There are 3 documents which have been provided by NAPAS.

1. A Senate IDEA Alert tartgeted to Republican Senators on the HELP Committee
2. A list of Republican Senators on the HELP Committee with contact information of their offices in DC and in their state.
3. A document "debunking" statements by the House Bill (HR 1350) proponents that their bill helps children with disabilities and families.

The Senate is due to introduce its IDEA Reauthorization bill by the end of the first week of June. It is imperative that constituents in states with Republican Senators on the HELP Committee contact them immediately!

These states are:

• Alabama
• Kansas
• Missouri
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Ohio
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Virginia
• Wyoming

ACTION NEEDED NOW

Senate leaders of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee are still working to try and introduce a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The target date for a Senate bill is the first week in June – right after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. This is the perfect time to share your recommendations with key HELP Committee Members, tell them what should and should not be in the Senate bill – if it is to truly address the needs of children with disabilities and their families.

The Senate has been working in a bipartisan manner to come up with an IDEA bill for two years. In the beginning, when the Senate was Democratic, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) was the Chairman of the Committee and Senator Gregg (R-NH) was the Ranking Member. Since the Senate went Republican their two roles have been reversed but they and their staff still have tried to work together on a bill.

Parents and other advocates hope this long-term bipartisan Senate effort works and that the end product is a Senate bill that protects and strengthens the educational services, supports, and procedural safeguards available to children with all kinds of disabilities and their families. It is critical that the Senate bill help – not harm children and families. It is critical that the Senate bill not look like the House bill, H.R. 1350. This would be a disaster because enactment of anything like H.R. 1350 would significantly limit parent and student rights under IDEA. The House passed bill would limit the number of children with disabilities who have real access to a free, appropriate, public education; increase burdens on parents while decreasing school district responsibilities and obligations; and ultimately result in harm to students with disabilities.

ACTION NEEDED: It would be best to work in coalition with parents, parent organizations, and disability organizations to get these important messages across.

• The requirements for these waivers are unspecified. They could waive requirements for IEPs, IEP meetings, parent notices, and other important rights.

2. Discipline-

• The bill would allow Local Educational Agencies (LEA) to redirect a substantial amount of money from direct student services to other purposes, including using a substantial amount of existing IDEA Part B funds to provide services to students not eligible under the IDEA (e.g. for "pre referral" services in reading and behavior).
• There is a cap on IDEA funds to states – limiting the funds to cover only the first 13.5 percent of students in the state with disabilities. In many states more than 13.5 percent of the student population has disabilities, so those states would receive less money.

4. IEP provisions

• The bill limits short-term objectives as part of the IEP -- allowing them only until the 2005-2006 school-year. However, short-term objectives would continue for students with cognitive impairments who take the alternate assessment. Short-term objectives are a very important way to measure student progress, both in academic and non–academic subjects. State curriculum standards are not a substitute for short-term objectives because they do not cover all of the areas that IDEA does.
• It would permit parents and schools to opt for a three-year IEP with a streamlined annual review. Currently the law requires a complete annual review of the IEP. For young students or students with certain types of disabilities, a year is already a long time to wait to determine whether or not the IEP is effective.
• It would require that all related services and supplementary aides and services included in a child’s IEP be based on "peer-reviewed" research. There is little research in some of these areas, which would reduce the availability of services that students need.

5. Procedural Safeguards/Due Process Provisions

Judd Gregg, Chairman (R-NH)

