Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press

 Home > Main Law Library > Articles & Reports > Back To School On Civil Rights Endnotes


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Program

Aug 2 - Birmingham, AL

Aug 3-8 - Wmsburg, VA

Aug 21 - Norfolk, VA

Oct 23 - Wilton, CT

Oct 25 - Olympia, WA

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Candle in window
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergies
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

Endnotes

[1] *During the period between the research conducted for this report and its release, the Department of Education (DoED) designed and began to implement a new "continuous improvement monitoring system" in the fall of 1998. DoED believes its new system will address many of the longstanding problems with compliance monitoring identified in this report. This report does not attempt to assess the effectiveness of DoED's new monitoring system, in part because it has not been in effect long enough for its effectiveness to be measured fairly.

[2] **Every state has a legal obligation to ensure compliance with the requirements of IDEA at the state and local levels. In this report, the term "out of compliance" means that a state has failed to ensure compliance with one or more requirements of the statute.

[3] ***When no information was provided in a report about a particular requirement, it could mean that the state was compliant, that there was a "single cite" instance of noncompliance, or that compliance with the requirement was not monitored at all.

[4] National Council on Disability, Achieving Independence: A Challenge for the 21st Century 53 (1996).

[5] Interview with Curtis Decker, Executive Director of National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS), in Washington, DC (February 1999).

[6] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1999), formerly known, in reverse chronological order, as Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773, as amended by Act of October 10, 1990; and Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 93-380, 88 Stat. 484, as amended by Act of November 29, 1975. Pub. L. 94-142 represented a culmination of trends toward increased federal involvement in the education of disabled children. A significant portion of the requirements set out in PL 94-142 had already been set forth in PL 93-380. The current IDEA regulations appear at 34 C.F.R.§§ 300 et seq. (1999).

[7] 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) (1973), as amended by Act of 1978. The Section 504 regulations concerning education can be found at 34 C.F.R. § 104 (1990).

[8] 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (1990).

[9] See 28 C.F.R pt. 35 Appendix A, preamble commentary on Part 35.102. Under Title II, public school systems "must provide program accessibility not only for children, but also for parents and guardians with disabilities, to programs, activities, or services, and appropriate auxiliary aids and services whenever necessary to ensure effective communication, as long as the provision of the auxiliary aids results neither in an undue burden nor in a fundamental alteration of the program."

[10] Section 504 was originally introduced in 1971-72 as a bill to include disability in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because the legislative history of Section 504 parallels the history of IDEA, we include it here.

[11] Disabled children have also been routinely exempted from state compulsory education laws. 1929 riz. Sess. Laws, ch. 93 p.21 (physical or mental condition that made attendance inexpedient or impracticable); 1921 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 215, p.71 (child's bodily or mental condition does not permit its attendance at school); Mich. Comp. Laws, p. 59798 (1915) (physically unable to attend).

[12] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[13] Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 333 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pennsylvania 1971), and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

[14] Letter from the Cameron School Parents Group to the State Commission on Special Education, June 24, 1981, reprinted in Stepping Stones: Successful Advocacy for Children, editor Sheryl Dicker, Foundation for Child Development, 1990, p. 113. Original article by Julie Landau, The Richmond Case Study: Ending Segregated Education for Disabled Children.

[15] For example, the Office for Handicapped Individuals (1979) reported the following predictions for employment of disabled persons from 1979 to 1983: Only 525,000 (21%) will be fully employed or enrolled in college; 1,000,000 (40%) will be underemployed at poverty level;

200,000 (8%) will be in their home community and idle much of the time; 650,000 (26%) will be unemployed and on welfare; 75,000 (3%) will be totally dependent and institutionalized.

[16] Brown, 347 U.S. at 495.

[17] Id. at 493.

[18] 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)-(B)(1999). The term "children with disabilities" is defined as a child with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities, who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. For children ages three through nine, the term "children with a disability" may, at the discretion of the state and local education agency, include a child experiencing development delays, as defined by the state and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development, who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

[19] 34 CFR § 300.2. (1999).

