questions concerning how individuals with disabilities will be fully included in the mainstream of educational initiatives. To date, as recent education reform efforts have been discussed and developed, the needs of students with disabilities have been given little, if any, serious attention. Even though 91% of elementary and secondary public special education students are in graded classes (or placements), those students' achievements are not systematically documented by federal, state, or local education agencies or their much publicized educational reform initiatives.

Objectives, Outcomes, and Indicators

For students with disabilities, as for students generally, objectives and expectations must be specified and outcomes must be measured with appropriate indicators of success. Federal and state agencies are working to improve the accountability of their education systems. Agency officials and reform advocates face the ambitious task of identifying performance indicators and developing measurement systems. America 2000 has already established proficiency standards in mathematics and is in the process of setting such standards for several other academic content areas.

Currently, there are no specific performance standards for students who receive special education. In the absence of such standards, we must ask what existing measurement strategies and indicators education policymakers and others can apply to determine and report on the accomplishments of students with disabilities and those who receive special education services. A number of strategies are possible:

• The disaggregation and reporting of proficiency scores for students with IEPs who have been allowed to take various assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).^(*)
  
  
• The enhanced use and reporting of the research results involving students with disabilities from evaluation studies, such as the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988.^(**)
  
  
• The full inclusion of the special education population into the America 2000 measurement system or any other system developed to assess educational achievement.
  
  
• The use of the performance scores attained by individuals with disabilities who take education-based competency or achievement tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Conclusions and General Recommendations

Since its inception in 1975, public special education was intended to be a part of, not apart from, regular public education. Current efforts to improve special education and mainstream education will succeed only if America decides to target all students as valued members of our society deserving of a first-class education. It is essential that the needs of the 4.6 million students in special education (11% of America's total public school population) be fully addressed by our education system.

Total quality management for existing special education programs and services must be improved within and across all levels of government. The implementation of Congressional mandates for special education at the federal and state levels can best be described as "variable." Although some states and local education agencies have consistently developed and implemented IEPs, followed the principles of the LRE and procedural safeguards, and designed reliable special education data systems, other states have demonstrated less than adequate performance in these areas. Reports and research from the mid-1980s indicate that certain racial groups have been disproportionately tracked into lower ability and/or special education classes. In the absence of adequate federal government monitoring and enforcement of civil rights laws, the negative impact of practices such as "tracking" will continue. Such practices must be stopped immediately to ensure that all students receive an appropriate education.

To ensure that the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are carried out, Congress should:

• Develop and implement a comprehensive system that incorporates standardized federal compliance and monitoring results, comprehensive and meaningful outcome data about students, and reliable statistics about effective instructional practices;
  
  
• Continue to improve the federal compliance monitoring of states' implementation of IDEA provisions regarding IEPs (and individual family service programs and individual transition programs), LRE, and procedural safeguards;
  
  
• Rigorously apply federal enforcement strategies and provide technical assistance and program support when instances of noncompliance with the IDEA are documented; and
  
  
• Establish and publish compliance performance measures that can be used as baselines against which individual progress in school systems can be judged.

Considerable evidence exists that students with disabilities and those who receive special education services are not adequately included in assessment and research efforts (e.g., the National Education Goals Panel). One current obstacle to the inclusion of students with disabilities into these efforts may be the isolated, fragmented data system maintained by OSEP. There is a great need for comprehensive, timely data on the status of students with disabilities. Policymakers should develop a national data system that will provide more valid and reliable measures of how students with disabilities fare in our nation's school systems.

Despite the claims by education policymakers of their strong commitment to include all students in current federal and state reform initiatives, students with disabilities or students who receive special education services have been omitted from the majority of reform programs. As the nation and states continue to move forward with their educational reform initiatives, policymakers must not continue to overlook or "channel out" those students who receive special education services (e.g., students who are not on academic tracks). Future federal, state, and local education reform initiatives should address the needs of all students, including students with disabilities.

Policymakers should forge a balance between the competing, and often conflicting, policies of educational "excellence" and "equity." The education equity reforms of the 1970s (e.g., needs and access, social and welfare concerns, and federal initiatives and regulations) were followed by education excellence reforms in the 1980s (e.g., performance standards, productivity concerns, and state and local initiatives and interests). To forge such a balance, the education accountability reforms of the 1990s must guarantee all students will be included in federal-state-local initiatives. There must be a serious effort to include students with disabilities and their parent representatives in discussions and work efforts focusing on educational reform across all levels of government and across all program areas.