393 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

T 202-224-3324

F 202-224-4952

Concord office

125 North Main Street

Concord, NH 03301

Portsmouth Office

16 Pease Boulevard

Portsmouth, NH 03801

Manchester office

41 Hooksett Road

Manchester, NH 03104

Berlin Office

60 Pleasant Street

Berlin, NH 03570

Washington, DC 20510

T 202-224-3344

F 202-228-1264

Nashville

Office of Senator Bill Frist

28 White Bridge Road, Suite 211

Nashville, TN 37205

615-352-9411

Memphis

Office of Senator Bill Frist

5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 514

Memphis, TN 38137

901-683-1910

Chattanooga

Office of Senator Bill Frist

James Building

735 Broad Street, Suite 701

Chattanooga, TN 37402

423-756-2757

Jackson

Office of Senator Bill Frist

200 East Main Street, Suite 111

Jackson, TN 38301

731-424-9655

Knoxville

Office of Senator Bill Frist

Twelve Oaks Executive Park

Building One, Suite 170

5401 Kingston Pike

Knoxville, TN 37919

865-602-7977

Kingsport/Tri-Cities

Office of Senator Bill Frist

10368 Wallace Alley Street, Suite 7

Kingsport, TN 37663

423-323-1252

Washington, D.C. 20510

T (202) 224-3424

F (202) 228-0359

CASPER

Federal Center

Suite 3201

100 East B Street

Casper, Wyoming 82601

CHEYENNE

Federal Center

Suite 2007

2120 Capitol Avenue

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

CODY

1285 Sheridan Avenue

Suite 210

Cody, Wyoming 82414

GILLETTE

400 S. Kendrick Avenue, Suite 303

Gillette, Wyoming 82716

JACKSON

Post Office Box 12470

Jackson, Wyoming 83002

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-4944

F (202) 228-3398

Chattanooga, TN

Joel E. Soloman Federal Building

900 Georgia Avenue, #260

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Phone: (423) 752-5337

Jackson, TN

Federal Building

109 South Highland Street, #B-9

Jackson, TN 38301

Phone: (731) 423-9344

Knoxville, TN

Howard H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Courthouse

800 Market Street, #112

Knoxville, TN 37902

Phone: (865) 545-4253

Memphis, TN

Federal Building

167 North Main Street, #1068

Memphis, TN 38103

Phone: (901) 544-4224

Nashville, TN

3322 West End Avenue, #120

Nashville, TN 37203

Phone: (615) 736-5129

Tri-Cities, TN

Terminal Building, #101

Tri-Cities Regional Airport

2525 Highway 75

Blountville, TN 37617

Phone: (423) 325-6240

Washington, D.C. 20510-0104

T (202) 224-4124

F (202) 224-3149

Birmingham, Alabama

341 Vance Federal Building

1800 Fifth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2171

(205) 731-1500

Huntsville, Alabama

Am South Center Suite 802

200 Clinton Avenue NW

Huntsville, Alabama 35801-4932

(256) 533-0979

Mobile, Alabama

Colonial Bank Center, Suite 187

41 North Beltline Highway

Mobile, Alabama 36608-1201

(251) 414-3083

Montgomery, Alabama

7550 Halcyon Summit Drive, Suite 150

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

(334) 244-7017

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-2315

F (202) 224-6519

TDD: (202) 224-9921

Xenia, Ohio Office:

100 West Main Street

2nd Floor

Xenia, OH 45385

Phone: (937) 376-3080

Cincinnati, Ohio Office:

312 Walnut St.

Suite 2030

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: (513) 763-8260

Cleveland, Ohio Office:

600 East Superior Avenue

Room 2450

Cleveland, OH 44114

Phone: (216) 522-7272

Columbus, Ohio Office:

37 West Broad Street

Suite 300

Columbus, OH 43215

Phone: (614) 469-5186

Marietta, Ohio Office:

121 Putnam Street

Suite 102

Marietta, OH 45750

Phone: (740) 373-2317

Toledo, Ohio Office:

420 Madison Avenue, Room 1225

Toledo, OH 43604

Phone: (419) 259-7536

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-5972

F (202) 224-1189

Greenville

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham

101 East Washington Street, Suite 220

Greenville, South Carolina 29601

Florence Office

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham

McMillan Federal Building

401 West Evans Street, Suite 226B

Florence, South Carolina 29501

Columbia

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham

508 Hampton Street, Suite 202

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Mount Pleasant

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham

530 Johnnie Dodd Boulevard, Suite 203

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464

Washington, D.C. 20510

T (202) 224-2023

F (202) 224-6295

Richmond District Office

Main Street Centre II

600 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Telephone: (804) 771-2579

Abingdon District Office

235 Federal Building

180 West Main Street

P.O. Box 887

Abingdon, Virginia 24210

Telephone: (276) 628-8158

Roanoke District Office

1003 First Union Bank Building

213 South Jefferson Street

Roanoke, Virginia 24011

Telephone: (540) 857-2676

Norfolk District Office

4900 World Trade Center

Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Telephone: (757) 441-3079

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-5721

F (202) 224-8149

Main District Office:

308 E. High, #202

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: (573) 634-2488

Jefferson City

308 E. High, #202

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: (573) 634-2488

Springfield

1700 S. Campbell, Ste. E

Springfield, MO 65807

Phone: (417) 864-8258

Cape Girardeau

339 Broadway, #140

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701

Phone: (573) 334-7044

St. Louis

7700 Bonhomme, #615

St. Louis, MO 63105

Phone: (314) 725-4484

Kansas City

911 Main St., Ste. 2224

Kansas City, MO 64105

Phone: (816) 471-7141

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-6244

F (202) 228-2193

LAS VEGAS:

Lloyd George Federal Building

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8203

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Phone: (702) 388-6605

RENO:

Bruce Thompson Federal Building

400 South Virginia Street, Suite 738

Reno, Nevada 89501

Phone: (775) 686-5770

CARSON CITY:

600 East William Street, Suite 304

Carson City, Nevada 89701

Phone: (775) 885-9111

Washington, DC 20510

T (202) 224-4774

F (202) 224-3514

DODGE CITY

100 Military Plaza

PO Box 550

Dodge City, KS 67801

Phone: 620-227-2244

OVERLAND PARK

11900 College Boulevard,

Suite 203

Overland Park, KS 66210

Phone: 913-451-9343

WICHITA

155 N Market St,

Suite 120

Wichita, KS 67202

Phone: 316-263-0416

TOPEKA

Frank Carlson Fed. Bldg.

444 SE Quincy, Rm 392

Topeka, KS 66683

Phone: 785-295-2745

Fax: 785-235-3665

May 2003

According to the House Education and Workforce Committee’s Fact Sheet "Improving Educational Results for Children with Disabilities," the stated goals of the House bill include:

"…Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act calls for reforms to strengthen accountability and results for students, reduce the IDEA paperwork burden for teachers, provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve early intervention strategies, reduce the number of children who are wrongly placed in special education classes, reduce litigation and restore trust between parents and school districts, and align IDEA with the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act signed by President Bush in January 2002. NCLB requires federally-funded schools to be accountable for providing a quality education to all students, including students with special needs." (Emphasis supplied)

From:http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/idea/summary.htm

Addressing these stated goals individually:

1. Strengthen accountability and results for students

For instance:

• Under current law, measurable short-term objectives/benchmarks are the major way that schools measure progress for individual IDEA eligible students in meeting their respective annual goals. Removing them will result in less, not more accountability for individual student progress.
• Some have claimed that the individual student reports generated as a result of the annual statewide assessments required by NCLB will successfully replace the measurable short-term objectives/benchmarks. This is not the case because: (1) they are only mandatory in language arts and math (2005-06) and science (beginning in 2007-08); (2) they apply only to grades 3-8: and (3) even if properly implemented, these annual assessments will result in only an annual student report – short term objectives/benchmarks break down annual goals into their component parts.
• Also, NCLB focuses only on academic achievement (and in only language arts, math and science, at that), while the IDEA addresses all areas of educational need for students. For example, for some students, life skills are an important part of his or her educational program. In such cases, measures of math and reading and science achievement will provide very incomplete and insufficient information about that student’s progress.
• Measurable short-term objectives/benchmarks are also needed to guide the provision of related services such as occupational therapy and counseling/behavior management. None of these items are contained within the NCLB reports.

1. Restore trust between parents and school districts

The stated goal is that HR 1350 will restore trust between parents and schools, yet the proposed changes would only cause an already unbalanced conflict resolution system to be weighted more heavily against parents -- further eroding what little trust parents have for the system.

On April 9, 2003, Rep. John Boehner (R- OH), Chairman of the House Education & the Workforce Committee, published a document entitled

"The Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act: Separating Fact from Fiction." In this document he states"…The changes in the complaint process proposed in H.R. 1350 are designed to improve communication, restore trust, and strengthen cooperation between parents and school personnel. By providing options such as binding arbitration, parents and schools will have new opportunities to address problems without fear of costly litigation…The one-year statute of limitations proposed in H.R. 1350 is a protection for both parents and schools that will help ensure the timely resolution of complaints. Reforms to the complaint process will help restore trust and allow teachers to feel confident that they can teach without fear of frivolous litigation that could jeopardize educational opportunities for other children with disabilities.

It is disingenuous at best to claim that the changes proposed to the due process protections in H.R. 1350 are beneficial to parents and students.