[20] Id.

[21] Pub. L. No. 94-182 itself was an amendment to the existing EHA law, Pub. L. No. 91-230, that established a state grant program for services for children with disabilities, but did not protect individual rights of children with disabilities to an education.

[22] Handicapped Children's Protection Act, Pub. L. 99-372, August 5, 1986, Stat.796.

[23] Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984). See generally Mary Lou Breslin, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, The Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986: Improving Educational Opportunities for Children with Disabilities (1997).

[24] See 20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A), (30) (1999) ("The term ''transition services'' means a coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that

(A) is designed within an outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation;

(B) is based upon the individual student's needs, taking into account the student's preferences and interests; and

(C) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocation evaluation.")

[25] See e.g., Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Equalization, El Paso Independent School District, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989); Green v. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991); Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd. Cir. 1993); Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1207 (1994).

[26] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c).

[27] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(1), (4), and (5).

[28] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1).

[29] 20 U.S.C. § 1416 (b).

[30] 20 U.S.C. § 1416 (a).

[31] House Comm. on Education and the Workforce, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, H.R. Rep. No. 95, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 339 (1997). See also Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, S. Rep. No. 17, 105th Cong., 34 (1997).

[32] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Services, Monitoring Academy, Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process 1999-2000 Monitoring Manual, 52 (1999). (OSEP's 1999-2000 Monitoring Manual describes all the enforcement alternatives available under the revised monitoring process, but provides no description of the criteria that will trigger such actions, except as follows: "If serious noncompliance persists despite OSEP's efforts to work with the state to ensure effective correction, OSEP reviews the situation to determine whether formal enforcement action is necessary to ensure timely correction.").

[33] 20 U.S.C. § 1402(a).

[34] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1417(b).

[35] 20 U.S.C. § 1411(a)(1).

[36] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a).

[37] Id.

[38] 20 U.S.C. § 1474 (a)(1)(A) (1999); see also General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) (1999) requiring the Secretary to collect data and information for the purpose of obtaining objective measurements of the effectiveness of programs in achieving the programs' intended purposes.

[39] 20 U.S.C. § 1416(a)(1), (emphasis added).

[40] Of the 360 staff, 289 are in the Washington office and 71 are in the regions.

[41] The total appropriation for all IDEA programs for FY '99 was $5,334,146,000. Of that amount, $4,100,700,000 is for the Part B state grant program. The preschool state grants are funded at $373,985,000 and the infants and families state grants are funded at $370,000,000. The remaining $279,461,000 is for discretionary programs authorized by Part D of IDEA.

[42] Interview with Ruth Ryder and Lois Taylor, U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC, June 23, 1998.

[43] Memorandum from Eileen Hanrahan, Office for Civil Rights to Ruth Ryder, Office of Special Education Programs, July 30, 1999.

[44] Memorandum of Understanding Between the Office for Civil Rights and The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Madeline Will and LeGree S. Daniels, July 29, 1987.

[45] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.51.

[46] Conversation with Eileen Hanrahan, Office for Civil Rights, Washington, DC, January 11, 1999.

[47] Memorandum from Eileen Hanrahan to Ruth Ryder, July 30, 1999.

[48] Memorandum from Ronald Petraka, U.S. Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, to Kathleen Blank, National Council on Disability, October 26, 1999.

[49] 20 U.S.C.§ 1412(a)(11)(A).

[50] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A).

[51] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5).

[52] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(6).

[53] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(18)(A).

[54] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14).

[55] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(14), 1453(c)(3)(D)(vii).

[56] Id.

[57] 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(16)-(17).

[58] 20 U.S.C. § 1413(a).

[59] 20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(1).

[60] Id.

[61] 20 U.S.C. § 1413(d)(1).

[62] 20 U.S.C. § 1413(h); 34 C.F.R. § 300.360-361. (1999).