Recommendations to Congress and the Administration

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following specific recommendations are offered for consideration and action:

Recommendation 1:

Update and revise A Guide to Improving the National Education Data System to include "students who receive special education services" or "individuals with disabilities," including the following areas:

Student and Community Background Statistics: Beginning of the school year membership counts, private school student background statistics, and disaggregated data from National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) sample and universe surveys;

Education Resource Statistics: District-level data from the Common Core of Data Survey, program- and function-based accounting data, data collection regarding status of school buildings, and measures that indicate total dollar investment in personnel;

School Process Statistics: National and state-by-state data on personnel supply-and-demand-based broad indicators of teacher preparation, national- and state-level data on student opportunities to learn specific instructional topics, and national- and state-level data on drug and alcohol use and violence in the schools, as well as policies and programs undertaken to prevent such occurrences; and

Student Outcome Statistics: State-by-state comparisons of students' knowledge in core content areas (reading, writing, etc.); differences in performance among important subgroups of students to be reported at national and state levels; trends in student performance over time for all grades and subjects at national and state levels; research, development, and experimentation with new types of assessment techniques to provide more sophisticated and broader measures of student performance; state-by-state and locale-by-locale student achievement measures; student achievement measures scaled to allow international comparisons; Information regarding links between student achievements and student courses of study undertaken; possible linkages of specific features of NAEP, NELS, and other relevant survey and research instruments; national and state periodic reports on school dropouts and completers; intergovernmental reports of postsecondary school enrollment patterns and (un)employment patterns; and specific measures of student satisfaction with schools and of student future aspirations.

Recommendation 2:

Establish an independent program evaluation system whereby selected school districts send annual special education data (e.g., child counts) and supporting documentation to the Office of the Inspector General and/or to the General Accounting Office for "independent" reviews and cross-checks with the special education data that are reported annually to Congress under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Recommendation 3:

Incorporate and publish a statistically representative sample of students' proficiency scores from reform-based assessments (e.g., NAEP). These assessments must reflect every student segment, including students with disabilities or students who receive special education services.

Recommendation 4:

Develop a data system that:

Supports the disaggregation of data by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability and nondisability status, and age group across levels of education;

Supports performance feedback loops or chains that are incorporated into all education accountability efforts for minority and majority student groups;

Generates evaluative information and materials that are not used as weapons against educators and do not produce defensive reactions;

Incorporates short- and long-range planning and reform activities across and within federal and state agencies and programs; and

Stimulates program improvements and promotes research on behalf of all of America's students.

Recommendation 5:

Ensure that all federal and state education reform proposals and policies address the needs of all students, including all students with disabilities, by making this a basic requirement or criterion in federal reform efforts.

Recommendation 6:

Require that all national studies and reports on education should include students with disabilities. For example, federal policymakers should ensure that the performance proficiency scores of students who receive special education services are included in the following:

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trial Math, Science, and other evaluations;

The National Education Longitudinal Study follow-along research project;

The National Longitudinal Transition Study follow-along research project; and

All other relevant assessments that obtained, but did not highlight, performance or proficiency scores achieved by students who receive special education and related services.

Recommendation 7:

Require that indicators and measures that highlight the achievement of all of the nation's students, including those who receive special education services, be developed and applied. For example, measurement strategies are needed in the following areas:

School Readiness: Include measures of individualized family service program (IFSP) goals and objectives that are accomplished by children/families served by Part H of IDEA;

High School Completion: Include measures of basis of exit for students who receive special education services through IDEA, which incorporates new data that identify basis of exit from different educational settings;

Student Achievement and Citizenship: Include measures of students with disabilities or students who receive special education services who have been permitted to take the Civics Trends Assessment portion of the NAEP tests;

Science and Mathematics: Include disaggregated scores and measures of students with disabilities or students who receive special education services who have been permitted to take NAEP State Math (or Science) Trial Assessments and, for comparative purposes, students with disabilities or students who receive special education services who have been permitted to take the 1991 International Assessment of Education;

Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning: Include all interagency (e.g., Department of Labor) studies and/or assessment measures of adults with disabilities who have been permitted to take various agencies' tests. Postsecondary (college) attendance and college completion rates for students with disabilities are available and relevant; and

Safe, Disciplined, Drug-Free Schools: Include student responses and measures generated by the Drug Use and School Safety Surveys that have been administered to students with disabilities or students who receive special education services. Other critical measures should focus on minimal instructional time lost (e.g., student absenteeism, suspensions, expulsions), which is highlighted, in part, in the Office of Civil Rights biannual surveys.

