SEAS Cable

[Editor's Note: John Merrow is the anchor and executive editor of "The Merrow Report," a documentary television series on schools and learning carried by Public Broadcasting Service stations. His Commentary appeared in Education Week. Vol. 15, No. 33 on May 8, 1996 and is reprinted with permission. Please note that the author's permission is required for photocopying or reprinting. You can contact him at: John Merrow, Box 540, Brookfield, CT 06804.]

The answer to the question in the title is either "not very much" or "not enough," depending on one's politics. Only a cockeyed optimist would assert that all is well with special education today, more than 20 years after we made a national commitment to educating children with disabilities.

Much is wrong: phony "inclusion," a bloated bureaucracy, questionable classifications, an appalling dropout rate, and a near-total lack of accountability.

I say that after spending the better part of a year exploring the world of special education, preparing a Public Broadcasting Service documentary that's about to air. During the year, producer Karena O'Riordan and I interviewed hundreds of individuals in most of the states. We interviewed some of the first children to come under the 1975 legislation guaranteeing disabled children access to education, Washington insiders who drafted Public Law 94-142, the former president who wanted to veto the legislation, lawyers who are driving school boards crazy, and dozens of frustrated parents and teachers.

For me, the year was a reunion of sorts: I began my career as a reporter (for National Public Radio) just as the law was passed, and I remember well the revolutionary zeal, the high hopes, and the disgraceful conditions that passed for "education" in the old days.

Make no mistake about it: There were no good old days in special education. I remember a day in New Mexico in one of that state's schools for handicapped children: rows and rows of children and adults strapped to their chairs in a dimly lit room, a cacophony of moans and screams. Four or five attendants stood watch over what seemed to be about a hundred "students."

Burned into my memory is the image of one young man, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy. Abandoned by his parents and labeled "retarded," he languished for years until one day a sympathetic nurse saw in his eyes the glimmer of a fierce intelligence. "He could move his head, and he could make his eyes shine or get bigger, and I realized he was trying to talk to me," she told me.

Determined to give him a chance to communicate, that wonderful woman made what must have been one of the first letter/word boards (this was in 1975). It was nothing more than a tray with letters, numbers, and common words on it. Then she fastened a small light to a hat and taught the young man to direct the light to words and letters.

I "interviewed" him that day, for my National Public Radio program. He told me about his mother, asked questions about my family, and asked me if I believed in God. I cried then, tears of joy for his indomitable spirit, but also tears of loss of thousands and thousands of lives wasted. . .back in those "good old days."

Today, disabled students are about to have another turn in the national spotlight, and the glare is likely to be unflattering. But before we dismantle what has taken 20 years to create, let's take a careful look.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 promised disabled students access to a "free and appropriate public education," access they have achieved-5 million disabled students now attend public schools. Whether access equals education, however, is another story.

It's worth recalling that prior to the passage of the law now known as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, disabled children were often deemed "uneducable" and sent to institutions like that one in New Mexico, or kept at home. In the District of Columbia, eight of the 10 buildings in use for handicapped children had officially been condemned for use by nonhandicapped children!

The law was controversial in 1975, and President Gerald R. Ford and his advisors wanted to veto it. Mr. Ford told us that he had prepared a veto message, based on his conviction that the law would cost too much and give "Washington bureaucrats" too much power. Knowing that the Congress would override his veto, he eventually signed the bill, but without fanfare. No official photograph of the signing ceremony exists, a sure sign of presidential displeasure.

Back then, interest groups played a major role in the actual writing of the legislation. Fred Weintraub, then as now a leader of the Council for Exceptional Children, recalled how he and Lisa Walker, a top Senate aide, sat for hours in a Washington restaurant one afternoon, talking about an "ideal" law. "At one point, I took out my pen," Mr. Weintraub told us, "but neither of us had any blank paper. So we grabbed a handful of paper napkins and basically wrote the first draft of the law, on those napkins. Lisa took the napkins back to the office, and the rest is history."

While napkins probably won't play a pivotal role this time around, interest groups already are. With the law up for reauthorization, the Congress has been under heavy pressure, with school boards lobbying for relief from burgeoning legal costs, teachers' unions seeking protection from supposedly violent students with disabilities, and other interest groups seeking to protect their advantages. (See Education Week, May 1, 1996.)

Most of the 5 million children with disabilities now in public schools are described as being "included," meaning they spend their days in regular classrooms. But we found that "inclusion," once called "mainstreaming," often results in dumping. Too often the classroom teacher has no special training and little additional support. Too often the disabled student is ignored in the corner-until he or she discovers that the best way to get an adult's attention is to misbehave. The results are predictable, and nobody learns much of anything.

We spend an additional $30 billion a year nationally on disabled students, 22 cents of every education dollar in New York City, and-in some extreme cases-more than $100,000 per child.

What does the money buy? Personnel, equipment, and transportation-but beyond that no one can say for sure. My impression is that educators rarely even ask the question. Most disabled students live in a kind of educational limbo, because nobody in the system keeps track of how much, or if, they're learning. In educationese, it means they are "out of accountability." Most states in the United States do not include disabled students in regular assessments of academic success or standardized tests. It's as if they don't count. Only two states, Kentucky and Maryland, require that all their disabled students be regularly tested.

From day one, federal law has required that each disabled student have what is known as an IEP, for individualized education program. But the IEP has come to mean hours and hours of paperwork instead of an accurate plan for the achievement of the student. The IEP-writing process has become so riddled with procedures that the sometimes 40- to 50-page documents can take months to prepare, time that could be spent educating the student. These plans almost never identify outcomes ("Gloria will learn to read") but instead focus on process ("Gloria will receive eight hours of small-group instruction per week").

We found that many special education teachers spend much of their time creating paper trails and anticipating lawsuits from disgruntled parents. Many school districts have seen their legal costs balloon. For example, legal costs for Connecticut's public schools tripled between 1991 and 1994. Greenwich, Conn., which boasts one of the state's best public school systems, is paying tuition for several dozen students whose parents threatened to take legal action over the system's alleged failures with their "learning disabled" children. "It's cheaper and easier to pay than to fight," one Greenwich official told me.

For many students special education is the equivalent of "Hotel California," about which the Eagles sang, "You can check out any time you want but you can never leave." That is, students who get the "special education" label never lose it; once in, always in. Moreover, only 44 percent of special education students earn high school diplomas.

That failure rate is even more appalling when one considers that today most of those in special education-52 percent-are categorized as "learning disabled." Perhaps because the criteria are largely subjective, LD, as the learning-disabled category is known, has been and continues to be a growth industry in special education. We heard stories of parents actually seeking out the label because they felt that it was the only way for their child to receive individual attention.

How dubious a diagnosis is learning-disabled? Consider that Massachusetts finds that 11 percent of its students are LD, while only 2 percent of Georgia's students are so afflicted. Is this sloppy classification? Something in the water, perhaps? And can a Massachusetts family cure its child's learning disability by moving south?

Process turns out to be the system's strong point, a backhanded compliment if ever there was one. Process requires people, and special education has plenty of them. In 20 years, the disabled-student population has increased by only 40 percent, but the number of adults employed in special education has grown by 80 percent. But more staff may not mean more help for students. In fact, more and more of those employed in special education work in nonclassroom settings.

