Fw: IDEA Reauthorization Briefing #22

[Guest guest]

I thought some of you might be interested in this information regarding IDEA

and it's reauthorization currently underway.

These points are made at the end of the update and concern me.

> Throughout the bill, there is reference to the phrase " genuine independent

> choice " for parents about the placement of their children. There are two

> key fallacies to the imputation of " genuine " and " independent " choices for

> families:

> 1. State programs, with Florida's McKay program serving as a model, do not

> cover nearly the full cost of tuition and related expenses for private

> school attendance. Thus many, many families will lack the resources to

> benefit from this program and will not have access to this " choice. "

> 2. School administrators may pressure parents to elect a State voucher

> program as a way to remove a child who presents challenges from their

> jurisdiction.

> 3. Parents who make this " genuine independent choice " will lose their

legal

> rights and protections under IDEA, which is not applicable to private

> schools even when they receive State and Federal funding for this program.

Mom to 10, 6 (n24 4/00) and 2

IDEA Reauthorization Briefing #22

> >From the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

> preserveIDEA@...

>

> IDEA Rapid Response Network (RRN)

>

> Briefing #22 March 26, 2003

>

> TO JOIN THE RRN: Send an email to preserveIDEA@... and we'll add you

> to our distribution list. To read earlier Briefings, visit www.dredf.org

>

> IDEA PARENTAL CHOICE ACT OF 2003: This is a companion bill to H.R. 1350,

the

> House " Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act "

that

> proposes major revisions to IDEA. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and House

> Education and the Workforce Chairman Rep. Boehner (R-OH) introduced

> this measure as H.R. 1373 on March 20, 2003. RRN #21 included a brief

> forecast of the bill from the press release. Now we have the text and can

> present an analysis.

>

> LANGUAGE: This bill uses positive-sounding language, talking about

> innovation, " genuine independent choice, " and academic accountability.

Our

> reading of the bill, however, suggests that these terms are highly

> misleading.

>

> IMPORT: The key to this bill is financial and other support for state

> programs that allow IDEA funds to be used to pay part of the tuition of

> private schools for students with disabilities. Any child who has an IEP

in

> place and has attended a public school may receive funds to pay toward

> tuition, fees, and transportation at a private school.

>

> FUNDING: Federal IDEA funds may be used to augment the state program funds

> for parents who choose this program. These funds may also be used to pay

> for " reasonable additional expenses . . . of any necessary accommodations

to

> allow children with disabilities who are being educated in a school

> identified for school improvement . . . to be provided supplemental

> educational services " if they are eligible. This section is written

> vaguely, and it is hard to tell what the decision parameters would be for

> funding allocations or what the services might include. Funds may also be

> used for early intervention services to children ages 3-5 if those

services

> have an educational component.

>

> ACCOUNTABILITY:

> * Private schools in this program are prohibited " from discriminating

> against eligible students on the basis of race, color, or national

origin, "

> but not on the basis of disability. This is a key omission. Also left

out

> of the anti-discrimination platform are religion and gender, making it

clear

> that faith-based and same-sex schools may participate in the program.

> * Private schools that receive these funds are required " to be

academically

> accountable to the parent for meeting the educational needs of the

student. "

> That vague statement does not include the requirement that the private

> school comply with or provide the services specified in the child's IEP,

> though the child must have an IEP in force in order to be eligible for the

> program. Nowhere is academic accountability defined.

> * If a parent participates in this program and uses state and federal

funds

> to pay for their child to attend a private school, their participation

> " fulfills the State's obligation . . . with respect to the child during

the

> period in which the child is enrolled in the selected school. " In other

> words, if the child does not receive FAPE at this school, the parent may

not

> come back to the State with a compensatory education claim.

> * The bill states that " a private school accepting those funds shall be

> deemed, for both the programs and services delivered to the child, to be

> providing a free appropriate public education and to be in compliance with

> Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). " Without

any

> other provision than that the school is part of the program and receives

> funds, it is off the legal hook because it is automatically deemed in

> compliance with the law. Note that this provision refers to Section 504

but

> not to IDEA. This same provision holds for private early intervention

> programs.

>

> Throughout the bill, there is reference to the phrase " genuine independent

> choice " for parents about the placement of their children. There are two

> key fallacies to the imputation of " genuine " and " independent " choices for

> families:

> 1. State programs, with Florida's McKay program serving as a model, do not

> cover nearly the full cost of tuition and related expenses for private

> school attendance. Thus many, many families will lack the resources to

> benefit from this program and will not have access to this " choice. "

> 2. School administrators may pressure parents to elect a State voucher

> program as a way to remove a child who presents challenges from their

> jurisdiction.

> 3. Parents who make this " genuine independent choice " will lose their

legal

> rights and protections under IDEA, which is not applicable to private

> schools even when they receive State and Federal funding for this program.

>

> The DREDF/People for the American Way report on the Florida program used

as

> a model for this bill, Jeopardizing a Legacy: A Closer Look at IDEA and

> Florida's Disability Voucher Program, is available on the DREDF website:

> www.dredf.org/vouchers. This report goes into detail about the failings

of

> programs such as the one this bill proposes.

>

> PRICE REDUCED-THE IDEA T-SHIRT: Wear a bright red IDEA and advertise your

> support of special education and civil rights for students with

> disabilities!

>

> Design: is a red light-bulb face with electric hair that spells out

> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the slogan is, " Whose IDEA

> Is It, Anyway? " White, with red DREDF logo on left sleeve and purple SEIU

> logo on right sleeve.

>

> Specifications: heavyweight 100% cotton, U.S. made and union printed,

> available in Youth Large and Adult Large and Extra Large sizes.

>

> Shirts are $12, plus $2.50 postage and handling. Buy 3 or more for $10

> each. We don't have the capability to process online orders, but you can

> print out the order form from our website: http://www.dredf.org/ and send

> checks to DREDF, 2212 Sixth St., Berkeley, CA 94710. The order form has

an

> illustration of the shirt to check out also. Remember to specify quantity

> and size.

>

> We are also offering these shirts as a special thank you to individuals

who

> donate $100 or more for our work.

>

> 2

>

>

> 3

>

>

>