Recommendation 8:

Rigorously and strictly enforce the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Recommendations to Other Constituencies of Special Education

Based on the research findings, conclusions, and specific recommendations to policymakers, the following general recommendations are offered to the nation. It is important to note that these recommendations are interdependent in nature, much like federal/state special education laws. That is, they need to be implemented together, beginning with home and family involvement, if they are to improve public education for all students with disabilities.

Recommendations for Parents

1. Parents should assume and exercise full responsibility for maintaining the integrity of their children's special education entitlements. For example, parents should actively participate in the development of their children's individualized education programs, individualized family service plans, or individualized transition plans.
   
   
2. Parents should be partners with schools so that they can maintain an active role in educational decision-making activities related to their children's progress. For example, parents should work collaboratively with schools to place their children in the least restrictive and most appropriate settings.
   
   
3. Parents of children with disabilities should participate as advocates in local, state, and federal school reform initiatives.

Recommendations for Students

1. Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should become active participants in the design and implementation of their educational programs.
   
   
2. Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should participate in evaluations of their educational programs.
   
   
3. Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should participate in planning for their transition from school to adulthood to ensure a satisfactory quality of life.

Recommendations for School Officials and Educators (e.g., School Teachers, Systemwide Administrators, Higher Education Personnel, State/Local Education Agency Personnel)

1. State/local education agency personnel must ensure that they establish and maintain effective partnerships with parents. They should facilitate ongoing, two-way communication, including full and clear information about student and parent rights under federal and state special education laws.
   
   
2. Systemwide administrators must provide continuous, state-of-the-art inservice training and support for regular education instructional staff to guarantee successful and full inclusion of students with disabilities into regular classroom settings.
   
   
3. Higher education personnel must develop preservice teacher training programs based on proven teacher preparation practices and in collaboration with state/local education agencies and school districts that meet the unique and diverse needs of student populations.
   
   
4. State and local school districts must ensure that their personnel become familiar with available and appropriate community resources that facilitate successful transitions of students with disabilities to adult life.

Recommendations for Agents of School Reform (e.g., Teacher Associations, National Education Goals Panel, State Reform Advisory Boards)

1. Agents for school reform should provide long- and short-term reform proposals that articulate how students with disabilities will be specifically included in federal, state, and local initiatives.
   
   
2. Agents for school reform should support the design of reform proposals that are based on detailed implementation strategies and realistic assumptions regarding efficacy of reform.
   
   
3. Agents for school reform should ensure that students with disabilities and their parents, educational practitioners, and school-based supervisors are empowered to establish and approve all school reform initiatives.
   
   
4. Agents for school reform should encourage private foundations to develop and/or continue their cooperative partnerships with public agencies to focus on reform initiatives involving students with disabilities and their parents.

Recommendations for Researchers

1. Researchers should ensure proportional representation of students with disabilities and other traditionally underrepresented student populations in any and all data collection activities that are conducted by federal education agencies; these projects must be designed in such a way that the activities respect the dignity, self-worth, and unique accommodations required by the students.
   
   
2. Researchers should develop integrated, reliable management information systems that encourage and allow an open exchange of data across and within levels of government when planning and implementing programs that accommodate students with disabilities and other students who are traditionally neglected and underrepresented.
   
   
3. Researchers should conduct a nationally representative survey that includes students, parents, advocates, education staff, school system administrators, and policymakers and that can be used by systems of government to judge the effectiveness of public education programs for students with disabilities and other students who receive special education services.

As early as the 1820s, support was growing for free public schools. By the 1850s, a number of states had enacted compulsory attendance laws; yet the majority of children and youth with disabilities did not receive a free public education. The relatively few families whose children with disabilities attended schools were rarely consulted when educational decisions were made about their children's education. This situation continued throughout the 19th century and for the first half of the 20th century.