Do regular and special education work together to benefit children? Do they mesh? Brian McNulty, Colorado's director of special education, describes the situation as "our own worst nightmare. We've created two separate systems of education-one for typical children and one for children with disabilities. And by and large those two systems do not interact very well."

The nightmare is about to get worse. Dr. Sally Shaywitz of Yale University has been tracking the progress of reading-disabled students in Connecticut. Of those identified with a disability in 3rd grade and given special-education services through 9th grade, only 26 percent made significant progress. The other 74 percent were still receiving special education, but had shown no signs of improvement.

Is a 74 percent failure rate acceptable in any other line of work? If I ran an auto-repair shop and 74 percent of the cars I worked on still didn't run, I'd be out of business in a few weeks.

Unless, of course, nobody checked to see whether the cars I worked on actually ran.

What we call "special education," then, is not particularly special. But I hope we'll agree that it is worth saving.

Saving it requires at least four giant steps. First, we must have accountability. Disabled students must be expected to learn, be tested, and be helped when they fail. The individualized education programs must specify what each student is expected to learnÐnot the processes, but the anticipated results. But accountability means more than test scores; it means asking: "Are children passing? Are they graduating, getting jobs, and finding social acceptance? Are they satisfied?" All of these are measurable, and we ought to be measuring those outcomes.

Second, dismantle special-education bureaucracies. Special educators must work with children and with regular-classroom teachers, or hit the road. All that money should be spent helping real children, and their regular-classroom teachers.

Third, deregulate in ways that will end the legal morass and systemwide distrust.

Prevention is the most important step of all, beginning with learning disabilities. LD students have no recognizable mental or physical disorders but have difficulty learning initial reading or math. With proper intervention, all but the severely disabled can learn to compensate for difficulties and can keep from falling behind in class. Early intervention, before the 3rd grade, is the key: doing whatever it takes to ensure that each child learns to read and compute. Only when (and if) our best efforts as teachers fall short should we begin affixing the label "special education" on children.

And never forget that the system is succeeding with some children. As Fred Weintraub of the CEC says, "We're taking children with severe and profound disabilities, kids who were previously thrown on the junk pile of American society, and we're turning out productive citizens." That is, the models are there for us to copy.

In 1975, our nation made a promise to children with disabilities. It's a promise worth keeping, and the time is now.

Darcy Hopko has been named the director of special education for Alexandria Community Schools. Darcy has been the legal consultant for the DOE Division of Special Education. She replaces Rex Church.

Joan McCormick has been selected the director of special education for the Michigan City Area Schools. Joan has been the director of special education at Duneland School Corporation as a member of the Porter County Education Interlocal. She replaces Gary Hahn.

Cheryl Corning (Ripley-Ohio-Dearborn), Tom Doyle (Hamilton-Boone-Madison), John Helfen (Gibson-Pike-Warrick), Jim McCormick (Richmond State Hospital), Daena Richmond (Jay-Randolph), Paul Roahrig (Johnson County), and Gary Collings (ISEAS) attended the 1996 Midwest Special Education Leadership Conference in Breckenridge. Next year's 14th annual Midwest Conference will also be in Breckenridge during the week of June 23 - 27, 1997. Mark your calendars!

Cinda Long, program specialist with the ISEAS Project, announced in July that the Cable is now on-line on the internet. Information about the project with links to access the Cable Newsletter and Indiana Department of Education can be found at http://baby.indstate.edu/iseas/iseas.html

Kim Moffett, consultant with the DOE Division of Special Education posted the following e-mail message on June 25. The Community Care Alliance (Pleasant Run, Children's Bureau, Lutherwood, and Villages) is gathering information for a needs assessment to determine what services for children are most needed. This group is working with the State to develop children's programs at the old Central State facility in Indianapolis if feasible. Your input would be very valuable. If you are willing to participate in a short phone interview, please give Steve Koch at the Villages a call at 1-800-874-6880 to set up a time or fax available times with name and number to 317/273-7565. r

Fall ICASE Conference Notes: If you have not already blocked out September 26-27 on your calendar, do so now!

The Horizon Convention Center across the street from the Radisson Hotel Roberts just recently opened. It's an exciting facility with ample parking space. We will be alternating meetings between the Radisson and the Convention Center. The hotel has also experienced extensive redecorating since our last meeting so you will want to make your reservations early.

The Ball State faculty will be hosting an early arrival reception on Wednesday evening at 7:00 P.M. in the Ballroom at the Radisson Hotel Roberts. This will be an opportunity for us to meet with faculty members and hear first hand the many outstanding things that are occurring on Ball State's campus.

Dr. Larry Mazin and Dr. Thomas Armstrong will be the presenters on Thursday to provide us with a perspective of ADD/ADHD issues. The presentation promises to be interactive and lively! Please extend invitations to your superintendents, principals and School Psychologists. I realize that is State Assessment Week . . . can't imagine why they didn't know we had a conference during that time . . .and many principals won't be able to get away, but it should be a worthwhile day if they could.

A registration form is enclosed in this issue of the CABLE. Feel free to make several copies. Please do the same with the reverse raffle tickets which are also enclosed. Just remember to add $10.00 to your registration for each ticket purchased. Thanks to your past generous contributions, we were able to award three scholarships last Spring. These recipients will be honored at our luncheon on September 27.

Judy Flowers, Membership Chair, and her committee have been meeting this summer. You should have already received a membership application for both ICASE and CASE. Check out the many benefits of joining CASE. Judy and her crew are also in charge of Thursday evening's fun. Be ready - they have lots of surprises planned.

Roundtables will have an opportunity to caucus on Thursday afternoon which will bump our business meeting to Friday morning.

Immediately following our business meeting, Bob Marra and his staff will give us an update on Division matters. Please send specific questions to Bob by September 1, 1996 that you would like for him to address at the conference.

Triennial evaluations - Steve Davis of the Office of Student Services, has organized a meeting on September 12, 1996 from 9:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. at the Central Indiana Education Service Center, 6321 Lapas Trails, Indianapolis (Pike Township) for directors of special education and other interested parties.

The meeting will be informal and allow for questions and answers with regards to new and better ways of utilizing our resources in the reevaluation process. This is an opportunity to come together to engage in the discussion of this timely topic.

To register, please call 1-800-833-2199.

Looking forward to seeing all of you on September 25, 26, and 27!

As you know in an effort to provide more effective educational planning services for students, during the past school year ISD began scheduling ACR's in accordance with the birthdates of students. This transition is complete and seems to have worked well from our perspective. We welcome any feedback from you regarding this system.

Our second phase begins in August and is an effort to assist parents, LEA's and ISD staff in scheduling and planning ACR's in a more efficient manner. We will be setting case conference dates for the 1996-97 school year with parents at registration. After these dates have been set, we will notify you of the dates so that you will have ample time to provide representation at these conferences. Suppose you or your designee cannot attend on the designated date. Call us, and we will do our best to reschedule at a mutually agreeable date and time. Should parents request and we need to set a new conference date, we will contact you with possible dates as we currently do. Since registration will occur August 25, those conference dates that need arrangement prior to that date to ensure adequate preparation time will be set earlier and we will be contacting you as usual.