[63] 34 C.F.R. § 300.660-661. (1999).

[64] The impact of a "cessation of services" policy on children with disabilities is that they can be left without any support or programming, resulting in loss of skills, lack of social contact, isolation, and potential involvement with crime, with devastating consequences to the children and their communities.

[65] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A).

[66] Memorandum from National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, Washington, DC, pp.1-2 (on Ninth Edition of the Docket of P&A Special Education Cases).

[67] Id at 3.

[68] Conversation with Diana MTK Autin, Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Newark, NJ, February 19, 1999.

[69] Conversation with Mary Lou Breslin, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Berkeley, CA, February 23, 1999. (DREDF represented the Holland family in court.)

[70] Quoted in Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund letter to "Friends of DREDF" from Margaret Jakobson, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Chair and President, 1994.

[71] The Washington Post, "Student Tells Her Story of Schools' Failures," p.B9, February 19, 1999.

[72] Conversation with Diana MTK Autin, Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Newark, NJ, February 19, 1999.

[73] Memorandum from National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, p.30 (on Ninth Edition of the Docket of P&A Special Education Cases).

[74] Comment from participant in the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[75] Comment from participant in the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[76] Comment from participant in the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[77] Comment from participant in the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[78] Comment from participant in the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[79] National Parent Network on Disabilities, Implementation, Monitoring and Compliance Program.

[80] Conversation with Linda Sheppard, Parents Educating Parents and Professionals, February 22, 1999.

[81] Conversation with Diana MTK Autin, Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Newark, NJ, February 19, 1999.

[82] See National Council on Disability, Serving the Nation's Students with Disabilities: Progress and Prospects, (March 4, 1993); National Council on Disability, Meeting the Unique Needs of Minorities with Disabilities: A Report to the President and Congress, (April 26, 1993); and National Council on Disability Inclusionary Education for Students with Disabilities: Keeping the Promise, (December 30, 1994). (Studies and testimony relating to disproportionate labeling and placement of minority children with disabilities in separate settings are cited and quoted throughout these reports)

[83] Comment by parent participant at the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[84] Gemignani, R.J., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for Change 2 (1994).

[85] 20 U.S.C. § 1412.

[86] 20 U.S.C. § 1416.

[87] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a).

[88] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)-(22).

[89] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(c)(2)-(3).

[90] Interview with Lois Taylor, Department of Education, Washington, DC, December 20, 1998.

[91] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(d).

[92] A total of 58 entities submit Part B plans to OSEP. These include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (on behalf of the American Indian lands), and US territories, including American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.

[93] 20 U.S.C. § 1451-1456.

[94] 20 U.S.C. § 1454(b)(1).

[95] 20 U.S.C. § 1453(b)(2)(C).

[96] 20 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(3)(E).

[97] 20 U.S.C. § 1413(d)(1).

[98] Memorandum from Larry Ringer, Office of Special Education Programs to Kathleen Blank, National Council on Disability, August 23, 1999.

[99] Memorandum from Thomas Hehir to Chief State School Officers, March 2, 1995 (regarding Monitoring Procedures of the Office of Special Education Programs).

[100] 97 Ryder and Taylor interview, June 23, 1998.

[101] Id.

[102] Memorandum from Thomas Hehir to Chief State School Officers, March 2, 1995 (regarding Monitoring Procedures of the Office of Special Education Programs).

[103] Ryder and Taylor interview, June 23, 1998.

[104] Id.

[105] Ryder and Taylor interview, June 23, 1998.

[106] Interview with Ruth Ryder and Lois Taylor, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, July 24, 1998.

[107] Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Monitoring Academy (1997).

[108] Memorandum from Thomas Hehir to Chief State School Officers March 2, 1995 (regarding Monitoring Procedures of the Office of Special Education Programs).

[109] Memorandum from Thomas Hehir to Chief State School Officers March 2, 1995 (regarding Monitoring Procedures of the Office of Special Education Programs).

