CASE 2002 IDEA
Re-authorization Recommendations

The following comments are compiled based upon comments obtained at the CASE meeting of the Membership and it's Board of Directors on April 3, 2002 in New York City. Some will be new comments and some are in further support of those comments previously submitted by CASE in November of 2001.

Finance

1. CASE would speak in opposition to statutory or regulatory specific requirements for the use of the 20% supplanting allowance. The majority of those present could support a listing of possible uses/examples but would strongly object to a restriction of uses.
2. Members would also issue a strong cautionary note that the proposed statutory language could well make, though unintended, pre-referral interventions a special education function that, among other issues, could lead to a new set of "pre-referral paperwork" in order to document interventions. CASE urges further in-depth analysis of the potential consequences.
3. CASE members further stated that they found the "early grades" too restrictive and felt that, while much emphasis needs to be given to the early grades, funds should also be able to be used for interventions for students whose difficulties may first occur or become apparent at a later grade.
4. Finally, there was concern expressed that suggesting a percentage estimate to determine appropriations for IDEA formula programs that would be commensurate with private industry may be too high a figure and that a somewhat lower percentage might be more appropriate to suggest.

Highly Qualified Personnel

The lack of qualified personnel is a major issue for CASE members and we congratulate CEC on their work to address this vital concern. There were some changes in the recommendations we would urge.

1. CASE members felt strongly that statutory language is needed to ensure that when a local district makes all reasonable efforts to locate qualified personnel but is unable to locate them that the lack of such personnel should not be an item for due process or for litigation. Concern was also expressed regarding what appears to be federal efforts to legislate the qualifications of personnel. We would continue to support requirements that personnel not fully certified/licensed must demonstrate progress toward such certification/licensure.
2. Members felt that the term "highly qualified" was too open to interpretation and, hence, to potential litigation and would ask that the terminology in the definition of highly qualified be used but not "highly qualified". The term should be "certified/licensed".
3. CASE recommends a clarification/explanation of the term "capacity building" as our members were unclear as to its purpose and intent, especially given the considerable amount of funding which would now be directed to this activity.

Increasing Accountability While Reducing Paperwork

CASE viewed this as a broader category than that identified by CEC. Areas of major concern to members beyond the IEP were included under a general heading of Compliance OR Instruction. Our members feel that they are spending so much time on compliance that insufficient time is left, not only for teacher but for administrators as well, to focus on instruction. Additional areas identified were: Time, money and other resources for teachers and administrators due to constraints caused by litigation, discipline, compliance requirements, procedural complexity and IEPs. In order to address some of these concerns CASE offers the following two recommendations:

1. With regard to procedural violations CASE would recommend statutory language that emphasizes substance over form in keeping with current court decisions. Such language would use the following test for procedural inadequacies: "Did the procedural inadequacies:
   1. compromise the student's right to FAPE;
   2. compromise the parent's opportunity to participate in the special education process; OR
   3. cause a deprivation of educational benefit?"
2. CASE recommends that IDEA include a specific statute of limitations to be applied in due process hearings and civil action.

With regard to the CEC recommendations we would make the following specific comments.

1. CASE members expressed significant concern over CEC recommendations #1 and #2. While we are very supportive of the intent of these recommendations, past experience with both federal and state initiatives in this regard have demonstrated increased rather then reduced complexity and length as a result.
2. Recommendation # 3 has full CASE support.
3. Recommendation # 4 has full CASE support.
4. CASE also supports recommendations # 5, 6, and 7.
5. The recommendations regarding a 3-year IEP received mixed comments with some members supporting and some expressing significant concern. While fully appreciating the objective, CASE recommends further explanation/clarification of all the parameters; for instance what would be the precise distinction between the annual goals and the three-year goals? Would such an approach contain the possibility of increased rather than reduced paperwork?

Identification and Eligibility: Learning Disabilities

CASE concerns are inappropriate referrals of low achieving students in both the categories of learning disabilities and emotional disturbance. We would recommend that CEC expand its language to signify concern with both categories. While there is general dissatisfaction with the current definition we, too, did not have a viable alternative to recommend.

Discipline Procedures

CASE appreciates the rationale for trying to limit debate on the discipline provisions of IDEA. However, the present system is extremely complex and is a major source of difficulty for administrators as well as other school personnel. CASE has, for many years, had a position statement calling for no cessation of services for any student in America's schools. CEC has a similar position. We would strongly recommend that CEC advance that position by calling for needed changes in both IDEA and ESEA to require provision of alternative services to all students after a specified cumulative number of suspension days within a school year.

High Stakes Testing/Assessment

This continues to be an area in which CASE sees significant difficulties. The issues are not around testing for the purposes of tracking progress and reporting results as a good accountability measure but, rather, high stakes testing for high stakes decision making such as student graduation and credits. We do not, however, have specific recommendations to offer at this time.

We compliment CEC on the extensive input process followed during the development of the draft recommendations. Much solid work has been accomplished to date and in a most timely. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further assistance!