IDEA Reauthorization Summary:
This year’s action has been a rather slow time when compared to the previous year in the life of the IDEA Reauthorization. It has been the Board's job to track the movement of the House and the Senate and to meet with California Congressional Representatives. At first we were uncertain about which path the House would take in formulating their version - H.R.1350. Last Fall, the House rushed its version of the Reauthorization bill behind closed doors.

This May, the Senate debated six amendments and voted to pass Senate Bill 1248 by a vote of 95 to 3. The Senate amendments addressed the issues of full-funding, paperwork reduction, and attorney’s fees. Now both bills will go to a House-Senate conference committee that will begin to negotiate the differences between the two bills and report out a final version of the legislation. The final version then goes back to the House and the Senate for a final vote. This is the version that will go to the President for his signature.

Below you will find a more detailed account of the recent activity on Reauthorization:

The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was moved out of the Senate in May with a little more than a day of debate. Passage to a conference committee included six amendments and a 95-3 vote.

These federal laws that govern special education will next be debated in a House - Senate conference committee, that will work out the differences between each version. The bills will again be voted on by both houses before heading to President George W. Bush's desk for his signature.

As first reported in a National Association of School Psychologists - Legislative Update on November 21, 2003, the Senate was ready to move quickly on the bill, once the debate was scheduled and the bill's leaders (Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-NH, and ranking member Ted Kennedy, D-MA) could obtain a bipartisan agreement on the proposed amendments. They came to a unanimous consent (UC) agreement to limit debate to four amendments on each side at that time. The debate in May proceeded with few surprises, once the language of certain amendments was revealed. In fact, with the exception of the two funding amendments and final passage of the bill, the other four amendments were passed by a simple voice vote.

Amendment Details
The only issue that was in dispute among senators was that of funding. After a close, but disappointing vote on mandatory full funding, the remaining debate was congenial and without controversy. The original full funding amendment, sponsored by Senators Hagel (R-NE) and Harkin (D-IA) would have funded IDEA at an additional $2.2 billion per year for eight years until full funding was reached.

What made this amendment so critical to education advocates is that it would make this annual funding increase mandatory - not part of the annual appropriations process, which is complicated by demands of all other federal discretionary spending and limited by fiscal crisis and restraints. Thus, the Harkin-Hagel Amendment did not carry offsetting cuts for the mandatory funding it would have required. As such, the amendment needed 60 votes, rather than a simple majority vote, to waive the Budget Act requirement for such offsets. Just four votes shy of approval, the Senate failed to pass the Hagel-Harkin Amendment by a vote of 56-41.

Instead of voting for mandatory full funding, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Gregg, 96-1, to provide annual authorized funding increases for IDEA that essentially maintains the funding status quo. These increased authorized funding levels hold no more weight than the originally promised 40% federal funding. Similar "promised" annual increases have not been fully realized through the annual appropriations bills over recent years. Moreover, increases to IDEA have been juxtaposed with funding freezes and across-the-board cuts in other education and social service programs. This is not the scenario our children deserve.

Amendment on the National Children's Study
Next, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Senator Clinton (D-NY) that will add the U.S. Department of Education as a key partner in the development and execution of the National Children's Study. The Children's Health Act of 2000 authorized the National Children's Study. Currently, all the key federal departments with jurisdiction over children's health and welfare, are sponsors and partners in the completion of this critical study -- except for the Department of Education. Those sponsoring or partnering include the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The National Children's Study will provide the most comprehensive examination to date of the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of children, from birth until age 21, across the United States. The overarching goal of the study is to improve the health and well-being of all children, although children with disabilities will be a special focus of the investigation. The National Children's Study will be one of, if not the, richest resources for answering questions related to disabled children's health and development and will form the basis of child health guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to come. Yet schools, where children spend more time than any place other than their homes, are not currently integrated into this investigation. It is important that the Department of Education participate in this study and assist in the data collection.