We sincerely hope this system reduces the time our staff and yours spends on the telephone trying to arrange conferences. We also intend for it to provide you and us with additional notice with which to prepare for the conferences.

Please contact Judy Cass at (317) 920-6228 or through the Division of Special Education cc:Mail if you have questions or concerns. [NOTE: This letter was mailed to directors and other interested parties the week of July 8, 1996 and posted on the Indiana SECN 7/2/96.]

The Correlation Between Exceptionality Area (Label), Goals and Objectives, and Educational Services - [Editor's Note: The following is the text of a May 29, 1996 memo from Sharon Knoth, CSPD/Communications Coordinator at the DOE Division of Special Education, to both a parent and a case conference committee coordinator as posted on the Division News & Notes bulletin board of the Indiana SECN 7/9/96.]

Being that I have spoken with each of you on this topic, I feel it best that I send this MEMORANDUM to each of you as well. If I understand the situation correctly, there appears to be some confusion as to what role, if any, a student's exceptionality area or "label" has on educational placement.

In looking at case conference committee procedures, they can generally be grouped into the following steps:

discussion of evaluation data;
determination of eligibility;
determination of specific goals and objectives to address
area(s) of educational need; and
determination of least restrictive environment.

Obviously, there are incremental steps contained within each of these which are described in detail in Article 7. Nonetheless, for the sake of this discussion I feel these broader steps will suffice. Please note that the order of these steps is crucial. If the case conference committee determines a student to be eligible - no matter what exceptionality area decided upon; then there are specific goals and objectives written for the student. These goals and objectives address the areas of need realized through the multidisciplinary assessment.

If I understand the situation correctly, the student in question has been enrolled in special education for several years. She has been identified as a student with a HEALTH IMPAIRMENT [Other Health Impairment ("OHI") as stated in Article 7] and a COMMUNICATION DISORDER. The student allegedly has a severe attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). No one is disputing her eligibility for special education services. However, there is disagreement as to whether she is OHI or whether she is Mildly Mentally Handicapped ("MiMH"). I am also getting conflicting information as to whether the parent is being told the services will "change" depending on what label is placed on the student.

The original question asked of me was whether she could be identified as a student with multiple handicaps. I have indicated that this is not possible. The term Multiple Handicaps is for students whose disabilities are so severe and so intertwined that it is impossible to determine which is the primary disability. In speaking with each of you, this is not the case. What does seem to be an area of contention is whether the student's ADHD is affecting the testing and thus having the results fall into the realm of MiMH. As I indicated to each of you, the case conference committee must make the determination of "eligibility" and if there is disagreement, it must go to either Mediation or a Due Process Hearing.

What is at issue here, I believe, is that the parent is allegedly being told that if she does not agree to the MiMH label, then there is a possibility that the student's current special education services could "change" at a later date. I fail to see how this can be true. If the case conference committee writes up goals and objectives for a student and then determines the least restrictive environment ("LRE") in which those goals and objectives can be met, there cannot be a change in that LRE without the benefit of a case conference committee meeting. A student's educational program may not be changed outside of the case conference committee meeting.

Therefore, there is a direct correlation between the student's goals and objectives and the LRE. There is not a direct correlation between the student's exceptionality area (label) and the LRE.

Juvenile Court Judges and IEPs - [The following is the text of a letter from Tom Hehir, director of the Office of Special Education Programs (202/205-9053) to the Director of the Division of Exceptional Children in the Kentucky Department of Education as posted on the Division News & Notes bulletin board of the Indiana SECN 6/20/96.]

This letter is in response to your letter to Maral Taylor of my staff requesting guidance on some issues concerning the relationship of juvenile courts to students with disabilities receiving services under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("Part B").

Your letter is prompted because of a concern expressed by school districts in Kentucky about the failure of juvenile court judges to accept any petition on a student who has an individualized education program ("IEP"). Specifically you asked three questions:

(1) Can juvenile court judges unilaterally refuse to accept any types of petitions, or hear any types of cases, including out-of-control petitions, on a student who has an IEP?

(2) Is there a violation of the students' civil rights if the juvenile court judge refuses to hear school petitions?

(3) What advice can you offer the special educators of Kentucky relative to their relationships to juvenile court judges?

We do not believe that Part B limits the ability of State courts to hear cases involving students with disabilities receiving services under Part B. Therefore, State law governs whether a court has the discretion to decline to hear cases involving students with disabilities receiving services under Part B.

Your inquiry also raises the issue of whether the failure of a State or local court to adjudicate a case involving a student with a disability would constitute discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Federal civil rights laws. We have consulted with officials of the Department's Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") in connection with this portion of your inquiry. State and local courts must comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in activities of State and local governments, whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance. The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") is responsible, among other matters, for enforcing Title II of the ADA as it affects State and local courts. OCR has asked the Department's Office of General Counsel to refer this portion of your inquiry to DOJ for technical assistance regarding the relationship of the issues you raise to the requirements of Title II of the ADA. r

Did You Know You Have the Right to Appeal Any Decision Made by Vocational Rehabilitation? - What is an appeal?

An appeal is a request for someone of a higher authority to reconsider a decision made by a rehabilitation counselor. If your son or daughter has applied for, or is receiving Vocational Rehabilitation services, she/he has the right to appeal any decision made by the counselor or coordinator concerning services.

What should happen?

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) must give written notification of the right to appeal, including information about the Client Assistance Project (CAP). This information is provided at the time of application for services and when the Individual Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) is developed.

Notification of these rights must also be given if Vocational Rehabilitation decides your son or daughter is not eligible for services, or if VR wants to suspend, reduce, or terminate services being provided under the Individual Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) without your agreement.

If your son or daughter appeals a change in her/his IWRP, the services in question must be continued until a final decision is made, unless services were obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, collusion or criminal conduct.

If you are a person with a disability who is receiving or thinking of applying for Vocational Rehabilitation services, or a parent whose son or daughter is going to be applying for services, this article contains information you should know.

The Rehabilitation Act states that persons with disabilities must be full partners in the development of their Individual Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) (see Part 1: Rehabilitation Services Available for Youth with Disabilities, for further information on Vocation Rehabilitation programs and services and the IWRP). This includes making informed choices about goals and the kinds of support needed to obtain them. Your son or daughter has a right to a program that will assist him/her in obtaining a job that utilizes his/her abilities and capabilities. Your son's or daughter's program must:

be jointly developed by, agreed to, and signed by your son or daughter and his/her counselor.

be consistent with what your son or daughter wants to do.

include a statement, in your son's or daughter's words, describing his/her participation.

be provided in the mode or language your son or daughter uses, or if appropriate, his/her family member or advocate.

be described in a written plan and your son or daughter must be given a copy.

The IWRP must be reviewed annually. Changes can be made at any time, but will not take effect until agreed to and signed by your son or daughter and his/her counselor.

If there is disagreement about the change, your son or daughter has the right to appeal.

Let's say your son or daughter applies for Vocational Rehabilitation services and is found eligible. As part of his/her Individual Written Rehabilitation Program, your child wants Vocational Rehabilitation to cover the costs of a specific training program that she/he believes would enable him/her to reach a personal vocational goal.

The counselor, however, believes there is no disability-related reason for your child's requests. The counselor and your son or daughter try to reach an agreement but cannot. Dissatisfied with the counselor's final decision, your son or daughter decides to appeal.

