Public education for disabled children: a quarter-century of progress

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Dec. 5, 2000 — The proposed budget for the U.S. Department of Education contains a proposed 28 percent increase in funding for “special education,” the Wall Street Journal reported last Wednesday — the largest increase of any Education Dept. program.

Twenty-five years ago last week, Public Law 92-142, known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was signed into law, so that children with disabilities in the United States would have educational opportunities equal to students who do not have disabilities.

In 1997, that law was revised and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

While The Washington Post and USA Today both did stories on Pres. Clinton’s proclamation on the 25th anniversary of the law, The St. Louis Post Dispatch went further, with reporter Holly Hacker reporting how St. Louis, Missouri and Indiana school systems fared in a U.S. Dept. of Education report released last on the Act’s anniversary. The Post-Dispatch reported that, according to the report, “nearly half of U.S. children with disabilities spent at least 80 percent of the day in regular classrooms. By contrast, about 35 percent of disabled children in Missouri and Illinois spent that much time in regular classrooms.”

The Evansville Courier & Press looked at how the IDEA has changed the lives of children with disabilities in Indiana: “DISABLED STUDENTS IN MAINSTREAM” is available online at http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200011/30+disabled113000_news html

More E-Letters

School discipline and the IDEA: unfair to nondisabled students?

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Apr. 4, 2001 — A report released recently by the General Accounting Office on school discipline practices under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has found that “about 60 to 65 percent of students who engage in serious misconduct, whether they are in regular education or special education programs, are given out-of-school suspensions.” In other words, it did not find large variation in treatment between students with disabilities and those without. However the report’s small sample size and the fact that it relied on self-reported data makes its usefulness as an indicator of trends in education somewhat limited.

A summary of the report, “Student Discipline Individuals With Disabilities Education Act” (GAO-01-210) can be found at the GAO site athttp://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?&rptno=GAO-01-210. The entire report, in PDF only, will be downloaded by going to http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/fetchrpt?rptno=GAO-01-210 (PDF formats are generally inaccessible to older screen readers as they are in graphic format; this one is also large at 312K).

The report is the result of complaints by those who felt the IDEA’s 1997 amendments unfairly kept schools from suspending disabled students who misbehaved. The report was requested by the Appropriations Committees of both houses of Congress.

“Anecdotal evidence,” says the report, “suggested that students with disabilities, because of the IDEA, were allowed to stay in school whereas nondisabled students engaging in similar misconduct would be “suspended or expelled without services.”

“This led to the perception of a double standard.”

The GAO found, however, that “The length of suspensions is about equal in the two groups, and less than half of suspended students in each group receive educational services during their suspensions. The same proportion of each group of students who engage in serious misconduct-about one in six-is expelled from school and/or placed in an alternative educational setting as a consequence of the misconduct.”

A word of caution is in order: The study was conducted from “self-reported” data provided by school principals.”

Although the IDEA 1997 amendments require the Dept. of Education to collect data “on certain disciplinary actions for special education students, at the time we did our work this effort had not progressed sufficiently to provide us with any usable data,” said the GAO in its report.

The group surveyed was “a nationally representative sample of about 465 public middle and high school principals.”

“We had a response rate of 60 percent for our survey. This response rate is too low to permit us to produce estimates that are nationally representative,” said the GAO. “Nevertheless, the size and geographic location of the 272 responding schools were generally similar to the schools in our sample, and we believe the survey data provide information not available from any other source.”

“Special education students who are involved in serious misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar manner to regular education students, based on the information principals reported to us,” wrote the GAO. “However, about 27 percent of principals reported that a separate discipline policy for special education students is unfair to the regular student population, and 20 percent reported that the discipline procedures for IDEA are burdensome and time-consuming.”

More E-Letters

Effort to defeat “discipline amendments”

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Aug. 14, 2001 — Tomorrow, Aug. 15, education advocates have dubbed “National Call-In Day” as they try to get disability advocates nationwide to contact Congress and the Bush Administration to urge defeat of two amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that “threaten to eliminate rights of disabled students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” according to the National Center for Law and Education.

Senate/House Conference Committee members meeting to resolve differences in House and Senate versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act being reauthorized must resolve issues with two “discipline amendments” to the law which would allow schools to remove disabled students from school based on “discipline problems.” One amendment — Amendment No. 604 to the IDEA — is sponsored by Sen. Jeff Session’s (R.-AL). The other, Amendment No. 55 to the ESEA, is sponsored by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R.-GA).

A fact sheet on the amendments is online athttp://www.cleweb.org/discipline8801.htm with more information on contacts that can be made to oppose the amendments.

“Evidence does not support the need for these discipline amendments,” says the Center for Law and Education. “Expelling children does not lead to safer schools or communities,” they say, and add that schools “already have the authority to remove children with disabilities who may be harmful to self or others.” It is short-sighted to deny any child an education — and it is particularly irrational to deny appropriate public education to a child with a disability based on what are perceived as “discipline problems,” say advocates.