Amendment on Attorneys' Fees The Senate then approved by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Senators Gregg, Enzi (R-WY) and Grassley (R-IA) that addresses attorneys' fees. The amendment allows state or local education agencies to seek fees in the following two circumstances:

• A prevailing party who is a State educational agency or local educational agency against theattorney of a parent who files a complaint that is "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.
• A state educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a parent or parent if the parent's complaint "was presented for any improper purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

Current law only allows parents who win their cases against schools to collect attorney's fees. The same is not true for a school system that wins its case. It must pay its own attorney's fees out of its own budget (using tax dollars). The Gregg/Grassley Amendment would essentially maintain the status quo in the majority of cases, except in circumstances described above. The Gregg/Grassley Amendment does not cap attorney's fees allowed under IDEA. The House bill would allow governors to set the attorneys' fees in their states for IDEA cases in which parents prevail.

Amendment on Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities
The Senate then approved by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Senators Murray (D-WA), DeWine (R-OH), and Feingold (D-WI) that will provide improved access to a high-quality education for homeless and foster children with disabilities and children with disabilities in military families.

The Murray/DeWine/Feingold Amendment clarifies how IDEA policies should apply to these vulnerable children who face additional barriers and challenges. The amendment also ensures that their needs for early intervention and special education services are specifically addressed as state and local school district policies are developed.

Paperwork Reduction Amendment
The last amendment approved by a voice vote was the Santorum (R-PA) paperwork reduction amendment. This amendment would allow the U.S. Department of Education to waive certain paperwork requirements in 15 states, down from a 20-state pilot program originally proposed. The House bill calls for a similar proposal that calls for a 10-state demonstration project.

The amendment includes a specific provision that states may not waive civil rights protections and makes clear that the paperwork reductions may not impair the right of a child to receive a free and appropriate public education or infringe upon any procedural safeguards.

Next Step: Conference Committee
Now that the full House and Senate have passed their respective bills, H.R.1350 and S.1248, a Conference Committee (typically the same House and Senate committee leaders who first developed the bills) will be appointed to compromise on any differences between the two bills and report out a final version. This final version of the legislation would then go back to both the House and Senate for a final vote. It is this version of the legislation that, once passed, goes to the President for signature and becomes law.

CASP Position/Recommendations
IDEA is of vital concern to CASP and thus a letter has been written to the California Congressional Delegation expressing appreciation for the bipartisan approach to the development of Senate Bill 1248 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act and respectfully submitted the following comments for consideration:

• We would like to see more aggressive funding language similar to the Harkin/Hagel amendment previously considered.
• We support the Paperwork Reduction amendment, however we would like to see it extended to all states rather than a 15-state pilot.
• We support the Gregg/Enzi/Grassley amendment to protect local education agencies from the extreme costs of litigation that has no grounds.
• We support Senator Clinton’s amendment calling for the Department of Education’s involvement in the Children’s Health Act of 2000.
• We support the amendment by Senator Murray which makes it easier for local educational agencies to provide services to homeless and foster children and will smooth the transition for all disabled children, including children with parents in the military, who move to new schools.
• We continue to support the position that S.1248 has taken concerning serious behavior difficulties that children with disabilities may exhibit.
• We continue to support the language in both the Senate and House versions that allows local education agencies to move away from the flawed discrepancy model in determining a child’s eligibility as a student with a specific learning disability. The use of a preventative model in its place will allow educators to use research based instructional techniques to assist children immediately rather than waiting for them to experience failure.

CASP will continue to monitor the progress of IDEA as it moves to Conference Committee. Incoming NASP President Lee Huff has appointed Brent Duncan, past president of CASP, to the NASP’s Governmental and Professional Relations Committee. He will travel to Washington, DC, along with Jerry O’Day, past GPR representative from California, for legislative training and lobbying in the Capital. As more details of IDEA become available CASP will continue to inform members with up-to-date information.