[110] Ryder and Taylor interview, July 27, 1998.

[111] Memorandum from Sonya Savkar to Jane West, p. 2, September 4, 1998.

[112] National Council on Disability, Serving the Nation's Students with Disabilities: Progress and Prospects, Washington, DC, March 4, 1993.

[113] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p. 98.

[114] See Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, North Carolina Report, September 29, 20 footnote 10 1995. "..during the 1991-92 school year when public agency C was monitored by NCDPI, NCDPI had no procedure for determining whether extended school year services were made available, as a necessary component of FAPE. When OSEP visited this agency in 1995, it identified continuing deficiencies with regard to this requirement. This is not included as a finding in this Report, because OSEP does not consider this single instance to demonstrate systemic noncompliance," (emphasis added).

[115] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a) (11) (A).

[116] Office of Special Education Programs, United States Department of Education, Texas Report 5 (1997). (emphasis added)

[117] See id.

[118] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, Insert 1, received August 3, 1999.

[119] The asterisk (*) in the General Supervision column for Mississippi indicates that the report appears to include sufficient data to support a finding of noncompliance in the area of state monitoring of public agencies, yet the finding was not made. While the reports of several other states also raise this issue, only Mississippi's report does not contain findings of noncompliance in other areas under General Supervision. For a full discussion of this issue, see the State Monitoring section below.

[120] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Alabama Report 2 (February 21, 1996).

[121] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Iowa Report 18 (1995).

[122] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Delaware Report 3 (1995).

[123] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Connecticut Report 16 (1995).

[124] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Arkansas Report 3 (1995).

[125] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Florida Report (1997).

[126] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Minnesota Report 17 (1994).

[127] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Arizona Report 28 (1995).

[128] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Oklahoma Report 10 (1997).

[129] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, California Report 22-23 (1996).

[130] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Delaware Report 4 (1995).

[131] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Arkansas Report 4 (1995).

[132] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Pennsylvania Report 25 (1994).

[133] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Connecticut Report 15 (1995).

[134] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Kentucky Report 7 (1996).

[135] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Ohio Report 7 (1995).

[136] OSEP's unwillingness to make site visits to such facilities is apparently a longstanding issue. A former OSEP administrator responsible for federal monitoring until mid-1986 testified before a Congressional committee in 1988:

...since 1984, no state schools for students who are deaf or blind have been visited by an OSEP monitoring team as part of a normally scheduled monitoring review. The teams have been directed to not propose these agencies for monitoring. These schools represent the most segregated educational programming offered for the purpose of education. In the face of a major LRE initiative, OSEP has chosen to not protect the rights of students who are deaf and blind to education with nonhandicapped students to the maximum extent appropriate. (David J. Rostetter, Testimony Before the Committee on Select Education, pp.12-13, March 30, 1988) (emphasis in original).
[137] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Kentucky Report 5 (1996).

[138] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Iowa Report vii (1995) (emphasis added).

[139] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Mississippi Report 3-4 (1997).

[140] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Delaware Report 5 (1995).

[141] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Idaho Report 12-13 (1995).

[142] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Iowa Report 9 (1995).

[143] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New York Report 41 (1994).

[144] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, South Carolina Report 6 (1995).

[145] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, California Report 16 (1996).

[146] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Ohio Report 21 (1995).

[147] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Iowa Report 10 (1995).

[148] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Connecticut Report 34 (1995).

[149] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Rhode Island Report 6 (1996). (footnote omitted.)

[150] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New Jersey Report 26 (1994).

[151] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, North Carolina Report 10-11 (1995).

[152] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Georgia Report 13 (1996).

[153] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New Jersey Report 11-12 (1994).

[154] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Kentucky Report 14 (1996).

[155] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Massachusetts Report 17-18 (1995). (emphasis in original.)

[156] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, North Carolina Report 4 (1995).

[157] Comment by a student participant at the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[158] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New Hampshire Report 25 (1994).

