Dear Senator _:

I am writing you today in regards the Senate bill for IDEA reauthorization. I am pleased that the Senate HELLP committee continues its bi-partisan efforts towards this important draft that affects over 6 million students with disabilities.

There are number of proposed changes to IDEA in the House bill, HR 1350 which of great concern to me and it is my hope the Senate will address these issues in its draft. IDEA was first enacted in 1975 on the premise of providing access to a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities. HR 1350 will diminish accountability, offer few safeguards from abuse and coercion by school districts, and affect the way that special education is funded.

Despite the efforts of parents and other stakeholders, the House was not moved by the voices of their constituents. We hope the Senate will not ignore the growing opposition against HR 1350 as evidenced by a petition with over 12,700+ signatures from every state of in the nation.

I urge you to view the petition in its entirety to hear the voices of your own constituents and may their thoughts and concerns shape the face of the Senate legislation.

There is a serious flaw in the IEP guidelines changes in an attempt to align IDEA with NCLB and the emphasis on paperwork reduction. Procedural compliance is not at odds with educational results. Students have nonacademic goals such as organizational, social, behavioral, cognitive, speech, occupational, and physical skills which cannot be measured in ANY assessment. Without short-term objectives, there is no measure of progress. Progress can only be measured by the observations of teachers and therapists. Optional 3 year IEPs are unacceptable and may subject parents who are less informed to coercion. Our children deserve accountability. Our children deserve one comprehensive meeting each year to talk about their constantly changing educational needs.

I agree students require pre-referral services but not at the expense of special education funds. This is an immediate cash flow reduction to the much needed financial resources for students who are already eligible under IDEA. Gutting IDEA will not resolve the issue of poorly educated students being wrongly classified. Schools strapped for resources will raid special education funds for general education students to improve test scores while holding down local taxes. Pre-referral services should be funded through general education resources and funding the general education mandates of the No Child Left Behind act.

I urge you to clarify the due process timelines. If Congressional intent is a 30 day due process timeline, it must be worded explicitly. School officials have already interpreted this change as a 75 day timeline. A student with disabilities should not have to wait for the provision of a free, appropriate public education. There is nothing in the current IDEA that prohibits or hinders the school districts from initiating negotiations before and during the due process hearing. To foster better relationships with parents and school districts, the due process procedure should be shortened and not lengthened so that issues may be resolved quickly and both parties can continue their focus on the education of a student with disabilities.

H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations of IDEA. The changes to IDEA proposed in HR 1350 continually places the burden on parents while letting schools off the hook. The proponents of HR 1350 claim they seek to engender trusts between schools and parents. They claim they would like to increase accountability and ensure positive educational results. Behind their seeming student-oriented philosophy, a one year statute of limitations does nothing to increase accountability, foster trusting relationships, or ensure results. Parents will now be barred for holding schools accountable from violations older than one year. In many cases, violations can occur for quite some time unbeknownst to parents. Some students are non-communicative. Some districts will provide verbal assurances that services are being provided while in fact they have not. The House majority is letting the schools off the hook. The House majority is sending the message get away with as much as you can because maybe you won't get caught until it's too late. Laws are truly useless without the means of enforcement. Sometimes, the only means a student can have the law enforced is through the legal system. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations. Further, currently there are states which have already instituted statute of limitations on claims of greater than one year. States should not be encourage to shorten their current statutes of limitation. In addition, conditions must be made for allowance of cases that are brought that are beyond the statute of limitations in cases where parents were not aware of violations due to the withholding of information of school districts.

HR 1350 proposes that courts may now only rule IDEA violation cases on the determination of the whether a student with a disability has been provided a free, appropriate public education.

The House majority seeks this change to prevent parents from prevailing on "purely procedural matters."

The drafters of HR 1350 believe that procedural compliance is at odds with educational results with disregard that the procedures were created to insure the delivery of an appropriate education and therefore provide educational results.

In the landmark Rowley case of 1982, the Supreme court ruled that the court has the responsibility of examining IDEA violation cases under a two prong test; substantative and proccedural.

The substance of claims before the court are determined by:

Whether a free appropriate public education has been provided: The provision of a free, appropriate public education as defined as an education that meets the unique needs supported by services that are necessary for the student to benefit from instruction.

Whether a student with a disability had access: Students with disabilities are entitled to access to individually designed special education and related services in order to receive an educational benefit.

