Disability Education in Tennessee

Education for Disabled Students: Rights, Entitlements and Privileges Under Federal Law, and Tennessee State Law.

by Dennis P. McNamee, J.D. ^{© 2000}

A written supplement to the lecture delivered February 29, 2000, at Vanderbilt University to students of the Peabody College of Education.

I. Introduction

In the State of Tennessee developmentally disabled, learning disabled, and in some states, gifted children are entitled by both federal and state law to a free public, not private or parochial, education through grade twelve (12), tailored specifically to their individual needs and with the appropriate resources necessary to implement that education. This is not considered a benefit under state and federal law, but an entitlement by right of citizenship. In Brown v. Board of Education, the famous 1954 United States Supreme Court Case on the right to an equal education, the opinion of the Court stated, "In these days it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." As a result, denial of such an education is a violation of the child's civil rights and is enforceable by federal civil rights enforcement authorities or, in the course of state law, state enforcement action.

II. History

In 1975 the United States Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. With the amendment and reauthorization in 1990, the law changed names and became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This law requires a free appropriate public education be made available for all disabled children and young adults with disabilities from ages three to twenty-one. One of the most recent and important changes concerns toddler intervention. The largest resource share is concentrated in the public school systems. However, some resources will be cooperatively shared with private schools, primarily if the best training facilities are private schools and the public school system actively places disabled children in these facilities for learning purposes.

III. The Key Provisions of the 1997 IDEA Amendments, PL 105-17, June 4, 1997, and the 1999 Rules.

Were we asked to discuss the most important functions of the IDEA we would quickly identify those that focus on keeping disabled children on both an appropriate educational and socialization track. These would begin with active identification of children with special education needs and their appropriate evaluation prior to placement.^, Once the child is identified, the second function is identified as the construction of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with parents included in the planning process. In the1999, reauthorization the IDEA takes the IEP from an educator based system to a parent based system. It would appear that legislators were interested in having those most familiar with the child in control. The reauthorization requires parental control and approval of any placement, with all appropriate related services included to support the IEP. To insure the social component of a child's education education in the least restrictive environment, also called mainstreaming, places the children into classes with their peers to the greatest extent possible. Next, when children are placed in private schools by state or local education agencies for the child to receive an appropriate education, there is no cost to parents and the school must meet legal standards.^, Not only must children be educated in the least restrictive setting possible but also must have access to programs for those with disabilities such as Braille reading materials, sign interpreters for the hearing impaired, reader services and TDD machines for telephone communications. Finally the law encourages pre-school programs by incentive grants for ages 0 to 5 years of age.

The most poignant development is that, for the first time, ADD and ADHD are classified as "other health impaired". Under the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, and the March, 1999, IDEA Regulations, "Other health impairments means having limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that- (i) is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia; and (ii) adversely affects a child's educational performance." States can use a Developmental Delay category to serve children who have delays in social, communicative, emotional or adaptive behavior, rather than grade retention as a way to help a child catch up to peers.

Individualized Education Programs (IEP) should include the following: a statement of the child's current level of performance and how the disability affects the child's progress and participation; measurable benchmarks and goals designed to meet the child's comprehensive needs resulting from the disability and to enable the child to progress and be involved in the general curriculum; a statement of services that will be provided to enable the child to participate and progress in the general curriculum; an explanation of the extent to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in regular classrooms and activities; a statement of modifications required for the child to participate in district and statewide assessments or a statement of why the assessment is not appropriate and what alternatives will be used; the date of initiation, frequency, duration, and location of services and modifications; and a statement of how the child's progress toward annual goals will be measured, and beginning at age 14 the transition services a child will need to prepare for work, post secondary education, or independent living.

Keys to participation in IDEA include: the student must be diagnosed by the school district or the district must accept the diagnosis rendered by another qualified professional; the ADHD must result in limited alertness to academic tasks, due to heightened alertness to environmental stimuli; the effects of the ADHD must be chronic (long lasting) or acute (have substantial impact); this must result in an adverse effect on educational performance (tests, behavioral difficulties, inappropriate social relations, impaired work skills); the student must require special education services in order to address the ADHD and its impact.