[159] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Massachusetts Report 21 (1995).

[160] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Missouri Report 19 (1998).

[161] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Colorado Report 8 (1996).

[162] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New Hampshire Report 25 (1994).

[163] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, California Report 3-4 (1996).

[164] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Minnesota Report 27 (1994).

[165] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Pennsylvania Report 8 (1994).

[166] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Kansas Report 3 (1996).

[167] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, North Dakota Report 5 (1994).

[168] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Arizona Report 4 (1995). (footnote omitted.)

[169] Id.

[170] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Virginia Report 3-4 (1995). (footnote omitted.)

[171] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Texas Report 4 (1997).

[172] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Illinois Report 18-19 (1996). (footnote omitted.)

[173] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Indiana Report 5 (1996).

[174] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Louisiana Report 1 (1995).

[175] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, California Report 10-11 (1996) (footnote omitted, emphasis in original).

[176] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Alaska Report 5 (1997) (emphasis added).

[177] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Alabama Report 9-11 (1996).

[178] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Maine Report 9 (1997).

[179] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, South Carolina Report 1 (1995) (emphasis added).

[180] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Tennessee Report 8 (1996).

[181] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Illinois Report 3 (1996).

[182] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Georgia Report 6 (1996).

[183] For the purposes of this review, protection in evaluation includes delays in initial evaluations, which are treated by U.S. Department of Education as Free Appropriate Public Education violations.

[184] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Texas Report 15 (1997).

[185] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Rhode Island Report 11 (1996).

[186] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Indiana Report 8-9 (1996).

[187] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New York Report 50-51 (1994).

[188] The Government Performance and Results Act, 31 U.S.C. §1115 (1993).

[189] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.98.

[190] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, West Virginia Report 2 (1997).

[191] 34 CFR § 300.382 (1999).

[192] 34 CFR §§ 300.550(a) (1999) (current to March 12, 1999); 300.552(c) (1999) (current to March 12, 1999).

[193] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, North Dakota Report 10-11 (1994).

[194] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Utah Report 19-20 (1994).

[195] David J. Rostetter, Testimony Before the Committee on Select Education, pp.13-14, March 30, 1988.

[196] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Ohio Report cover letter 1 (1995).

[197] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, North Carolina Report cover letter 2 (1995).

[198] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New York Report cover letter 1-2 (1994) (emphasis in original).

[198a] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, New Mexico Report cover letter 1 (1995) (emphasis in original).

[198b] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Minnesota Report cover letter 2 (1994).

[198c] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Massachusetts Report cover letter 2-3 (1995).

[198d] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Maine Report 12 (1997).

[198e] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Kentucky Report 5 (1996).

[198f] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Illinois Report 1-2 (1996).

[198g] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Florida Report cover letter 2 (1997).

[198h] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Connecticut Report cover letter 2 (1995).

[198i] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Alaska Report cover letter 2, (1997).

[198j] Memorandum from Jane West to Lois Taylor, June 16, 1998.

[198k] Memorandum from Sonya Savkar to Jane West, p.2, September 4, 1998.

[198l] A "follow-up" report was also available as an additional source of information for the state of New York.

[198m] U.S. Department of Education, Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, p.A-1, 1997.

[198n] David J. Rostetter, Testimony Before the Committee on Select Education, p.15, March 30, 1988 (emphasis in original).

[198o] In addition to the other limitations discussed, U.S. Department of Education apparently monitored New York in 1987 but could not produce a copy of the report for this study.

[198p] Memorandum from Larry Ringer to Kathleen Blank, August 23, 1999.

[198q] Id.

[198r] Memorandum from Eileen Hanrahan to Ruth Ryder, July 30, 1999.

[198s] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.10.

[198t] Memorandum from Eileen Hanrahan to Ruth Ryder, July 30, 1999.

[198u] Id.

[199] National Association of State Directors of Special Education, NASDSE's Vision for Balanced Accountability, p.2, 1995.