Since 1945, there has been an ongoing national struggle between educational policies promoting "excellence" and those policies promoting "equity" in the public schools. Proponents of "excellence" policies want school standards steadily raised so that schools become more academically demanding. Proponents of "equity" policies want public schools to offer programs appropriate for all students (e.g., Native American Indian, African-American, Hispanic, disabled, at-risk, and homeless students), so that all children and youth can benefit from public education. Overall, more students could achieve moderate success, graduate, and assume more productive adult roles in society.⁽¹⁾

Some groups of students were treated differently from other groups of students in terms of access to free public schools. For example, many disagreements involved access to free public education for African-American children and youth. It appears that many African-American children, including those with disabilities, were being channeled or "tracked" into special classes.⁽²⁾ These practices were addressed, indirectly, by the federal government in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Subsequently, through the passage of P.L. 88-352 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal government authorized the U.S. Commissioner of Education to provide support to local and state school districts in their efforts to comply with the racial desegregation of America's public schools. As a by-product of the racial desegregation ruling of Brown, tracking children into separate (special) education classes was not to be permitted.

By 1964, the total number of children and youth in special education programs in America was slightly in excess of 2.1 million, while the number of all students in public education programs topped the 40 million mark (National Center for Educational Statistics 1990). In response to the growing legal and political pressures from parents, educators, and individuals with disabilities, Congress engaged in a succession of legislative efforts aimed at promoting policies of equity on behalf of children and youth with disabilities.

In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10), which funded state and local school districts to develop programs for children who were economically disadvantaged and for children and youth with disabilities. In 1966, an Amendment to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-313) provided funding for state-supported programs in institutions and other settings for children and youth with disabilities; another 1966 Amendment (P.L. 89-750) created the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped; and a 1969 Amendment (P.L. 91-230) recognized children and youth with disabilities as a discrete population with special needs.

In 1975, the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) marked the beginning of public education services to all school-age children and youth, regardless of disability. Under this federal law, as well as complementary state laws, a number of provisions were made, including procedural safeguards for parents and students, education in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and an individualized education program (IEP). Each of these provisions reflected a belief that active parent participation was a vital element in ensuring free, appropriate public education for their sons and daughters and potentially necessary to control for violations of P.L. 94-142 provisions by school districts.

From 1976 to 1988, student enrollments in federally supported special education programs increased from 3.69 million in 1976 to 4.54 million in 1988. This represented an increase in the number of students served, as a percentage of total pupil enrollment in the nation, from 8.33% in 1976 to 11.4% in 1988. Figure 1A shows that state-to-state enrollments for the 1988 school year varied from 5% to as high as 16% among states; within-state variations in student enrollment practices were even higher. Figure 1B shows that special education expenditures for the 1988 school year varied from less than .1% to 17% of the total proportion of state::national costs.

[Figure 1A not available.]

[Figure 1B not available.]

This study considers four policy themes: the individualized education program, the concept of least restrictive environment, the procedural safeguards system, and multicultural and multidisciplinary issues. These four themes represent major elements of federal special education law and are interdependent in nature. By law, they must be implemented in a systematic manner by school systems for children and youth with disabilities who have special education needs.

Theme 1 - Development of the individualized education program (IEP) and its impact, or the lack thereof, on the quality of education and related services for students

Federal law requires states and local school districts to develop an IEP for every eligible student, at least annually, at a meeting between a qualified representative of the local school district, the teacher, the parents or guardians, and, whenever appropriate, the student. The key assumptions behind this policy of requiring an IEP for every student who receives special education and related services are the following:

• Parents and their children are a unique source of information about their needs and aspirations and must be included in all educational decision-making efforts.
  
  
• The IEP serves as a tool for accountability and as a means to monitor student achievement.
  
  
• There are no systematic differences in human learning potential other than those random differences that exist between individuals.
  
  
• School environments can be created where students can achieve desired levels of learning in a reasonably designed curriculum.

The minimal technical requirements for the structure of an IEP for each student include (1) a statement of the present levels of educational performance of the student; (2) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives; (3) a statement of the specific educational services to be provided to the student, and the extent to which the student will be able to participate in regular education programs; (4) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration for such services; and (5) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved [United States Code Sec. 1401(b)(2)].

There is a small but growing body of research data and expert opinion that focuses on the development of the IEP and its impact on the quality of education and related services for students. Beginning with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Board of Education v. Rowley (102 S.Ct. 3034, 1982), lower level courts and administrative hearing bodies increasingly have begun to rely on expert testimony to evaluate the quality of an IEP and to judge whether an IEP was designed for a student's educational progress.