Schools are obligated to identify and evaluate children suspected of having a disability even if they are progressing from grade to grade. Evaluations to determine eligibility must be sufficiently comprehensive, including cognitive and behavioral factors to identify all areas of need, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category.

Because appropriate behavior is often an issue for a child with ADHD, the IDEA instructs the IEP team, including the regular educator to deal proactively with anticipated behavior problems by developing behavioral intervention plans including appropriate and positive strategies, interventions, and supports based on an assessment and analysis of a child's problem behaviors.

Appropriate testing modifications for statewide assessment testing should be addressed in the IEP, and parents must be provided an opportunity to examine their child's records, participate in meetings relating to: identification, evaluation, educational placement and the provisions of a free, appropriate, public education. Parents have the right to be notified of and participate in all IEP meetings and receive a copy of all IEP meeting reports at no cost. They can also contribute information and invite others who have special knowledge or information about the child to attend meetings. If a child will be in a regular classroom, at least one regular educator must participate on the IEP team.

With regard to discipline such as suspensions and expulsions: children with disabilities cannot be suspended or expelled for more than ten consecutive days for behavior that is related to their disability unless: the IEP and placement were appropriate in relation to the behavior, that special education services, supplementary aids and services, and behavior intervention strategies were provided consistent with the IEP and placement, the child was able to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, and the child was able to control the behavior. Educational services must continue during suspensions and expulsions, except during the first ten days of suspension or expulsion in a school year. Schools can transfer students to alternative educational settings for up to 45 days for possessing or using illegal drugs or weapons, or if students are proven to be substantially likely to cause harm to themselves or others.

Mediation of conflict is encouraged. Mediation does not preclude parent's right to a later due process hearing. In fact the1997 reauthorization specifically makes violation of a child's rights under the IDEA a federal question, which can be litigated in Federal Court, regardless of whether the law is state or federally originated, and regardless of the amount in question.^,

Qualifying for special education services does not necessarily mean placement in a special education class setting. Special inclusive instruction within the regular classroom is acceptable. The term "special education" refers to the specially designed services contained in the Individual Education Plan (IEP). If a diagnosis is made, the school system is not obligated to follow it. They are obligated to determine if an evaluation for services is necessary and inform the parents of their decision. A parent, private professional or the school staff have the right to make a referral for evaluation. If the school agrees to the evaluation it is to be performed at no cost to the parents. If the parents are dissatisfied with the evaluation, the parents may request a subsequent evaluation at cost to the school district. A school district may not require that a child be medicated. This is the exclusive decision of the parents. Special Education or IEP services may not be predicated on an agreement with the parents to administer medication to the child.

Eligibility under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The standard under Section 504 is broader and more flexible so an individual qualified under Section 504 may not be qualified for services under the more restrictive definition of the IDEA.

IV. Companion Statutes to the IDEA

The amendments to the original Act also provide for important services to the child and the parents or legal guardian. Pub. L. No. 98-199, the 1983 amendments to IDEA provides for special services and technical assistance to the deaf-blind individual. This law also provides for parent training and follow-up support for the child's education. Under the 1986 Amendments to IDEA the family became the focus, and the ages for intervention went from three years of age to birth and centers on an interagency approach for assistance.

Parents and educational planners should be aware that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112 also has implications for the education, vocational training and employment of the disabled. This particular piece of legislation includes both actual and perceived handicaps as well as conditions that are not normally considered handicapping such as some types of addictions, amputees, the temporarily handicapped or disabled individuals who may not necessarily need special education. Section 504 of the Act requires nondiscrimination and equal access under federal grants for students and is monitored by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. Under Section 504 the definition of handicapped recognizes a person with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity such as: caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, or learning and working. There are other statutes which also impact training, education, support, and the ability of the disabled to earn an independent living. Some of these are: The Americans with Disabilities Act, The Handicapped Children's Protection Act, and the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act.

V. State Law, Local Codes and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

The Constitution provides that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the land. When there is a direct conflict between a federal law and a state law, the state law is held to be invalid. When Congress chooses to act exclusively in an area of concurrent federal and state powers, it is said to preempt the area under the Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution, and a valid federal statute or regulation will take precedence over a conflicting state or local law on the same general subject. Generally, congressional intent to preempt will be found if the federal law is so pervasive, comprehensive, or detailed that the states have no room to supplement it. Also, when a federal statute creates an agency to enforce the law, matters that may come within the agency's jurisdiction will likely preempt state laws. State regulations are preempted by federal law and local and municipal regulation may be preempted by both.

