On behalf of major statewide education and parent organizations in California, we provide the following input on the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Each of our organizations has a vital stake in the outcome of the Executive and Legislative branches’ deliberations on this important matter. This broad-based coalition represents a wide variety of special education stakeholders throughout California. All of our organizations are deeply committed to the ongoing endeavor of improving the quality and scope of special education services in our schools. It is in that spirit that we respectfully submit this White Paper for your consideration.

Background
For the past year, various statewide education and parent organizations have engaged in an ongoing dialogue concerning special education issues in California and how the reauthorization of IDEA could address these matters. This ad-hoc coalition consisted of statewide organizations, rather than regional and locally-based special education stakeholders. Members of this coalition have collectively provided input to the Congress and to the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Although all of these organizations do not share identical policy positions, the group reached agreement on the issues impacting our mutual concerns and interests.

In January 2003, this landmark effort culminated in a one-day California IDEA Reauthorization Summit. The Summit included delegates from 27 organizations representing virtually every aspect of the special education service spectrum. This summit was unique in providing an opportunity for such a wide array of special education stakeholders to meet and confer under one roof. Topic areas for the Summit were garnered through the use of an on-line statewide survey, which generated 2,097 responses from educators, service providers and parents throughout California. The five most important topics were discussed through a facilitated format. The Summit produced several themes and policy positions that were supported by a majority of the participating organizations. The five main policy position statements were related to full funding of Federal IDEA responsibilities, special education and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), student success and outcomes, prevention and early intervention, and paperwork reduction. The following is a brief summary of each of these policies, with recommendations.

Full Funding of Federal IDEA Responsibilities
Full funding for IDEA has received a vast amount of attention in recent years. Some stakeholders believe that additional funding should be postponed until policy reforms can be implemented to address shortfalls in the delivery of services; that position is extremely troubling for special education educators, service providers and parents. Federal special education requirements include some of the largest un-funded mandates in federal education statutes. Recent increases in the federal appropriation of IDEA have brought the federal commitment beyond 15 percent of total costs. While we greatly appreciate the on-going commitment of the President and the Congress to increase IDEA funding, we believe that greater effort is necessary to meet the original 40 percent pledge made by the federal government several decades ago.

The shortfall in special education funding impacts the quality of services for both special and regular education programs. In 2000-01, for example, California school districts and county offices of education spent more than $4.5 billion on direct services to disabled students. Total federal, state and local revenue sources for special education that academic year were roughly $3.3 billion. The $1.2 billion shortfall was resolved by the use of other local educational agency funding sources, funds that could have otherwise be directed toward other important educational priorities.

The costs associated with special education have risen ten-fold in the last decade. Most of these costs have been borne by local educational agencies. If school districts – and states -- are to provide high quality special education programs, they cannot sustain those programs on less-than-average funding. Advances in medical technology, for instance, have created new opportunities for serving children with severe and chronic disabilities. This development is certainly worthy of praise, but it has also meant that the costs associated with caring for these children have increased significantly. Meeting the federal government’s 40 percent obligation must therefore be a key component to any special education policy reform. In our view, the absence of this provision within subsequent policy initiatives is a serious omission.

Specifically, Summit Recommendations for Funding include:

• For Part B, provide at least 40% of the average per pupil expenditure for special education services.
• Keep Parts B and C separate, fully funding both. Increase funding to Part D to support parent-based programs. Funding for support services involvement needs to be increased.
• All federal funding programs, which benefit children with disabilities should be aligned, e.g. special education and Medicaid.
• Provide support, direction and funds for interagency collaboration.
• Clarify what are educational vs. medical services.

Special Education and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Federal, state and local education officials are currently examining the potential impact of NCLB on general education, and vice versa. Education experts and practitioners have only recently begun to focus on the implementation of NCLB within the special education spectrum. A critical question at the core of this endeavor is: how should IDEA, largely a civil rights statute, be merged with NCLB, largely an education grant/compliance statute? Unfortunately, there are more questions than answers at this time. Officials within the U.S. Department of Education have stated that the connections between NCLB and special education are particularly challenging and remain uncertain. It seems certain, however, that the reauthorization of IDEA must serve, in part, as a vehicle for clarifying and implementing the special education components of NCLB.

Despite a lack of clarity and the challenging aspects of this specific issue, the participants at the California IDEA Summit were able to reach consensus on the following issues pertaining to the NCLB/IDEA linkage:

• Defining and Implementing "highly qualified teachers" Requirement - How we define "highly qualified teachers" and the subsequent regulatory aspects associated with the definition could have significant impacts on how school districts recruit and retain special education teachers and pupil service providers. In California, for instance, it is not uncommon for some school districts and county offices of education to have upwards of 40 percent of their special education teachers serving on emergency teaching credentials. IDEA, therefore, should include provisions that assist states and school districts in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified special education teachers and service providers.
• Funding of NCLB and IDEA - Once again, full funding is a key component to IDEA and NCLB's ultimate success. NCLB and IDEA need to be fully funded to ensure complete implementation of the mandates required by both statutes. In addition, NCLB Title I, II, and III funds should follow eligible students receiving special education services.
• Accountability Component - For accountability purposes, the disabled sub-groups (as required by NCLB) should include students currently receiving special education services, as well as students who have received them in the past or are no longer in need of them.
• Supplemental Services - The use of supplemental services in a special education setting must include multiple components and assistance that rely on valid and reliable results. IDEA should include language that creates a clear differential between special education and general education supplemental services. Supplemental services for special education must be proven to work prior to their wholesale deployment into the special education system.

