Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3268 - IDEA Improvement Act of 1996

(House)
(Rep. Cunningham (R) CA and 11 others)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3268. In many respects, this bill incorporates the major themes advanced by the Administration in its reauthorization proposal. H.R. 3268 would: (1) improve educational results for children by promoting their greater inclusion in the general curriculum, general assessments, and State and local reform efforts; (2) focus even more on teaching and learning by reducing paperwork and increasing administrative flexibility; and (3) provide families and teachers with the knowledge and training they need to support students' learning effectively. The Administration, however, has significant concerns about a number of the bill's provisions and will work to address the following and other concerns as the bill moves through Congress.

• New restrictions should not be placed on the use of non-binding guidance from the Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Administration strongly objects to a provision of H.R. 3268 that would place severe restrictions on the use of policy letters or other correspondence from the Department of Education that interpret the IDEA or its implementing regulations. These letters do not impose new legal requirements, but merely explain what current law already requires in particular circumstances. They are helpful to thousands of agencies and individuals who routinely receive them and rely on them for guidance. H.R. 3268 would force these agencies and individuals to ignore that guidance and submit individual requests to the Department, imposing an unnecessary burden on them and resulting in wasteful delay, uncertainty, and litigation.
  
  
• IDEA reauthorization legislation should include clear authority for the Department to support the development and promotion of technology that can help improve educational results for children with disabilities. H.R. 3268 would provide for various national, State, and local activities aimed at improving educational, early intervention, and transitional services and opportunities for children with disabilities. However, the bill should also include explicit authority, along the lines of the Administration's proposal, for the development and promotion of technology. Instructional technology is an important tool in helping children with disabilities improve their academic performance. Similarly, assistive technology has helped children with physical and sensory impairments to function more effectively and independently.
  
  
• It is premature to set a termination date for the Department's authority to support captioning of the full range of television programming and other media. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) directs the Federal Communications Commission to require the captioning of video programming. However, it does not establish a deadline for captioning to occur, and it permits exemptions in cases of significant difficulty or expense. The Department of Education's current authority to fund captioning activities may need to be extended beyond the cut-off date in H.R. 3268, in case the Telecommunications Act results in gaps in the availability of captioning.
  
  
• Language giving school officials unilateral authority to make a long-term change in the educational placement of children with disabilities who have caused serious injury is unnecessary and overly broad. The Administration strongly supports language in H.R. 3268 that would: .(1) allow school officials to change unilaterally the educational placement of children with disabilities who bring weapons or illegal drugs to school; and (2) give impartial hearing officers the same authority courts now have to remove children who are substantially likely to cause injury to themselves or others.
  
  Separate language allowing school personnel to remove unilaterally children who have caused serious injury is unnecessary in light of these provisions and the authority that school personnel already have to remove children, both disabled and non-disabled, for up to ten days for misbehavior. In addition, H.R. 3268 would define "serious injury" to include endangerment to someone's emotional health through a purely verbal assault, even if the child's outburst was a manifestation of the child's disability. This authority would tip the balance far too much against children with disabilities by allowing school personnel to change their placement on the basis of highly subjective determinations about the effect of mere speech on someone's mental health.
  
  
• The Administration strongly supports provisions that make it easier to remove children who bring weapons or illegal drugs to school, but children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled should not be completely cut off from educational services. The Nation's schools must be safe, disciplined, and drug-free. In order to reach that goal, schools must be able to discipline children, including children with disabilities, through such measures as suspension and expulsion in appropriate cases. This Administration has made tremendous strides toward this goal through a variety of measures, including a Presidential Directive to enforce the "zero tolerance" measures outlined in the Gun-Free Schools Act, strengthening and expanding the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, and proposing important initiatives to make the juvenile justice system tougher and smarter and to make children free of drugs and guns. However, terminating educational services to disabled children who have already been suspended or expelled is not needed to help ensure a classroom that is safe and conducive to learning. Instead, it would reduce the odds that these children, who are among the least likely to return to school, will be productive, law-abiding members of their communities.