Individuals can send a message on the amendments to their Representative and Senators by going to http://capwiz.com/cek/issues/alert/?alertid=43998&type=CO&azip= or can call and leave a message at the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.

Groups involved in the National Call-In Day include, besides the National Center for Law and Education (online at http://www.cleweb.org), the PACER Center (at http://www.pacer.org ) the Council for Exceptional Children (athttp://www.cec.sped.org ); the National Parent Network on Disabilities (athttp://www.npnd.org) and TASH (at http://www.tash.org).

More E-Letters

Online access for students brings need for training

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Sept. 25, 2001 — Increasingly colleges, universities — and even grade and high-school courses — depend on at least some online instruction. Some universities offer entire courses for credit via online instruction. In putting together these courses, educators must remember that federal law — including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act — are all cited as legal mandates requiring that such offerings be in an accessible format (seehttp://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/webaccess/sect508.htm).

Beginning Oct. 1, EASI — Equal Access to Software and Information — will offer an online course in how to make online courses accessible. The group, dedicated to the proposition that “students and professionals with disabilities have the same right to access information technology as anyone else,” has information at http://easi.cc/workshops/adaptit.htm . Course instructors Joseph J. Lazzaro, Richard Banks and Norman Coombs say the month-long series “provides the framework needed by an institution to establish an organization-wide, systematic program to become information technology barrier-free. It is ideal for administrators, information technology staff, instructional technology staff, disability services staff, librarians and also for concerned faculty.” EASI’s workshops are offered in conjunction with the Rochester Institute of Technology (seehttp://www.rit.edu/%7Eeasi/easi/alleasi.htm for more information about the group).

A new site, Assistive Technology Training Online, a project of the University at Buffalo’s Center for Assistive Technology, offers “free information and tutorials on using assistive technology devices and strategies with students with disabilities in elementary grades” (http://at-training.com).

The Center for Assistive Technology is a NIDRR-funded Center: EASI gets part of its funding from the National Science Foundation.

There’s a clear need for more information about developing accessible materials for students; many online courses remain inaccessible (see “Distance Learning: Boon or Bane” from the Sept. Ragged Edge magazine athttp://www.raggededgemagazine.com/0901/0901ft1.htm).

More E-Letters

Segregation Still the Norm for Children with Disabilities

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Dec. 11, 2001 — “One measure of your State’s commitment to integrating people with disabilities into the community is how well integrated our children with disabilities are in schools,” writes attorney Steve Gold. Nationally, less than half of those students whose disability is “orthopedic” are in integrated, “mainstream” classroom settings, according to data in the most recent report to Congress on state implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

While Vermont shows that it integrates almost 9 out of 10 children with only orthopedic impairments, in California fewer than 3 of every 10 children with primarily orthopedic disabilities are in integrated classrooms. The report is available for download athttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/OSEP2000AnlRpt/index.html— information as to rates of integration can be found in the appendix. There one can look at the state-by-state breakdown of the percentage of children classified with only “orthopedic impairments” who are integrated in their schools and educational programs for 80 percent or more of the school day. Some of the data include Delaware (25%), Florida (43%), Illinois (32%), Mississippi (14%), Nebraska (55%) and Texas (18%); for a complete state list, email us at info@accessiblesociety.org.

The San Jose Mercury News reported last month that disabled children in the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto were still segregated (“East P.A. Schools Given Goals; Judge Outlines Steps To Avoid Takeover,” by Sara Neufield, Nov. 22, available from the Mercury-News archives athttp://www0.mercurycenter.com/resources/search/). In October, a federal judge gave Ravenswood a final six months to improve its special education program before ordering a state takeover of the district (story online athttp://www.raggededgemagazine.com/drn/drn101101eastpalo.htm)

“Advocates should demand to know why their state educational departments are permitting local school districts to segregate any child with a disability, but particularly a child whom the school district acknowledges has only an “orthopedic impairment,’ ” says Gold.

More E-Letters

Roles for Youth with Disabilities

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

July 16, 2002 — One of every 12 children and teenagers in the U.S. has a recognized disability, according to data released this spring from the 2000 U.S. Census. “The rising numbers come after a period of dramatic change in the nation’s approach to disabilities,” writes Washington Post Staff Writer D’Vera Cohn. “The rising numbers already present a challenge to school systems and other public agencies.” (Read the story online athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25998-2002Jul4.html )

Our July 23 E-Letter looks at Census 2000’s findings on disability.

Young people with disabilities face considerable obstacles moving from school to the work force, says InfoUse’s Alice Wong. “One third of students in special education drop out of high school before graduating. Among those who complete high school, over 40 percent remain unemployed after five years.” It may be that teachers and parents expect less from students with disabilities. Students with disabilities often have lower expectations for themselves, and are twice as likely than their non-disabled peers to have no plans for education beyond high school.