• Voluntary binding arbitration as proposed in H.R. 1350 does not provide any benefits to parents that are not available in a due process hearing and merely takes away the parent’s rights to appeal.
• One-year statute of limitations would limit parents’ ability to bring claims about problems that occurred more than a year ago. This forces parents to proceed to hearing rather than negotiating, for fear of missing the time deadline. This provision most hurts vulnerable families – those that don’t execute their rights quickly because they are less literate, are less aware of their rights, have poor English skills, etc.
• The cap on rates for attorney fees will only make attorneys less available to parents and the cap does not apply to the amount that school districts may pay their own lawyers -- who are also paid with public funds. Under current law, school districts only have to pay parents’ attorneys fees when the parent wins the case against the district. The proposed rate caps would also only apply to parents who win their case against the school district. Also, there are no standards available to make sure that rates are set high enough so that attorneys are truly available to families. As wealthy families will be able to pay for their own lawyers, this provision again only hurts the most vulnerable of parents and children.
• H.R. 1350 would permit state governors to set rates for parents’ attorneys fees. As states are themselves sometimes sued by families, governors will have every incentive to set these rates very low. In what other area of the law does the defendant decide how much to pay the plaintiff’s attorney?
• H.R. 1350 proposes other changes to the conflict resolution system that will make it more difficult for parents to resolve problems with their child’s educational program: such as a new meeting they must attend, and a 30-day waiting period that must expire before cases may go to hearing.

From the perspective of an individual child’s parents, who are trying desperately to resolve a problem with the school district, H.R. 1350 requires the family to wait longer and jump through more hoops before the case may go to a due process hearing. Then it reduces the number of attorneys available to the family, but not to their opponent -- thus forcing these parents to prepare for and attend the hearing and any other meetings or mediation sessions alone, and provides the confusing "option" of arbitration, among other barriers. It is inconceivable that these changes would result in "restor[ing] trust between parents and school districts"

2. Reduces the paperwork burden

• The law would require a meeting during a 30-day waiting period before a case may proceed to due process. Districts will have to document the meeting and any attempts they made to resolve the problem. This will create new paperwork and a new meeting for staff to attend.
• Voluntary Binding Arbitration: This creates a new system of arbitrators that will need to be set up, funded, trained and administered. This also adds a new burden for the state because the state will have to monitor any system that is set up and in some cases will have to set up and administer this system.
• The changes proposed in H.R. 1350 are sweeping and it will take a great deal of time and energy to train staff sufficiently for the system to work as it is envisioned. Just as one example, the multi year IEP makes the system more complicated as there are now two kinds of IEPs and two sets of requirements to remember and adhere to legally. Mistakes will inevitably be made, resulting in harm to children and increased conflict.

1. Reduce Litigation

H.R. 1350 will not reduce litigation because it will create new ambiguities in the law which will take us back 25 years or more, and open up issues long since laid to rest.

To name a few:

• In the past 25 years, virtually every circuit has struggled with the definition of "appropriateness," within the requirement of a Free Appropriate Public Education(FAPE). Now the Davis amendment will open up that definition to litigation all over again
• If the parent submits a notice requesting a due process hearing that does not, in the district’s opinion, conform to the statutory requirements, this problem would be resolved at a due process hearing, requiring an additional hearing or ruling by the hearing officer prior to the hearing on the merits of the case.
• IDEA was designed in recognition of Constitutional violations existing at that time, after extensive litigation (e.g. the PARC and Mills cases). Some of the changes proposed in H.R. 1350 are so draconian they may open up litigation all over again. For example, disciplining a child for behaviors related to that child’s disability will likely engender Constitutional challenges.

In addition, if the state education agency enforced hearing decisions, mediation agreements and arbitration decisions, rather than requiring the parent to go to court when a district refused to comply with an order or agreement, a great deal of litigation could be avoided.

Actually, right now local school districts have the ultimate discretion to design early intervention programs that meet their needs, including programs that serve non-IDEA eligible students. The only change that H.R. 1350 makes is the opportunity for districts to fund programs for non-IDEA eligible students using IDEA funds. Using IDEA funds for this purpose will only bind school districts with the red tape that is an inevitable result of federal assistance, as well as draining funds that are already insufficient to meet the needs of IDEA eligible students.

Contact: Robert Berlow, COPAA, (301) 912-2281

Diane Smith, NAPAS, (202) 408-9514