What are your child's options for appeal?

Typically states have an informal and a formal method of appeal. The informal method is a review that may be done by the counselor's supervisor and/or a higher authority. The formal method involves an impartial hearing officer who would hear both sides of the dispute. The impartial hearing officer may be provided with additional evidence and information from either party.

If your son or daughter is having difficulties with Vocational Rehabilitation, the Client Assistance Program (CAP) may be able to help. Every state has a Client Assistance Program to provide information and assistance about the available benefits and rights of applicants and consumers of Vocational Rehabilitation.

The CAP can also advocate for applicants and consumers and assist them in their appeal, and may help with legal and administrative services, if appropriate.

Conclusion

The Rehabilitation Act, amended in 1992 regulates Vocational Rehabilitation in every state. The law states that work is a valued activity. Work fulfills the need of an individual to be productive, promotes independence, enhances self esteem, and allows for participation in the mainstream of life in America.

People with disabilities have demonstrated that they have the ability to achieve employment and compete in the American mainstream if appropriate services and supports are provided.

The future will always bring change and we may experience amendments to the current law and service delivery system. It is important for persons with disabilities, their family members, advocates, and professionals to continue to work together. We must ensure that the concept of empowering persons with disabilities is maintained and continues to guide the system.

For additional information, contact the National Transition Network which is a collaboration of the University of Arkansas; Colorado State University; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; University of Minnesota; PACER Center; Technical Assistance for Parent Programs; and the University of Vermont. Its headquarters are at the Institute on Community Integration (UAP), University of Minnesota, Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, 612/626-8200.

Education Department to Merge Grants and Programs - The U.S. Department of Education has embarked on a complete overhaul of the grants and contracts process and internal organization. The Grants Re-Engineering Team, established in 1995, was directed to completely overhaul the discretionary grants process. In July 1995, the new process proposed by the Grants Re-Engineering Team, was approved and four pilot programs have been put into place to "test" the new process. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) houses one of the pilots in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

In a nutshell, the new process combines the Program and Grants Staff in one place - in the appropriate program office - thereby eliminating the separate, centralized Grants Office. This results in "one-stop shopping" for individuals looking for Program or Grants Information. It also means that current grant or contract holders only need to call their project officer to get answers to either program questions, or technical grants questions.

Valerie Sinkovits, a member of the Grants Re-Engineering Team, and a former staffer in the Grants office and current staff member in OSEP, outlined the new process at the National Transition Alliance For Youth with Disabilities 11th Annual Project Directors Meeting.

The Department of Education hopes to achieve other positive outcomes with the new process. Among them:

Expedited Grant Award Process. The Department hopes to shorten the time it takes to make grant awards. With the Program and Grant staff placed in the same office, their should be minimal budget cost analysis and no internal duplicative review of budgets. However, there will no longer be budget negotiations. For the small grant programs, the Department plans to publish a budget framework with the RFP that will include budget ranges to assist individuals as they prepare their proposals.

Promote Successful Project Outcomes. The Program Offices within the Department of Education will develop performance standards and measures to help grantees monitor their progress. In addition, it is hoped that the staff of the Department will establish closer partnerships with the grantees with more frequent interactions that will have less focus on compliance and more focus on achieving the outcomes of the grant.

Increase Access to the "System". The Department hopes to make application information available via different media, including electronically. In addition, they hope to have a "Combined Application Notice" that would include all the information needed to apply to ED programs in one place.

Improve Quality of ED Peer Review. The Department plans to increase their recruitment efforts for qualified readers as well as to expand the pools of qualified readers.

Another change discussed during the session is that current grant holder will not need to submit continuation applications. Instead, grantees will submit "progress reports" to show that they are accomplishing what they outlined in their initial application.

The phrase uttered the most frequently during the session to grantees or to potential applicants was, "If you have a question or are unsure of something, call us and ask."

SOURCE: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 6/11/96.

The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools - Half of the nation's public schools have at least one computer with Internet access, but more than 90 percent of instructional classrooms are not yet connected to the "information superhighway," according to a new survey by the U.S. Department of Education.

Funding was cited by more than half of all schools as the top barrier to using computers and on-line resources as teaching tools. "Learning on-line must not become a new fault line in American education," said U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley. "The Internet offers tremendous potential as a tool for helping students learn basic and advanced skills, and all students should share in this opportunity. Getting computers into students' and teachers' hands as soon as possible must be a priority."

A new education technology program announced recently will provide a total of $2 billion over the next five years to leverage commitments from private-sector state and local initiatives. The fund's purpose is to help connect every school and classroom to the Internet by the Year 2000; to develop innovative software and online learning resources; to help teachers use technology to improve their skills; and to upgrade outdated computers.

Conducted by the department's National Center for Education Statistics, the survey found 50 percent of all schools have Internet access, compared to 35 percent in 1994. Connections in instructional classrooms (classes, laboratories or libraries) increased from 3 percent to 9 percent. However, schools with high numbers of poor students were only half as likely to be connected as schools serving more affluent students.

The findings, reported in Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1995, are a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 1994.

Among the survey's findings:

* Funding and inadequate internal wiring were the most frequently cited barriers to acquiring advanced telecommunications;

* Three-fourths of schools without access to the Internet have plans to connect in the future;

* In addition to 50 percent of schools on the Internet, 11 percent of schools had access to some other wide-area network that does not connect to the Internet, and 23 percent had only local-area networking capability;

* While only 7 percent of the schools reported parents playing a large role in helping develop telecommunications programs, 31 percent cited parents as playing a moderately active role, up from 1994's 4 percent and 17 percent, respectively;

* Only 31 percent of schools with high levels of students from poor families had access to the Internet, compared to 62 percent of schools with relatively few students from poor families.

Of the 50 percent of public schools with Internet access:

* Ninety-three percent had e-mail, 83 percent could access resource location services, 80 percent had World Wide Web access, and 73 percent could access news groups;

* Nineteen percent could connect to the Internet in five or more instructional rooms in the school;

* Twenty-eight percent of teachers, 21 percent of students and 18 percent of administrators use wide-area networks to a moderate or large extent;

* High school students were more likely to use wide-area networks than elementary students, 30 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

The survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of about 1,000 public elementary and secondary schools in fall 1995.

Single copies of the report are available by calling 800/424-1616 or (202) 219-1513. Call the Government Printing Office's Order Desk at (202) 512-1800 to order multiple copies.

Copies of the report are available via Internet at gopher.ed.gov, Port: 10,000. The path is: NCES Publications and Reports (selection 4); Elementary/Secondary Education Publications and Reports (selection 2); Fast Response Survey System (selection 4); Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12 (selection 1).

SOURCE: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 3/21/96.

Mission and Principles of Professional Development - The U.S. Department of Education has announced a National Awards Program for Model Professional Development. Award-winning programs will demonstrate that their professional development activities are aligned with the Department's Statement of Mission and Principles of Professional Development, and have led to improved student learning.

This Statement of Mission and Principles is presented in full below.

Professional development plays an essential role in successful education reform. Professional development serves as the bridge between where prospective and experienced educators are now and where they will need to be to meet the new challenges of guiding ALL students in achieving to higher standards of learning and development.