[200] Id.

[201] Interview with Martha Fields, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Alexandria, VA, March 8, 1998.

[202] Ryder and Taylor interview, July 24, 1998.

[203] Memorandum from U.S. Department of Education to Jane West, September 1998.

[204] U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General Audit Report ACN: 11-50201, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Secretarial Review Process in Need of Change, August, 1997.

[205] Compare 34 C.F.R. § 300.661, (September 29, 1992) to current regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.661 (March 12, 1999).

[206] 62 Fed. Reg. 55,026, 55,050 (1997) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.661).

[207] U. S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.142.

[208] 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12,667 (1999) (to be codified at §§ 300.661(c), 303.512(c)).

[209] C.F.R. § 300.504(b)(14) (March 12, 1999).

[210] U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General Audit Report ACN: 11-50201, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Secretarial Review Process in Need of Change, August, 1997.

[211] 20 U.S.C. §1418(a)(2).

[212] See 34 C.F.R. § 80.12

[213] See 20 U.S.C. 1234(c)(3).

[214] Interview with Ruth Ryder and Lois Taylor, Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.

[215] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Summary of Past Enforcement Actions by the Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, September 1998, and U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.60.

[216] U.S. Department of Education reviewer comment on the courtesy review draft of this study, received August 3, 1999, p.60.

[217] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs also added special conditions to the Part C award for the state of Illinois for FY '96 and FY '97 for failure to ensure service to all eligible infants and toddlers and their families. This action is not included in the table as it is not a Part B determination.

[218] See supra, note 232.

[219] Id.

[220] "Special Ed Woes Persist in the District," Washington Post, March 15, 1999, at p.B1, B6.

[221] 20 U.S.C. § 1416 (a)(1)(A).

[222] 20 U.S.C. § 1416.

[223] 20 U.S.C. § 1416 (a)(1)(B).

[224] 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(1)(A).

[225] See 20 U.S.C. 1234c(a)(2).

[226] Description of this process adapted from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, 1999-2000 Monitoring Manual, May, 1999, p.54.

[227] Letter to Secretary Riley from Governor Allen, February 18, 1994. (Letter in Appendix D).

[228] Letter to Secretary Riley from Senator Warner, Representative Bliley, Senator Robb, Representative Bateman, Representative Boucher, Representative Byrne, Representative Goodlatte, Representative Moran, Representative Payne, Representative Pickett, Representative Scott, Representative Sisisky, and Representative Wolf, April 15, 1994 (letter in Appendix D).

[229] Third Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for all Handicapped Children Act, p.v., referencing section 618(f)(1) of EHA-B. IDEA has since been amended again, and the revised mandate requires that "The Secretary shall periodically report to the Congress on the Secretary's activities under this subsection." Section 661(a)(5). Subsection 661(a) directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to enhance services and provide funding for education of children with disabilities.

Whether the alterations made to state plans in order to receive funding were effectively carried out then becomes part of the compliance monitoring process; however, in none of the reports are connections drawn between those states whose plans required correction and states later found to be noncompliant.

[230] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, v (1986).

[231] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 112 (1990).

[232] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1979); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1980).

[233] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1981); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1982); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1983).

[234] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 31 (1983).

[235] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1984); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1985); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1986); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1987); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1988); Department of Education, Annual Report (1989).

[236] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 97 (1986).

[237] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 112 (1990).

[238] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 72-73 (1979).

[239] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 70, 100-101 (1980).

[240] Id. at 102-103.

[241] Id. at 101.

[242] Id. at 103.

[243] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 101 (1981).

[244] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 69 (1982).

[245] Id. at 73.

[246] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 98 (1985).

[247] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 104 (1986).

[248] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 112 (1990).

[249] Id. at 113.

[250] Id.

[251] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 45 (1997).

[252] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 100 (1980).

[253] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 101 (1981).

[254] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 108 (1986).

[255] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 113 (1990).