For example, in Carter v. Florence County School District Four [(D.S.C. 1991) 17 IDELR 452], a federal court held that a proposed IEP was inappropriate because it would not result in educational progress for a student with a learning disability. The court argued that in the particular education placement, the student's IEP should have been designed to allow the student to earn passing marks and to advance from grade to grade. A second example is the case of Angevine v. Jenkins [(D.D.C. 1990; 752 F. Supp. 24; 5th Cir. 1990) 17 IDELR 444], in which a court held that a school district must not fail to consider a student's potential for educational progress and advancement in developing the student's program that would ensure a free, appropriate public education.

In addition to the increase in the number of cases similiar to those cited above, there is further documented laxity by school districts in adhering to the federal mandates for the development and implementation of IEPs. In the 26 Final State Compliance and Monitoring Reports issued by OSEP from April 1989 to February 1992, 150 of 165 local public agencies visited--involving an analysis of 1,618 student IEPs--were cited to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state IEP mandates.

Table 1 presents the percentage of IEP elements for each of the 26 states cited as being in noncompliance with federal special education law. Part A in the supplement contains similar information for the 165 local school districts visited by the OSEP monitoring and compliance team. It indicates that there is great variance among and within states regarding the degree of compliance with and integrity of implementation of federal- and state-mandated IEP requirements.

A recent study by the Regional Office of the Inspector General for Audit, Region VI, Department of Education, reports that more than 9% of students with disabilities either do not have a current IEP or have not been properly evaluated. Table 2 presents an analysis of the 1991 Regional Inspector General's Audit of Child Count Errors Report across 21 states, 40 local school districts, involving 2,000 students with IEPs. Without the IEP and evaluation to rely on, policymakers and others find it difficult to determine whether students are receiving adequate programs and services.⁽³⁾

[Table 1 not available.]

1991 Audit sample: 21 states, 40 local school districts, and 2000 students with IEPs

Source: Office of the Inspector General (1992)

States' monitoring responsibilities include recapturing state and federal funds improperly used by public agencies, such as those identified in the 1991 Regional Inspector General's Audit. For example, Minnesota's Office of Monitoring and Compliance and the Aids, Data, and Technology Unit determined that special education funds were improperly spent. As a result, the Minnesota Department of Education recaptured these funds: $225,502 (1987-1988), $349,081 (1988-1989), and about $30,000 in child count funds for the 1989-1990 school year (1991 Final State Monitoring and Compliance Report, Minnesota Department of Education: pp. v-vi). Every state is expected to engage in such monitoring efforts.

Theme 2 - The concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) and its impact, or lack thereof, on education for students

Federal law requires school districts to develop and implement LRE procedures to ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children and youth with disabilities will be educated with children and youth who are not disabled. In addition, federal requirements stipulate that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment will occur only when the nature or severity of a student's disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [United States Code Secs. 1412(5)(B) and 1414(a)(1)(C)(iv)].

The key assumptions behind the policy of requiring an emphasis on LRE for every student who receives special education and related services are the following:

• Segregation of students with disabilities, per se, represents an unwarranted or unnecessary restriction on students' rights and is harmful.
  
  
• Children and youth with disabilities benefit when they associate with their nondisabled peers. Students with disabilities need to be educated in environments that promote interactions with nondisabled peers and enhance the social status of students with disabilities.
  
  
• Decisions about LRE for any student entitled to receive special education and related services must be based on (1) the individual's unique educational strengths, weaknesses, and needs, and (2) the identification of a particular environment, from among a continuum of educational settings, that provides the student with a free, appropriate public education.

When OSEP monitored 26 states between April 1989 and February 1992, 143 of 165 local education agencies were cited by OSEP to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state LRE mandates. Corrective actions by the state agencies are typically required by OSEP to be made within one year of the date of issuance of OSEP's final monitoring report to a state.

Table 3 presents findings regarding these two most frequently cited areas of noncompliance with LRE mandates according to the 26 Final State Monitoring and Compliance Reports: (1) following the improper sequence of making eligibility determinations; placing students and then developing students' IEPs; and (2) automatically placing students with certain disability labels (e.g., mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments) into separate classes or schools. Various local school districts reported three general reasons for noncompliance: (1) accessibility problems with public schools, (2) systemic-related service configuration patterns, and (3) preexisting transportation service arrangements.