High quality professional development as envisioned here refers to rigorous and relevant content, strategies, and organizational supports that ensure the preparation and career-long development of teachers and others whose competence, expectations and actions influence the teaching and learning environment. Both pre- and in-service professional development require partnerships among schools, higher education institutions, and other appropriate entities to promote inclusive learning communities of everyone who impacts students and their learning. Those within and outside schools need to work together to bring to bear the ideas, commitment and other resources that will be necessary to address important and complex educational issues in a variety of settings and for a diverse student body.

Equitable access for all educators to such professional development opportunities is imperative. Moreover, professional development works best when it is part of a systemwide effort to improve and integrate the recruitment, selection, preparation, initial training, induction, ongoing development and support, and advanced certification of educators.

High quality professional development could incorporate ALL of the principles stated below. Adequately addressing each of these principles is necessary for a full realization of the potential of individuals, school communities, and institutions to improve and excel.

THE MISSION of professional development is to prepare and support educators to help all students achieve to high standards of learning and development.

Professional development:

* Focuses on teaches a central to student learning, yet includes all other members of the school community;

* Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;

* Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school community;

* Reflects best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;

* Enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards;

* Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools;

* Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development;

* Requires substantial time and other resources;

* Is driven by a coherent long-term plan;

* Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning and this assessment guides subsequent professional development efforts.

CONTACT: Margaret O'Keefe, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-0100; 202/401-1078.

CITATION: Professional Development Team. (1995). MISSION AND PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Ed. Personnel newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 6/25/96.

Two Million New Teachers: Demand in the Coming Decade - In his May 12, 1996, message to the field and public, NEA President Keith Geiger set forth information about the historic turnover in the teaching force that is in progress and will accelerate in the coming ten years. According to this bulletin, "fully one-third of America's 2.5 million K-12 public school teachers today are moving into their retirement years. At the same time, the student population is rising rapidly, due to the mini-baby boom and increased immigration. . . . Half the teachers who will be in our public school classrooms ten years from now have not yet been hired." Geiger says that simply having new personnel will not be sufficient for the challenges of improving education; rather, every effort must be made to attract very talented students into teacher education.

Further, Geiger recommends: "Why not have the federal government invest an amount equal to 20 percent of what it spends each year recruiting for the armed forces to recruit new teachers? That would be about $240 million."

The article also points out that 450,000 paraprofessionals are already employed by the public schools, that paraprofessionals are more predominantly African American and Hispanic than are recent teacher college graduates, that these paras bring special talents to urban schools "where currently 30 to 50 percent of new teacher hires quit within five years, and that more than 150 preparation programs are training paras to become teachers. Geiger recommends that these efforts receive a "big boost."

In addition, the author points to midlife career changers as another resource for teacher and trainee recruitment, and says that current teachers should be role models for generating interest in teaching careers among public school students. "Give teachers a real voice in the key decisions of the school, provide them with professional renewal and growth opportunities, and pay them a decent salary - then you will have created a truly persuasive body of recruiters."

For information, contact National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth St NW, Washington, DC 20036; 202/822-7200.

CITATION: Geiger, K. (1996, May 12). Two million new teachers! THE WASHINGTON POST, p. C4.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Ed.Personnel newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 5/15/96.

Riley Defends and Challenges Public Schools - On February 28, U. S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley presented his 1996 "State of American Education" address, in which he strongly defended public education as "the very cornerstone of our nation's economic and democratic future: and called on all Americans to "come together for the common good of all our children."

"There is a growing debate about how we educate our children," he said. "On one side, are those who believe you can prepare for the future by cutting education today, who see little value in public education, who seek quite literally to abolish it as an institution. This view is, to my mind, too narrow, too divisive, too fond of bashing teachers, too quick to tear down, rather than build up. I disagree with that vision. The politics of blame and exploiting people's legitimate anxieties has never served America well, and it is so wrong when it comes to the education of our children."

Eighty-nine percent of American children attend public schools. Riley conceded that public education has problems, but said, "More than a debate, we need action - a lot more of that old fashioned American 'can do' spirit that brings out the best in all of us."

To address what he called "the most urgent task," he announced a new national partnership "dedicated to the single goal of improving reading and writing in America."

Riley said a new national reading and writing partnership will bring together about two dozen organizations to "encourage America to open a book." The partnership complements the Read*Write*Now initiative of the Family Involvement Partnership in Learning, a nationwide effort with more than 200 member organizations.

Citing projections that school enrollments will reach an all-time high this fall, Riley also raised several other challenges: to empower parents, to make schools safer, to expand effective innovation and access to technology, to raise academic standards, to prepare young people for jobs, and to assure opportunities for higher education.

He also stressed the importance of safe, orderly and disciplined schools. Following President Clinton's lead, Riley said school uniforms may be a way to "create a better atmosphere."

Riley defended the Goals 2000 school improvement initiative and called for a bipartisan effort to raise academic standards, noting that, "We will only win the battle for excellence if we have excellent teachers. Our schools need to get and hold the best teachers and be willing to weed out bad teachers, to help inexperienced but talented teachers get better, and to reward schools that get results."

The Secretary said that bringing libraries and classrooms on-line is "a national mission, as important as sending men to the Moon," but he said that must be "just one step in a growing effort to move American education into the future."

Education needs to "open up," he said, citing public school choice, schools-within-schools, and the charter school movement as examples. He said that, as part of his next budget, President Clinton will ask Congress for "venture capital" to create additional charter schools. Operating under a public charter, these schools are encouraged to innovate and seek new ways of increasing student achievement. The Education Department currently funds a $6 million charter school demonstration project.

Riley said he opposes taking taxpayers' dollars out of public schools for private school vouchers, but said he favors removing restrictions on the use of federal Title I funds placed on private and parochial schools by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1985 Aguilar v. Felton decision. He expressed deep concern that private school vouchers would destroy public schools and also fundamentally change the nature of private schools by making them accountable to the public.

Noting that the average income for high school graduates has been declining over the past 20 years, the Secretary said, "Good paying jobs require more of an education, and that education has to start earlier and be more demanding." He cited apprenticeships, career academies and tech preps as examples of ways to better prepare students for higher-wage jobs.

Riley called on colleges and universities to "hold the line" on tuition and urged the Congress to maintain funding for student loans and grants. He renewed his call to expand the Direct Student Loan program and voiced support for President Clinton's merit scholarship, work study, and tuition tax deduction proposals.

Riley concluded his address with a call for common ground. "Our task is not to retreat to our own separate racial, ethnic, cultural or political interest group, but rather to do the hard work of learning to come together for the good of all our children," he said.

"We know how to create good schools. Now, is the time to get the job done - to roll-up our sleeves - to recapture that pioneer spirit of working together to make America's schools bastions of hope, creativity and learning."

For more information, contact: Kerri Morgan at the U. S. Department of Education at 202/401-3026.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 3/5/96.

What Are Charter Schools? - The U.S. Department of Education recently published an article entitled, "Charter Schools Find Their Own Way to Success." Following is the article.

As interest grows in the idea of charter schools as an important tool in public school reform, the Education Department is receiving numerous inquiries: what is a charter school? Although charter schools share some basic features, they embody many different visions of school improvement, unique to each community. Education Secretary Richard Riley has visited numerous charter schools in his travels across the country. "I've seen many different success stories," he said. "Charter schools have the freedom to be innovative, but one important feature they share is how they can become a source of good ideas throughout a district."