[256] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1979); U. S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1980); U. S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1981).

[257] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1984); U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (1985); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1986); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1987); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1988); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1989); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1994); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1995); U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (1997).

[258] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1984); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1985); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1987); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1992); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1993); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1994); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1995).

[259] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1996).

[260] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 99 (1981).

[261] Id. at 102.

[262] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 69 (1982).

[263] Id. at 69-70.

[264] Id. at 70.

[265] Id. at 73.

[266] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 32-33 (1983).

[267] Id. at 108.

[268] See supra, note 41, at 63.

[269] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 184-184 (1989).

[270] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 132 (1990).

[271] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 105 (1986); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 154 (1989).

[272] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 116 (1990).

[273] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 105 (1986).

[274] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 114 (1990).

[275] Id. at 124.

[276] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1979); U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report (1980).

[277] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 69 (1982).

[278] Id.

[279] Id.

[280] Id. at 71.

[281] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 31 (1983).

[282] Id. at 32.

[283] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 111 (1990).

[284] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 197 (1983).

[285] Id.

[286] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 97 (1981).

[287] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 69 (1982).

[288] U.S. Department of Education, Annual Report, 32 (1983).

[289] Curtis Decker, Executive Director, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) at the Town Meeting on Federal Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.

[290] Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland 14 F.3d 1398, (1994) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1207 (1994); Emma C. v. Eastin, 985 F. Supp. 940 (1997); Corey H. v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 995 F. Supp. 900 (N.D. Ill 1998).

[291] Id. at 902.

[292] Id. at 903.

[293] Id. at 912.

[294] Id. at 904, 915.

[295] Id. at 904.

[296] Id. at 914.

[297] Id.

[298] Id. at 908-911.

[299] The hearing was postponed to December 1999.

[300] Eastin, 985 F. Supp. 940.

[301] Id. at 945.

[302] Texas Compliance Monitoring System, A Proposal For Change (1998) (supported by Advocacy Inc., Texas).

[303] Members of the Chicago Group include David J. Rostetter, W. Alan Coulter, William R. Sharpton, Mark A. Mlawer, and Brian McNultey.

[304] Id. at p.3.

[305] Id.

[306] Id. at p.10.

[307] Texas Compliance Monitoring System, A Proposal For Change 10-14 (1998).

[308] Id. at p.13-14.

[309] Id. at p.18-20.

[310] Interviews with Mark Gross, Appellate Division of Department of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 4, 1999; and Robert Kopp, Civil Division of Department of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 7, 1999.

[311] Memorandum from Elizabeth Savage to Andrew Imparato, August 10, 1999.

[312] Interview with Mark Gross, Appellate Division of Department of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 4, 1999.

[313] See, e.g., Alexander v. Flora Brooks Boyd, C.A. No. 3:99-3062-17 (D.S.C.) and Magyar v. Tucson Unified School District, No. CV-46-998 (D.Ariz).

[314] 20 U.S.C. 1485(a).

[315] Memorandum from Larry Ringer to Kathleen Blank, August 23, 1999.

[316] 20 U.S.C. 1482(b).

[317] Memorandum from Eileen Hanrahan to Ruth Ryder, July 30, 1999.

[318] Id.

[319] Interview with Curtis Decker, Executive Director, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS), February 1999.

To Index, IDEA Compliance Report

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map

25% OFF Wrightslaw Products

Wrightslaw Summer Sale!


Now Shipping!

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Check it out!

Wrightslaw Store

The Advocate's Store

Get Help!

Blog the Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw on Facebook

Find us on Facebook

Wrightslaw Books

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


Wrightslaw: All About IEPs

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book
To Order


About the Book

To Order


Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

About the DVD Video
To Order


To Order


Wrightslaw: No Child Left Behind

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Understanding Your Child's Test Scores

Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $
24.95
Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)


Wrightslaw WebEx Special Education Law & Training Program (6.5 hrs)


Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $99.95
Wrightslaw Special: $49.95