In order to participate in the reauthorization of the IDEA in 1997, by an amendment attached to the IDEA, the states were required to enact what is known as a "zero-tolerance" policy. The intent of Congress appears to have been to protect school staff and students from offenders who knowingly bring firearms or dangerous street drugs into the school. Special education students were included in the zero-tolerance laws, enacted at the state level, by not specifically excluding them. The IDEA itself and federal rules enacted in support of the reauthorization of IDEA were quick to point out that the discipline and expulsion must be evaluated for special education students on a case by case basis.

Codes of Conduct at Public School Board level, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution must insure that they are not preempted by federal law or regulations to remain in compliance. For example the Nashville, Davidson County Tennessee Code of Student Conduct was Revised June 22, 1999, three months after the final federal regulations for IDEA were promulgated. The Metropolitan Public Schools used the following terms to apply to special education students in addition to regular students: threat, battery, assault, intimidation and passive resistance. The definition the school system chose to use for threat, for example, states that a threat is, "A communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any person or on property." Citing Black's Law Dictionary as the authority, the Student Code does not explain that this definition originated with a Minnesota case which is only persuasive authority in Tennessee. Such authority is cited most frequently in the interest of the drafter's time and understanding.

Tennessee is a common law state. As a common law state, Tennessee more closely approximates the common law definition in Black's Law Dictionary, on the same page and in the same paragraph used for the Nashville Student Code, that is, "The term 'threat' means an avowed present determination or intent to injure presently or in the future. A statement may constitute a threat even though it is subject to a possible contingency in the maker's control. The prosecution must establish a 'true threat' which means a serious threat as distinguished from words uttered as mere political argument, idle talk or jest. In determining whether words were uttered as a threat the context in which they were spoken must be considered." Further, intent defined under the common law may be defined as follows, "intent is used throughout the Restatement of Torts, 2d. to denote that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Intent and motive should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted." Assault is another term that requires a mental component over which the perpetrator has some control of his functioning. Assault of the most simple type is defined as when a person "a) attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (b) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or (c) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury Model Penal Code section 211.1."

In evaluating a disabled or special education student for disciplinary purposes such as suspension or expulsion, under federal law and regulations, the student must understand that the action they took was wrong, know the difference between right and wrong, and the action must have been under the control of the student and not a result of their disability. Under the provisions of the Tennessee Zero Tolerance Statute, any student, regardless of disability is to be disciplined. All state, local, or municipal policies and procedures should be reviewed by Boards of Education to determine possible conflict with the Federal Rules and to avoid costly litigation and due process procedures. Key provisions of Tennessee law may require review in light of new legislation. Tennessee's IDEA Rules and Regulations are being rewritten. to reflect the requirements of the June, 1997, federal IDEA reauthorization.

VI. Recent U.S. Supreme Court Actions

In a decision applauded by the disability community, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on March 3, 1999, that disabled students are entitled to necessary "non-medical" services, irrespective of cost to the school district, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. The landmark case focused on a school-aged boy, Garret Frey, who is quadriplegic and needs a trained aide to provide him with extensive assistance while he is in school. Garret breathes only with the help of a ventilator. The Supreme Court affirmed an Eighth Circuit decision holding that under IDEA, the school was in fact required to provide the trained aide. The Court agreed that, in order for Garret to enjoy the free, appropriate public education to which he is entitled under IDEA, he needs the related services of a full-time aide. IDEA guarantees that a school district will cover the costs of all related services associated with offering a child suffering from a disability a public education. The Court held that as long as a student's physical needs can be met by someone who is not a doctor, the required services do not fall within the excluded medical services category. This case represents a milestone for children with mental and physical disabilities. Many children with mental illness have been denied educational opportunities by school districts reticent to address or pay for the multiple services they require. With this decision, it will be more difficult for school systems to deny services to children with severe mental illnesses and other disabilities.
There are concerns, however, that the Supreme Court's decision may encourage Congress to amend IDEA to limit the obligations of school districts to pay for "related services" under the law. Nevertheless, at least in the short term, the decision marks a victory for student-age individuals afflicted with disabilities.