Rowley states that the court must determine decisions on:

Did the State comply with the procedures of IDEA?

Was the IEP developed through IDEA's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit? If yes, then the court cannot require more. The court holds the schools accountable for their actions and inaction.

HR 1350 has changed the face of attorney fees reimbursement when a parent is the prevailing party of a due process hearing. Attorney fee reimbursement were previously based on the determination of the courts against a measure of prevailing rates of service.

HR 1350 changes this mandate and provides the authority of governors of each state to determine the rate of reimbursement for attorney's fees. If the State is, in some cases, the defendant of such suits, a conflict of interest exists in allowing the State to set the that cap.

HR 1350 sets a bad precedent being the first piece of legislation that limits the reimbursement of attorney's fees in civil rights disputes. How has it been determined that parents of students with disabilities deserve fewer protections than other plaintiffs in civil rights disputes?

This is not a question of lining the pockets of an attorney. As parents, we are concerned that we will not be able to secure competent legal services from special education attorney due to caps. Let us examine the causes of due process hearings. In some cases, parents are seeking reimbursement for costs incurred associated by out of pocket expenses such as therapy sessions, independent evaluations, additional educational services, and placement. The parent has already laid out an expense is then seeking reimbursement through the courts. These situations are not created by the parents but rather the school districts' unwillingness to comply with regulations and yet parents will be deterred from securing competent legal counsel because attorneys will be hesitant to accept these types of cases. The losing party here is the student.

School districts are not being victimized by frivolous suits by parents. These suits arise due to the school's non-compliance to laws written to protect the rights of students with disabilities. If the House majority feels that districts are at a disadvantage in disputes, it reflects the fact that districts are mostly in the wrong for violating these laws.

School districts would still be free to hire and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children.

HR 1350 continues to place greater burdens upon parents. Much has been made by the House majority of the many burdens of schools. They are quick to sympathize with the many tasks they must perform to educate students. Parents, however, are not provided with the same level of compassion. Parents are now expected to be able draft complaints with the specific issues versus a description of the problem.

One parent once said that when their child was diagnosed with a disability, she instantly became a neurologist, a psychologist, speech therapist, occupational therapist, and educator. Must we add attorney to the list?

Where is the House majority's sympathy for the task of raising a child with a disability? They have more concern with the amount of paperwork involved in educating a student with disability versus the amount of work involved in providing a child with a disability the best possible chance to reaching their individual potential.

This change coupled with the Castle Amendment will propose difficult challenges for parents. Not only are parents expected to draft well worded complaints but if they make an error and leave something out, they are barred to bring up the issue entirely.

Parents are least equipped to draft tight legal documents. They have neither the time, the energy, or the resources to do so. Parents fight the battle of life everyday.

Amendment 1 which passed with HR 1350 will now bar parents from raising issues which were not previously raised in the original complaint without both parties' agreement.

It is highly unlikely that a school would agree to discuss any issue not raised in the complaint as it will pertain to some form of failure to provide an education or procedural non-compliance.

This measure again lets the school off the hook on purely legal procedure. There is no allowance as to what types of issues are being raised and how possibly detrimental these issues are to a student's education.

How does this measure protect students? This measure protects school districts.

As it stands, parents of children with disabilities struggle daily to raise their children. We are more hardworking than the average parent. We work with our children to get them to sit, stand, walk, sign, talk, point, read, write, jump, button a shirt, tie a shoe lace, even to say "mommy" or give a kiss. The simplest things to typical children are triumphs for ours and are sometimes only achieved after several years. We shed many tears for our children coping with large amounts of stress. Yet, we are expected to live typical lives too. We work, we have family obligations beyond our children with disabilities, we pay our bills, and we pay our taxes. In addition, we fight our school districts.

We fight for eligibility, we fight for classification, we fight for assessments, and we fight for placements. IDEA was a law meant to protect our children, to provide access to a free and appropriate public education. This legislation will eliminate "appropriate."

The population with disabilities grows exponentially annually. Do not allow the special interests of school administrators to determine the future that is unwritten for our children.

If there is one thing parents have for their children is an abundance of is hope. We hope that our Senators will draft an IDEA reauthorization bill that truly increases accountability, ensures positive educational results, ensures the protection and rights of stakeholders, and raises the quality of education of students with disabilities.

Sincerely,

Name, Address, Telephone Number, Email address

Petition Signatures of the State of ___