Student Success and Outcomes
In the topic area of student success and outcomes, summit participants developed the following three recommendations:

• Quality Training and Professional Development - Quality training and professional development must be available to ensure that special education practitioners continue to implement effective strategies and programs for all students, including those with severe or specialized needs. Such training should be available from pre-service, during credential preparation, and through ongoing support. Focus should be given to the many sub-groups that need such opportunities such as paraprofessionals, general and special education teachers, all related service providers, administrators, and parents as partners. Emphasis should also be given to ensuring that such trainings focus on research-validated strategies and programs, as well as on state-of-the-art assistive and computer technologies. Such trainings would need to include interventions that address cultural and linguistic diversity, with expanded bilingual outreach and training materials, to promote active, informed, and equal parent participation. Agreement was reached among Summit participants that practitioners need to be empowered to be successful in addressing individual student needs, including knowing how to appropriately assess using multiple measurements and how to provide appropriate behavior support services and modifications and accommodations. In addition, as part of ensuring that we have "highly qualified" personnel, a further recommendation is to support and fund quality recruitment and retention programs and services.
• Transition - The focus in this area should be on a successful transition to post-school living. This should ensure student progress and with appropriately funded vocational programs. Specifically, we recommend that comprehensive transition programs and long-range tracking to ensure increases in key student outcome indicators be developed and fully funded.
• Accountability - Services should continue to be offered to students who have been expelled or removed. Services need to be provided to offer a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), based on the needs of the child. Resources need to be increased to support overcoming obstacles to success (e.g., behavior, language), which requires full funding of the IDEA. To ensure that these services are appropriate and successful, student progress needs to be monitored continuously over a period of time, using multiple measures to modify the instructional program for improved opportunity for success where needed. Parental involvement is already mandated in IDEA and should continue to be an important element of federal special education policy.

Prevention and Early Intervention
Our recommendations regarding prevention and early Intervention are varied. They start with the recommendation to keep Parts B and C of IDEA separate and fully funded under separate parts. Training in best practices and research-based models needs to be funded and provided focusing on early intervention, identification, eligibility criteria and assessment. These need to be provided for general and special education teachers and pupil service professionals (including related services providers). New funding for early intervention of academic and behavioral issues needs to be provided, using the Three-Tier model, while protecting the rights of parents to request an assessment. Finally, children referred for services should have the means to receive comprehensive evaluations by appropriate service providers. In order for this to occur, however, appropriate funding for IDEA services must be made available.

Paperwork Reduction
It is important to note that, in a statewide survey of the top issues in special education used to prepare for this Summit, two of the other top six issues were paperwork reduction and caseload limits/class size reduction. The organizers of the summit felt that caseload limits/class size reduction was a state issue vs. a federal IDEA requirement, but we wish to note that it is of concern to Californians, and is part of the rationale for increasing the funding of IDEA. Likewise, paperwork reduction is of major concern for all Summit participants, but with some difference of opinion. On the one hand, several organizations focused on issues ranging from reducing an overemphasis on procedures and compliance, and instead focusing on student outcomes and accountability, to a need to understand first what FAPE really means, so as to address it appropriately. Other organizations expressed concern that specific paperwork reduction proposals could weaken various procedural protections and substantive rights.

Although paperwork reduction continues to be a concern of many California Summit participants, we did not reach consensus on any specific policy proposals at this time. The difference of opinions reflect the need to balance the issue of paperwork reduction in a manner that focuses less on compliance and more on student outcomes, while not jeopardizing parent/student procedural protections. Summit participants will continue to dialogue on this issue. In the meantime, California stakeholder organizations will provide input on the particular issue via an individual and/or ad-hoc coalition basis.

Concluding Remarks
These policy positions and recommendations reflect the collective effort of these major statewide organizations to reach consensus on critical issues pertaining to IDEA and special education. This White Paper does not encapsulate each organization’s individual perspectives or policy positions. This paper does, however, provide federal policy-makers with a comprehensive summary of where a broad representation of California stakeholders stands on the reauthorization of IDEA. Over the next several months, these organizations will continue, collectively and individually, to provide input and analysis into the reauthorization process.

We thank you for your consideration of these remarks. If you or your staff have questions regarding this White Paper, or seek additional information, please contact any of the following individuals and organizations:

The Association of California School Administrators
Brett McFadden 916/444-3216

Association of Educational Therapists, California Affiliate
Sandy Mosk, 310/737-9393

California Association of Resource Specialist and Special Education Teachers
Sue Kawsasaki, 310/377-3468

Califormia Association of Private Special Education Schools
Richard Schnetzer, 949/857-0674

California Association of School Psychologists
Suzanne Fisher, 916/444-1595

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Sue Burr, 916/446-3095

The California State Advisory Commission on Special Education
James Woodhead, 916/445-4603

California School Nurses Organization
Nancy Spradling, 925/932-4363

California Special Education Local Plan Areas
Maureen Burness, 530/745-1387

The California Teachers Association
Craig Nelson, 650/697-1400

Special Education Administrators of County Offices
Diana Walsh-Reuss, 909/826-6476