It is hoped that recent improvements with OSEP's monitoring of states' special education programs will dramatically enhance the federal-state partnership's implementation of LRE mandates.⁽⁴⁾ It is also expected that current implementation of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), P.L. 101-336 [42 United States Code 1213 et seq.], will compel schools to meet accessibility requirements by making reasonable modifications to achieve the removal of architectural, programmatic, and transportation barriers. The Office of Civil Rights staff memorandum of March 8, 1991, may provide guidance to school districts interested in program accessibility requirements and standards in this regard (17 IDELR 613). In addition, the Department of Education recently awarded $4.5 million in grants for 16 projects to assist in the implementation of the ADA.

The OSEP also maintains a complex federal data base that reflects the numbers of students with disabilities placed in any one of eight different educational settings in the nation. The logic behind the structure of the LRE data system is unclear. The manner in which students are counted and reported to be "placed" in one of the educational settings is based on confusing criteria and guidelines established in the early 1980s. Comparing the federal LRE data reporting system with that of state and local school districts is difficult. Also, it does not seem that federal/state LRE data system criteria and guidelines are based on rationale related to how effectively schools daily serve students. Additionally, the LRE data reported annually to Congress are typically two years old and incomplete.

[Table 3 not available.]

These conditions pose serious disadvantages to those who rely on OSEP's LRE data base. A cross-check review of OSEP's LRE data base with the data presented in the 1991 Regional Inspector General's Audit Report suggests that (1) local school districts with higher proportions of students with IEPs seem to be at risk for greater percentages of error and (2) there appears to be a degradation of services in school districts where there are higher proportions of students with IEPs. The unexplained differences in OSEP's LRE data base are also affected by, or reflected in, unexplained differences in OSEP's personnel supply-demand data base.

A review of OSEP's LRE data base for 1986-1989 suggests that year-to-year differences in the number of students in education placements appear to be occurring within and across states. Preliminary findings indicate 194 unexplained differences in number counts and 787 unexpected differences in placements, involving 410,767 students with disabilities.

Figure 2 represents the number of unexplained shifts in the enrollment numbers of students, by state, for the period 1986-1989. Figure 3 represents the number of unexplained placement shifts, by state, for 1986-1989. Shifts of 10% or greater were considered to be differences unexplained by random variation. Several examples of unexplained year-to-year differences are as follows:

• In one state for the 1988-1989 school year, the number of students with speech impairments decreased by 22,952, while the number of students with visual impairments increased by 22,696.
  
  
• The Bureau of Indian Affairs reported no LRE data during the 1988 school year.
  
  
• In another state for the period 1986-1989, no students were reported to have been served in residential or home and hospital educational placements.
  
  
• In another state for the 1987-1988 school year, placements of students labeled with "specific learning disability" decreased from 90.64% to 32.38% in resource rooms and increased from .06% to 53.75% in separate classes.
  
  
• In another state during the 1986-1989 period, placements of students with multiple disabilities increased from 9.24% to 100% in residential settings.

[Figure 2 not available.]

[Figure 3 not available.]

These unexplained differences in number counts and placements have significant policy implications and raise questions about accountability.⁽⁵⁾ Where are students being served? How are students affected by incorrect placement? There are three possible explanations for these unexplained differences: (1) students are leaving school systems in unidentified ways, (2) students are not being counted or are being counted in a nonsystematic way (identified by the Inspector General's Audit), and (3) students are in undocumented educational placements.

Figure 4, "National Student Placements--All Disabilities," reports LRE data for 10 different student groups. An inspection of Figure 4 reveals the following overall trends for the years 1985-1989:

• Regular class placements increased from 27% to 31.3%.
  
  
• Resource room placements decreased from 42.5% to 37.3%.
  
  
• Separate class placements increased from 23.8% to 24.4%.
  
  
• Separate facility placements remained at 5.2%.
  
  
• Residential facility placements decreased from 1.3% to .9%.
  
  
• Home or hospital placements increased from .08% to 2.6%.

Part B in the supplement contains a set of 70 student placement bar graphs (10 bar graphs for the nation, 60 bar graphs for a sample of six states) that depicts the placements of students with disabilities who receive special education services. An inspection of the student placement graphs across student groups reveals the nationwide placement trends for students shown in the next chart:

[Figure 4 not available.]