VII. IDEA Litigation Challenging State Noncompliance

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents and families of children with disabilities play a key role in enforcing the law. They initiate litigation and raise issues that otherwise may not gain attention. In order to pursue these issues, parents must find attorneys who are knowledgeable about IDEA and willing to accept cases where fee payment may be deferred or delayed until the case is settled. In other words, the attorney may not get paid unless the client wins and the court awards attorney's fees. Damages are rarely awarded in these cases, which are often protracted and expensive. During the pendency of the cases, until they are settled, the attorneys must be in a position to work without compensation.
Litigating attorneys in the private bar who are experts on IDEA are not commonplace. Frequently specialty public interest organizations will accept such cases. The Protection and Advocacy systems (P&As), which provide legal representation and advocacy for people with disabilities in every state in the country, represent families in many special education cases.

VIII. A Sample Summary of High Impact Litigation in California, Illinois, and Texas
In three recent cases, parents have challenged their state's monitoring and enforcement system in failing to address local noncompliance. Although the local education agency (LEA) and, ultimately, the state education agency (SEA) have responsibility for ensuring a free and appropriate public education to all children with disabilities in the state, when the LEA fails in its responsibility to provide services and the SEA fails to properly monitor and enforce the law, as the following cases reflect, the burden of enforcement falls on parents.
In Corey H. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Chicago public school students with disabilities brought a class action against both the City of Chicago Board of Education (CBE) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief to correct CBE's and ISBE's widespread failure to educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
Although CBE agreed to settle with an extensive plan for correcting the LRE violations, ISBE continued to argue that it fulfilled the IDEA's LRE mandate. ISBE claimed that the IDEA requires only that it provide oversight and general supervision of CBE's LRE efforts. ISBE also argued that its monitoring efforts were adequate because OSEP had approved Illinois' state plan including its monitoring plan. The court, however, found that Congress intended to place final responsibility and accountability in one agency, and held that once ISBE had accepted IDEA funds, it was responsible to ensure compliance with the IDEA's LRE requirements. As the court stated, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated beyond doubt that, despite the fact that the LRE mandate had been on the books since 1975, the Chicago public schools languished in an atmosphere of separate and unequal education for children with emotional, mental, and behavioral difficulties. The fact that OSEP may have approved Illinois' plan was not dispositive. The court affirmed the right of parents to enforce their children's rights and ensure compliance with IDEA independent of OSEP's actions or inaction. To the court, ISBE had clearly violated its duty to establish its own effective monitoring and enforcement system.
The Corey H. court found numerous systemic failures in ISBE's monitoring and enforcement of IDEA's LRE requirements: students with low-incidence disabilities were placed in highly restrictive placements, ISBE's funding formula perpetuated segregating children with disabilities, and when the CBE failures were pointed out to ISBE, ISBE took little or no action to ensure the failures were corrected. The court ordered the ISBE to identify and correct its LRE violations, inform its teachers and administrators of their IDEA responsibilities regarding LRE implementation, certify teachers according to LRE requirements, and establish a state funding formula that reimburses local agencies for educating children in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs. The court has since appointed its own expert to develop an effective monitoring and enforcement system for Illinois. A monitoring system currently in development will closely follow the focused monitoring approach being tested, and litigated, in Texas this summer..
Another recent case challenging a state's failure to monitor and enforce LEA compliance with IDEA is Angel G. et al. v. TEA. Filed in 1994, this case was brought by parents on behalf of their children who resided in Texas Residential Care Facilities (RCF). The case alleged that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) failed to meet three responsibilities required of a state education agency by IDEA: (1) active identification of children in need, (2) development of interagency agreements, and (3) effective monitoring and enforcement of LEA compliance with IDEA.
In 1996, the court in Angel G. approved a settlement agreement that resolved both the child find and interagency agreement issues but left open the issue of the effectiveness of TEA's monitoring system. TEA continued to fail to assure that its RCFs provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children and youth with disabilities who reside in these facilities. An independent consultant issued a report finding TEA's monitoring system to be "fundamentally flawed" and recommended that TEA convene a group of experts to develop a replacement or supplemental system of special education monitoring. TEA initially refused to implement this recommendation but later informed the court that it had made substantial changes to its current monitoring system to ensure compliance with IDEA. The court requested that each party submit their plans for an effective special education monitoring system and held oral argument on the adequacy of these plans. Following this hearing, the court issued an order setting the case for an evidentiary hearing to begin in June, 2000, and to continue as needed. At this hearing, the court will examine "whether the components of the plan TEA filed in this case on August 14, 1998, are adequate to enable TEA to meet its burden as an SEA...."
In the most recent of these cases challenging the state's monitoring system, a group of eight children with disabilities in East Palo Alto, California, brought a class action lawsuit in November 1996 against their school district, the Ravenswood City Elementary School District, for extensive violations with all of the substantive and procedural requirements of IDEA; (e.g., failure to provide FAPE, extensive LRE violations, failure to ensure parent participation, utilizing discriminatory evaluation procedures, etc.). The plaintiff children in this case , Emma C. v. Eastin, also sued the California Department of Education (CDE) for failing to monitor and enforce the law despite repeated findings of noncompliance in the school district.
After a period of intensive law and motion activity, the U.S. district court made a number of critical rulings in Emma C. The court held that (1) all available remedies, including money damages and compensatory education, are available under IDEA against the CDE and against members of California's Board of Education in their individual capacities; (2) that the nature of the systemic problems alleged in the suit made exhaustion of administrative remedies futile and therefore unnecessary; and (3) that the CDE was at that time incapable of ensuring compliance in the district because of the substantial inadequacies in its own monitoring and complaint systems. The court certified a class comprised of all past, present and future special education students in the district.
Following these court rulings, the plaintiff children in Emma C. and the CDE entered into a tentative settlement agreement in which CDE agreed to undertake a comprehensive step by step approach to bring Ravenswood into compliance. Plaintiffs also reached agreement with the district in which the district primarily agreed to abide by any corrective action plan developed by the state and independent monitors and provided for compensatory education to all eligible children.
Plaintiffs and the CDE are negotiating an agreement to change California's monitoring system to the focused monitoring approach proposed by the plaintiffs in the Angel G. litigation. The CDE has taken substantial steps already to convert to this approach, including commitment to a pilot program to test whether it will result in greater compliance.