A charter school is a public school that is governed by teachers, parents, administrators, or others who want to create and manage a successful public school. The developers of a charter school apply to a public agency - usually a local school board or state board of education - for a charter that provides public funding and a performance contract to run a public school.

Charter schools are free from most education laws and regulations, but are accountable for results. Performance is reviewed after three to five years, and a school remains open only as long as it achieves good results. Charter schools do not charge tuition. They are accountable to public institutions and generally have open admissions policies.

While charter schools vary in size, many are small schools, averaging about 300 students. Charter schools also vary in the focus of their mission. The Accelerated Charter School in south-central Los Angeles emphasizes high expectations for all learners and has raised student scores on a standardized math test substantially over the past year. Honey Creek Community School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, focuses on technology and provides Internet access to all teachers and students. New Visions School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, focuses intensively on reading and is using a Goals 2000 grant to share its successful strategies with teachers in nearby school districts.

Supporters view charter schools as a promising way to raise academic standards, empower educators, involve parents and communities, and expand choice and accountability in public education. One challenge facing charter schools has been a lack of start-up funding. To expand start-up resources, the Department of Education has provided $5.4 million in start-up grants for charter schools in 11 states, and President Clinton has proposed a major expansion of this public charter schools program. For more information on public charter schools, including contacts in your state, call 1-800-USA-LEARN or visit the Department's World Wide Web site at http://www.ed.gov.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 5/15/96.

Crisis Intervention Training in South Carolina - A committee was appointed by the South Carolina State Board of Education to study the needs of children who are emotionally disabled. In its 1991 report to the Board, the committee identified specific problem areas and also recommended solutions in four areas: (a) training and certification; (b) retention of teachers of children with emotional disabilities; (c) program, curriculum, and administration; and (d) community, district, and statewide issues.

One of the recommendations was the provision of statewide training in crisis intervention. A committee of local district personnel reviewed various training programs and recommended that the Crisis Intervention Program offered by the National Crisis Prevention Institute in Brookfield, Wisconsin, be used as the model in South Carolina. The intent of this initiative was, and continues to be, to prepare service providers with intervention strategies emphasizing the care, safety, and welfare of staff and student to de-escalate inappropriate aggressive behaviors and manage crisis situations. During the four-day Instructor Certification Program, participants develop skills in crisis intervention techniques, as well as acquire proficiency for training others.

The training is comprised of four phases. Phase 1 is designed to teach basic skills and techniques of non-violent crisis intervention. Phase 2 focuses on teaching techniques that participants can use to teach basic skills and techniques. Phase 3 is an instructor practicum that affords participants an opportunity to develop their presentation skills. The program concludes with Phase 4, which is a review and written examination. Participants receive an Instructor's Manual designed to assist them during their inservice training. South Carolina's Office of Programs for Exceptional Children has available, on a loan basis, training tapes that can be used in the state to assist participants in providing instruction to personnel within their respective districts.

Since the inception of the program, approximately 200 individuals in South Carolina have received intervention training. Trainees have included teachers, aides, guidance counselors, principals, coaches, psychologists, and district administrators.

Personnel in South Carolina should contact their district Coordinator of Special Education for further information. Out-of-state inquiries may be directed to: Dr. Ora Spann, Director, Office of Programs for Exceptional Children, South Carolina Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Columbia, SC 29201.

CITATION: Elksnin, N., & Elksnin, L. (Eds.) (1996, Spring). Crisis intervention training. OPEC REVIEW, 1(2), 6.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Ed. Personnel newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 6/5/96.

Illinois Statewide Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities Network: Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Systems Change - This information was prepared and presented at the January 1996 Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference, in Washington, DC by Lucille Eber, LaGrange Area Department of Special Education.

BACKGROUND

Since the 1990-91 school year, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has sponsored eleven projects to promote systems change and improved outcomes for students with, or at risk of, emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD). Phase I of these initiatives involved six sites funded during 1991-1994, and Phase II includes five sites funded from the fall of 1993 through the 1995-96 school year. Technical assistance and evaluation for the sites have also been provided by ISBE.

Projects have received technical assistance focused on integration of the project efforts into the existing systems. Following the three-year funding cycle for Phase I (August 1994), four technical assistance sites were established to continue the impact of project experiences into the Phase I sites, as well as in other school districts and communities across the State. These TA sites were located in the North, Central, and Southern regions of the state, as well as in the city of Chicago. The technical assistance sites provided support to Phase II sites while also linking with mental health and social service providers in the region to assist in the implementation of the Local Area Networks (LANs) across the state.

Experience and evaluation data suggest that application of a system of care principles and the wraparound approach are resulting in improved outcomes for children and families. Phase II Project Directors and regional technical assistance representatives (former Phase I Project Directors) have partnered with technical assistance representatives from the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Illinois Federation of Families to support the application of wraparound through Local Area Networks and schools. This has included leadership in state, regional, and local wraparound training sessions, as well as hands-on support to schools, Local Area Networks, agencies, and child/family teams involved in wraparound implementation.

Expanding the Focus of the EBD Technical Assistance Network

ISBE technical assistance efforts through the EBD Projects expanded during 1994-95 to include other educators interested in working with their Local Area Networks and restructuring school-based services through wraparound approaches. Representatives from school districts across the state joined EBD Initiative meetings throughout the 1994-95 school year to receive training and technical assistance, and to dialogue about the needs of schools, families, and communities in achieving better outcomes for students with or at risk of EBD. These efforts have addressed schools' role in the Local Area Networks, re-engineering school resources, and applying the wraparound process to better meet the needs of students with EBD.

In June 1995, two statewide meetings of educational and other agency representatives were held to discuss training and technical assistance opportunities and needs for schools and Local Area Networks. The first of these meetings was specifically designed to obtain input for the Illinois fall conference on education's role in the system of care. This planning meeting was attended by a range of educators including superintendents, special education directors, teachers, principals, social workers, and parents. It was attended by representatives of the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, Department of Children and Family Services, and advocacy groups, as well as national participants representing the Center for Mental Health Services, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and the Georgetown Technical Assistance Center.

Subsequently, a group of approximately 70 people met to provide input into planning for statewide technical assistance through the ISBE EBD Technical Assistance Network for 1995-96 and beyond. This group included parents, educators, and representatives from other state agencies. The goal was to develop a statewide infrastructure that will support local and regional efforts to provide awareness, training, technical assistance, and networking opportunities focused on improving services and outcomes for children with, or at risk of, EBD and their families. This one-day meeting generated strengths, needs, and strategies for the statewide EBD Technical Assistance Network. The following list summarizes the information and ideas generated by the participants at the meeting. This synthesis of information will assist the regional planning groups (with leadership provided by the LAN Liaisons) in organizing technical assistance and training activities. Additionally, this initial planning will guide statewide technical assistance efforts through the ISBE Technical Assistance Network in support of regional and local efforts.

¥ A wide range of technical assistance and training:
* A range of technical assistance training opportunities are available and accessible.
* An accessible information network is developed.

¥ Cross-agency and inclusive:
* Develop training/technical assistance materials for schools and parents
* Widespread training and technical assistance at a variety of levels (from awareness to trainer of trainers)

¥ Parent focused:
* Affect the political climate
* Cross-agency inclusive training

¥ Education focused:
* Technical assistance and training that cross audiences (administration, social workers, teachers, etc.)
* Local trainers are developed from education, mental health, and social services

¥ Develops a technical assistance/training infrastructure:
* Regular ongoing communication linkage among state, regional, and local
* Coordination of all the training/technical assistance activities in the area
* Support flexible use of funds in education
* Support to direct line staff

¥ Builds local capacity:
* Fluid training that crosses agencies
* Integrate regular and special education
* Promote parent/professional partnerships; empower families and communities
* Develop parents as trainees and trainers
* Utilize local people for training

The 1995-96 Focus

Following the 1995-96 kickoff of this statewide technical assistance effort at the September conference ("Accepting the Challenge: Education's Role in the System of Care"), regional and local technical assistance and training will continue. Regional roundtable meetings of interested educators, parents, and Local Area Network participants will be convened quarterly to provide leadership and support for these activities.

Several school sites across the state where there is a commitment to restructure educational options for students with EBD, based on system of care principles, will participate in specific technical assistance activities and data collection. The experiences and feedback from these sites will provide additional examples and models for continued engineering of service options throughout Illinois.

The long-term goal is to improve outcomes for students with, or at risk of, EBD and their families, by:

1. Increasing school-based technical assistance and training opportunities;

2. Continuing Local Area Network Liaison support to improve educational participation with community representatives;

3. Supporting local/regional and state funding coordination to operationalize re-directed resources around children and families at the community level; and

4. Building local resource team capacity.

Contact: Lucille Eber, Director, Project WRAP, LaGrange Area Department of Special Education, 1301 West Cossitt Avenue, LaGrange, IL 60525; 708/354-5730; Fax:708/354-0733.

CITATION: Eber, L. (1996, January). Illinois Statewide EBD Network: Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Systems Change Presentation at OSEP's 1996 Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference, Washington, DC, January 17, 1996.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Ed.Personnel (CSPD) newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 2/21/96.

De Facto Deregulation: Changing the Rules of the Game - The February 18, 1996 edition of The Washington Post included an article overviewing changes that have been taking place in the federal government's regulatory role. These changes are traced to: the Administration's quest for regulatory reform as part of the "reinventing government" initiative; the concepts underlying the Republican "Contract with America" and Congressional action on these concepts; and lack of funds for enforcing regulations in some agencies.

For one thing, agencies have turned more and more to negotiation, rather than enforcement. In addition, "Congress found other ways to effect change. It cut agency budgets and used funding legislation to specifically zero out money for some regulatory and enforcement efforts" (Skrzycki, 1995, p. A10). The budget impasse between Congress and the President, and the resulting long shutdown of many federal departments and agencies, has also had an impact on monitoring and enforcement of regulations.

The February 18 article includes the following information on various bills in Congress intended to legislate deregulation, although these attempts "are stalled and are not likely to regain momentum until after the 1996 election" (p. A10):

Regulatory Transition Act. For a one-year moratorium on all new regulations.
* Passed in the House
* Substituted in the Senate

Regulatory Review Act. Congress would have authority to veto any new regulations.
* Substituted in the House
* Passed in the Senate

Private Property Protection Act. The federal government would be required to compensate property owners for declines in property values that result from environmental actions.
* Passed in the House
* Pending in the Senate

Regulatory Reform. Federal agencies would be required to prove that the benefits of new regulations are greater than their costs; would also allow judicial review of rules.
* Passed in the House
* In the Senate: Included in the debt ceiling extension bill and was vetoed

Regulatory Sunset. All regulations whose economic impact is more than $100 million would require re-approval every seven years.
* Pending in the House
* Pending in the Senate

Paperwork Reduction Act Revisions. The Congressional Budget Office would be required to evaluate the burdens of new regulations; includes permission for experimental efforts to reduce paperwork.
* Passed in the House
* Passed in the Senate

Regulatory Flexibility Act Revisions. Reduces the regulatory burden on small businesses.
* Passed in the House
* In the Senate: Included in the debt ceiling extension bill and was vetoed

Endangered Species Revisions. A new approach to protecting endangered species would reward property owners who help to conserve them.
* Passed in House committee
* Pending in the Senate

Clean Water Act Reform. More flexibility for local officials in accomplishing clean water standards.
* Passed in House * Senate hearings may be held in March

Environmental Protection Agency Riders. Limits on EPA activities were attached to an appropriations bill.
* Passed in House and Senate but vetoed. However, some of the riders are in force at this time, as part of the last continuing resolution.

Food and Drug Administration Modernizations. Measures to improve efficiency in approving drugs and devices, and to ease export restrictions.
* Introduced in the House; no committee action as yet
* Introduced in the Senate; no committee action as yet

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Overhaul. Would require OSHA standards to have a basis in scientific data; would forbid penalties where such standards do not exist. (House version also would require cost-benefit analysis.)
* Subcommittee hearing has been held in the House
* Introduced in the Senate; no committee action as yet

CITATIONS: Skrzycki, C. (1995, February 18). Slowing the flow of federal rules: New conservative climate chills agencies' activism. THE WASHINGTON POST, 119th Year, No. 75, pp. A1, A10.

SOURCE: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 2/21/96.

[Editor's Note: The following captions reference the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report, (IDELR), The Special Educator (TSE), The Early Childhood Reporter (ECR), which are published by LRP Publications.]

For reference, the reader is reminded that a set of IDELR and ECR volumes is maintained in both the Division and ISEAS offices. Issues of The Special Educator newsletter are provided by subscription through ISEAS for each special education planning district in Indiana.

New Judicial Decisions. . .

Parents Not Required To Use Private Insurance To Pay for IEEs. Raymond S. ex rel. Janet S. v. Ramirez, 23 IDELR 965 (N.D. Iowa).

Teacher's Explanation of Expletives Showed Creativity Necessary for Special Needs Students. Hosford v. School Committee of Sandwich, 23 IDELR 937 (Mass. 1996).

OSERS/OSEP. . .

Reauthorization Proposals Geared Toward Goal of Reducing Paperwork. Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 990 (OSEP 1995).

Parents Who Disagree With Educational Services Offered During Disciplinary Exclusions Can Seek Due Process. Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 989 (OSEP 1995).

OSEP Explains Alternative Methods For IEP Participation in Case of Publicly-Placed Private School Students. Letter to Sarzynski, 23 IDELR 993 (OSEP 1995).

State's Use of Exit Criteria for Residential Students Did Not Violate IDEA. Letter to Allen, 23 IDELR 996 (OSEP 1995).

Diagnosis of ADD Based on Single Doctor's Visit May Conflict With Eligibility Requirements. Letter to Kramer, 23 IDELR 991 (OSEP 1995).

Judicial. . .

FAPE Claim Dismissed for Failure To Exhaust Administrative RemediesÐIndiana. Smith ex rel. Levester v. Indianapolis Pub. Sch., 23 IDELR 1037 (S.D. Ind. 1996).

For Student Inmate, Right to FAPE Must Be Balanced Against Prison Safety. New Hampshire Dept. of Educ. v. City of Manchester, NH Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1057 (D.N.H. 1996).

Speech Impairment Eligibility Determination Not Limited to Academic Criteria. Mary P. ex rel. Michael P. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 23 IDELR 1064 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

Claims Involving Participation in Extracurricular Activities Required Exhaustion. Koopman by Koopman v. Fremont County Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1050 (Wyo. 1996).

Detention Center Placement Upheld Pending Hearing on Merits of Its Appropriateness. Taylor v. Corinth Pub. Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1054 (N.D. Miss. 1996).

Passing Grades Showed Benefit in Public School; Residential Reimbursement Denied. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1041 (S.D. Tex. 1996).

IDEA Does Not Bar Award of Costs To Prevailing School District. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 23 IDELR 1048 (S.D. Tex. 1996).

OSERS/OSEP. . .

Admission of Telephone Testimony At Due Process Falls Within Hearing Officer's Discretion. Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 1073 (OSEP 1995).

Behavior Plans Not Mandatory in IEPs, But ED Encourages Their Use Where Appropriate. Letter to Huefner, 23 IDELR 1072 (OSEP 1995). OCR. . . Refusal To Provide Tutoring Was Not A Denial of FAPEÐIndiana. Merrillville (IN) Community Sch. Corp., 23 IDELR 1075 (OCR 1995). FERPA. . . Disclosure of Educational Records To Doctor Without Consent Violated FERPA. Irvine (CA) Unified Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1077 (FPCO 1996).

Judicial Decisions. . .

7th Circuit Rejects Notion of Equal Services for Private School Students in AndersonÐIndiana. K.R. by M.R. v. Anderson Community Sch. Corp., 23 IDELR 1137 (7th Cir. 1996).

In its highly anticipated ruling on services for private school students, the 7th circuit refused to read the IDEA and its accompanying regulations as a mandate requiring full benefits for that group consistent with the district court's earlier decision. Instead, the court chose to align with the long-standing views of OSEP-that private school students were entitled to a "genuine opportunity to participate" in public school programs and that school districts retained descretion over the provision of those services. K.R. by M.R. v. Anderson Community Sch. Corp., 23 IDELR 1137 (7th Cir. 1996).

Special Education LRE for 13-Year-Old With Multiple DisabilitiesÐIndiana. D.F. v. Western Sch. Corp., 23 IDELR 1121 (S.D. Ind. 1996).

Giving credence to a hearing officer's findings that a regular education curriculum would have to be adapted beyond recognition to fit the needs of a 13-year-old with multiple disabilities, an Indiana district court commented that "Such efforts are not required in the name of mainstreaming," and upheld a district's special education placement.

Court Reconsiders Discipline Case And Now Says Continued Services Are Required During Long-Term Suspensions/Expulsions. Doe by Doe v. Board of Educ. of Oak Park River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200, 23 IDELR 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

7th Circuit: IDEA's Stay-Put Provision Does Not Apply to Students Over 21. Board of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200 v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 23 IDELR 1118 (7th Cir. 1996).

6th Circuit: State Not Required To Pay Special Education Costs For Students Whose Parents Were Not Residents. Wise v. Ohio Dept. of Educ., 23 IDELR 1132 (6th Cir. 1996).

Where Transition to New Placement Was Disputed, Parents Entitled to Payment at Former PlacementÐthe Stay-Put Placement. Drinker by Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist. 23 IDELR 1112 (3rd Cir. 1996).

Parents Did Not Succeed In Obtaining Additional Elements To Program Deemed Adequate. Andrew S. by Margaret S. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Educ., 23 IDELR 1106 (D. Mass. 1996).

Injunction Seeking Interim Placement Denied As Relief It Sought Already Had Been Received. Council Rock Sch. Dist. v. Richard N., 23 IDELR 1131 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

OSERS/OSEP. . .

State Failed To Ensure That Private Schools Met State Standards. Letter to Lieberman, 23 IDELR 1143 (OSERS 1996).

FERPA Rulings. . .

Health and Safety Emergency Exception Not Only Time Education Records May Be Disclosed Without Consent. Irvine (CA) Unified Sch. Dist., 23 IDELR 1157 (FPCO 1996).

SEA Decisions. . .

Parents Entitled To Additional Private School ReimbursementÐIndiana. Sunman-Dearborn Community Sch. Corp., 23 IDELR 1159 (SEA IN 1996).

An Indiana appeals panel officer affirmed an IHO's findings that a 16-year-old student with a learning disability was entitled to compensatory education and private school reimbursement due to a district's failure to provide appropriate educational programming, but slightly extended the time period for which parents were entitled to reimbursement. r

Indiana APSE '96 Conference - The Indiana APSE '96 Conference titled The Indiana Institute on Supported Employment: Toward Full Citizenship will be held on October 21-23, 1996 at the Adams Mark Hotel in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Nationally known speakers will include: Colleen Wieck, Carey Griffin, Bob Niemac, Dan Roudenbusch and Tina Hartley-Malik. Five major strands, 40 concurrent sessions. Stipends for individuals with disabilities and family members are available.

For more information, contact Becky Banks at ISDD, 2853 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47408 or call at 812/855-6508.

The National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education has issued a 36 page report on A State of the Art Report on Paraeducators in Education and Related Services.

Contact this Center for a listing of publications to assist with paraprofessional training needs at: National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education, Center for Advanced Study in Education, 25 West 43 Street, Room 620 N, NY, NY 10036; 212/642-2948

Emotional Intelligence: A New Vision for Educators (Video) - Emotional intelligence encompasses self awareness and impulse control, persistence, zeal, and self motivation, empathy, and social deftness. Lack of emotional intelligence can sabotage the intellect and ruin careers. Perhaps the greatest toll is on children, for whom risk includes depression, eating disorders, unwanted pregnancy, aggressiveness, violent crime, substance abuse, and dropping out of school.

This new video is based on Daniel Goleman's book, called EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: WHY IT CAN MATTER MORE THAN IQ. In the video, Goleman argues that our view of human intelligence is too narrow, and school districts across the country that are addressing emotional intelligence are featured. The author also explains how educators can incorporate emotional intelligence into teaching and learning in the classroom.

The videotape will become available on approximately March 30, 1996, at a cost of $79.95 plus $5 for shipping.

Goleman's book (published in 1995) is also available for $23.95 plus $4 for shipping (352 pages, hard cover).

CONTACT: National Professional Resources, Inc, 25 South Regent Street, Port Chester, NY 10573; 1-800-453-7461; Fax: 914/937-9327.

GOALS 2000: Increasing Student Initiative Through State and Local Initiatives - This is the U.S. Department of Education's first report to Congress on progress achieved through the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. In addition to presenting a history of this law, the report describes the uses of Goals 2000 federal funds by state and local education agencies, and addresses other topics, too.

This report is FREE. You may request it by calling the Department's toll-free number: 800-USA-LEARN.

Access AmeriCorps - AmeriCorps, the nation's community service project to provide community service job experience to individuals ages 16 and older, has formed an innovative partnership with United Cerebral Palsy Associations to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities as active participants in the mix of young American workers. Access AmeriCorps is the new UCPA project designed to provide technical assistance to all 50 states to help AmeriCorps State commissions and their grantees. For more information, contact Susan Finisdore at 1-800-873-5UCP.

Return to the Cable Homepage

Return to the ISEAS Homepage