“Developing a positive self-concept and realistic career expectations must take place early in the process of preparing for the workplace,” says InfoUse. “Role models with whom students can identify and who share their interests can help motivate students to think about exploring careers they have not thought of as realistic options.” InfoUse’s new Role Models for Youth with Disabilities Project is developing a CD-ROM and a video featuring sixty role models in a wide range of occupations. To participate, contact Wong at alwong1_99@yahoo.com; visit InfoUse online athttp://www.infouse.org

The National Youth Leadership Council, formed following a 1997 national conference in Washington, DC., “dedicated to advancing the next generation of disability leaders,” is holding its 2002 National Youth Leadership Conference July 26 – 29, 2002 at the Hyatt Regency Washington — the organization says it hopes to “help prepare the next generation of disability leaders, and to identify ways to improve policies and supports for young people with disabilities.” The Council is composed of young leaders with disabilities who have attended past conferences. Some have formed the National Youth Leadership Network — NYLN — which says its mission is to “increase opportunities for young people with disabilities to build successful lives.” For more on the group and its conference, go tohttp://www.nyln.org/home/Conference_Information/

More E-Letters

New Ed Roberts Postdoctoral Fellowships launched

Note to readers: links to news articles may not work after a few weeks, as news media remove current stories to their archives. The link may take you to the archives section, where, for a fee, you can view the article.

Aug. 27, 2002 — This fall, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research will be funding a new post-doctoral program based at the University of California, Berkeley — three full-time, nine-month residential postdoctoral fellowships a year for five years. The Ed Roberts Postdoctoral Fellowships will begin this fall or next January, depending on whether the program has sufficient applicants.

To jumpstart the program, a San Francisco Bay area consortium of universities, research institutes, and disability agencies will recruit people with advanced professional degrees who want to broaden their theoretical outlook and their disability research methodological skills to apply for the fellowships.

Each Fellow will be matched with a senior faculty Mentor, and each Fellow will also participate as a Mentor for a matched undergraduate disability studies student. The program will offer structured, monthly, Bay-area-wide seminars; the Fellows will present research work at these seminars. They will also attend at least one class each semester chosen from among the offerings of consortium partners. Each Fellow will also have the opportunity to participate in teaching at Berkeley by delivering guest lectures.

Fellows will also conduct their own research; the program will assist Fellows in identifying funding to pursue disability studies and rehabilitation research and publication opportunities after the conclusion of the Fellowship.

For more information on the Fellowships, contact Susan Schweik atsschweik@uclink4.berkeley.edu or Devva Kasnitz at devva@earthlink.net

Disability studies is a growing field. A number of schools around the nation now have major disability studies programs. Among the best known of these are:

The Department of Disability and Human Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago, at http://www.uic.edu/depts/idhd/

The Center on Disability Studies at the University of Hawaii/Manoa, athttp://www.cds.hawaii.edu/

The Disability Studies Program at Syracuse University, athttp://soeweb.syr.edu/thechp/disstud.htm

The Arizona University Center on Disabilities at http://www.nau.edu/~ihd/

and

The Institute on Disability (University of New Hampshire) athttp://iod.unh.edu/

There are many other disability studies programs in the U.S. and the number is growing daily. We encourage readers of this E-Letter to send us information about other U.S. disability studies programs at the University level. Send information to info@accessiblesociety.org

More E-Letters

Students with disabilities’ outcomes need study, says report

Sept. 16, 2003 — “Students with disabilities, who now are estimated to represent nearly 10 percent of all college students, currently experience outcomes far inferior to those of their non-disabled peers, despite the fact that research shows that they are more likely to obtain positive professional employment outcomes after degree completion than their peers,” says the National Council on Disability in a report issued yesterday.

The group, which said it released its paper in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, is, among other things, calling for research to:

• Document the importance and value of postsecondary education for people with disabilities through close secondary analysis of extant data sets.
• Determine the current status of people with disabilities in postsecondary education by expanding the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS).
• Gather data on a national level in order to acknowledge services and accommodations for postsecondary students with disabilities; to learn about the ways in which student education, accommodations, medical and other services are financed; and to understand the differences in services provided, costs to students, and success rates from state-to-state.
• Explore the issues that contribute to this current status through a number of effectiveness studies focusing upon specific factors that lead to successful outcomes for students with disabilities.

NCD also wants disability statistics included “in the data collected by the Student Aid Recipient Survey conducted by the Commissioner of Education Statistics, so that analysis of student expenses and ability to repay loans can include this information.”

The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, says NCD, “must contain a mandate to conduct a national study that will yield a clearinghouse for the collection, classification, and ongoing dissemination of data regarding the status of people with disabilities in postsecondary education and subsequent professional employment.”

Read the report from NCD

Contact:
Mark Quigley, Director of Communications
National Council on Disability
202-272-2004