IX. Development of More Effective Monitoring System in Texas and Elsewhere
A group of experts convened by the plaintiffs in Angel G. et al. v. TEA, designed a proposed focused monitoring system for Texas. Known as the Chicago Group because the meeting was held in Chicago, these experts continue to flesh out the details of the system In addition, advocates and experts in the states of Texas, California, and Illinois are reviewing the proposed system to refine and delineate it and address the many related complex issues. The state of California has committed to adopting this focused monitoring system and planned to conduct its first pilot program in 1999. The following is an overview of the proposed focused monitoring system.
The Texas work articulated five principles that provide the basis for an effective state IDEA monitoring system. The system must: address all legal requirements and educational results for students; include public involvement; build on existing student data to increase system efficiency; direct resources to areas of greatest need; and result in timely verification or enforcement of compliance. Their approach is based on the notion of continuous improvement with a data-based accountability system. The three components of the compliance monitoring system are: performance review; policy review; and complaint management.
At the heart of this system is the performance review process, which works as follows. The state agency conducts a performance review of each LEA. The outcome of the review is used by the SEA, in part, to place LEAs into one of four categories: a Continuous Improvement District in which no additional compliance activities are required by the state agency; a Data Validation District in which sixty LEAs are randomly selected annually to verify reported data and examine procedural compliance; an At-Risk District in which a self-study supplement to the district improvement plan is required; or finally, the Focused-monitoring district in which on-site investigation of specific areas of noncompliance are conducted by the state.
According to the system, in order to determine the category of each LEA, the state must develop a template, or model, for analyzing special education performance data and measuring compliance. Critical variables or indicators must be determined. Variables could include measures of graduation rates, drop-out rates, academic achievement levels, and placement data. Standards must be developed for three types of trigger values. The first trigger value, which would apply to each variable, is the "at-risk" trigger. This trigger identifies LEAs that are "at risk" in their performance in that area. Critical variables would receive one trigger in addition to the "at risk" trigger. The second trigger for critical variables is the focused monitoring trigger, which identifies the districts that will receive a focused monitoring visit. The third value is used as a benchmark for each critical variable. The benchmark serves as the statewide performance goal for the critical variables designed to improve the performance levels.
The focused district monitoring occurs when an LEA exceeds the trigger for any critical data variable. The state creates an investigation plan that is tailored to the identified areas of noncompliance prior to the visit. The plan is individualized for each LEA and must incorporate several features including focusing on measurable data that indicate compliance or noncompliance with the identified issue, classroom observation, and input from parents and students. Districts that are designated as "at-risk" or "focused monitoring" must have plans for correcting areas of noncompliance. Technical assistance and personnel training should be provided to the LEA by the SEA if needed. The SEA must develop written procedures that outline the progression from noncompliance findings to enforcement so that they are consistently applied for each noncompliant LEA. These procedures should be clear to LEAs so that there is no doubt about the consequences for ongoing noncompliance.
Likewise, the state must have a system of progressive sanctions to use whenever any LEA fails to correct noncompliance within a specific time line. The proposed range of sanctions is as follows in ascending order:

Mandatory First-Level Sanctions require the state to send a letter of continued

noncompliance to all families of students with disabilities served by the LEA

and members of the state legislature.

A public hearing is held by the district's school board and the noncompliance

information is a consideration in the evaluation of the LEA superintendent and

relevant principals.

Mandatory Second Level Sanctions, which are to be implemented within 60 days

of the first level of sanctions if noncompliance continues, require lowered accreditation

of the noncompliant LEA and suspension or termination of responsible administrative

officials.

Mandatory Third Level Sanctions, which are imposed 60 days after Level 2 sanctions

if noncompliance continues, require a choice of one of the following options:

(1) transference of federal and state special education funds to a neighboring LEA for

oversight of the provision of special education in the noncompliant district;

(2) partial withholding of federal and state special education funds while the LEA must

continue to provide required services; (3) withholding of all federal and state special

education funds while the LEA must continue to provide required services;

and (4) recovery by the state of previously awarded federal and state funds.

The elements of this proposed system have potential for correcting some long-standing weaknesses in Texas, California, and Illinois state monitoring. The proposed system is being implemented on a "pilot" basis only in California; more time is needed to test its effectiveness.

X. Current Developments in the Application of Disability Education Provisions.

On February 7, 2000 President Clinton released his federal budget request for FY 2001. The $41.1 billion budget for education represents the largest jump in discretionary spending in the history of the Department of Education. This budget includes a total of $6.4 billion for Special Education programs, which is an increase of $333 million or 5.5 percent over the FY 2000 level. Included in this budget are a $290 million increase for the Part B Grants to States program, as well as increases in other programs providing direct services, and those supporting systems change, research, demonstration, technical assistance, and training activities.

Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-CA) introduced a bill on January 27 that would authorize enough additional Part B money for the next 10 years to reach the 40 percent funding mark by 2010. H.R. 3545, the "IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000," acknowledges that although the federal government committed to contributing up to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure to educate children with disabilities, that figure has never exceeded 13 percent of states' costs.

On January 4, 2000, the Department of Education and the Justice Department jointly announced the funding of EDJJ, The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice. This new collaborative research, training, technical assistance and dissemination program is designed to develop more effective responses to the needs of youth with disabilities in--or those at-risk for involvement with--the juvenile justice system. This center evolved from several years of collaboration between the Education and Justice Departments as a means to respond to the growing problem of youth with disabilities being over represented in the juvenile justice system.

On April 8, 2000 the Autism Resource Konnection (ARK) will be hosting a rally in Washington, D.C to promote National Autism Awareness. The rally will be held on the Mall, between 3rd and 4th streets from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Autism is a neurological disorder that affects more than 500,000 American citizens and is now occurring in as many as 1 in 500 if not more. ARK wants to bring the Nation together to confront the issues surrounding the epidemic numbers being reported in some states. ARK hopes to raise the Awareness to ensure increased government spending for research into the causes and possible cures, obtain support for legislation to make that possible, and to better the services provided to educate and serve this ever-growing population. Autism is one of a spectrum of disorders which run from mild to severe along a total spectrum and within itself.

DENNIS P. McNAMEE, J.D.- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED