Special Education
Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions Gao ID: GAO-03-550 May 20, 2003In the 2000-01 school year, more than 91,000 special education students were removed from their educational settings for disciplinary reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to provide educational services to special education students who are removed from their educational settings for more than 10 days in a school year. Congress asked GAO to determine where disciplined special education students are placed, the extent to which local school districts continue educational services for these students, and how the U.S. Department of Education provides support and oversight for special education disciplinary placements. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a study, using surveys and site-visits, of special education disciplinary placements in three states--Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
In the districts and schools in the three states GAO studied, disciplined special education students were primarily placed in in-school suspension rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home, according to survey respondents. These short-term settings were used most frequently because most of the special education students in these schools and districts were removed from their regular educational settings for periods of 10 days or less, according to respondents. Special education students who were removed for longer than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools or homebound placements. In addition to considering the length of the student's removal when deciding where to place disciplined special education students, school and district officials considered the cost and availability of placement options and the nature of the student's offense and corresponding disciplinary action. Schools and school district officials in the three states reported that they provided a range of services to disciplined special education students. However, how the schools and school districts provided these services varied significantly. For example, some school districts used self-paced instructional packages to provide educational services to disciplined special education students. Other school districts, however, used tutoring by special education instructional personnel to provide educational services for similar students. In addition to educational services, some disciplined special education students had access to other services such as counseling. The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school districts for special education disciplinary placements by providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-assessments, improvement plans, and data and conducting on-site data collection visits in selected states. However, according to some state and local officials, this guidance has not been specific enough. In particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples specifying whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In addition, Education's IDEA oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance because it relies on state monitoring efforts, including state self-assessments and discipline data that have been shown to contain some inaccuracies. Education's next generation of its oversight system has recently been approved by the department and will be implemented in calendar year 2003. This new oversight system includes a component to validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-550, Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-550
entitled 'Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance
Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions' which was released
on June 20, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
May 2003:
Special Education:
Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary
Provisions:
GAO-03-550:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-550, a report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the 2000-01 school year, more than 91,000 special education
students were removed from their educational settings for disciplinary
reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
schools are required to provide educational services to special
education students who are removed from their educational settings for
more than 10 days in a school year.
The Committee‘s Ranking Minority Member asked GAO to determine where
disciplined special education students are placed, the extent to which
local school districts continue educational services for these
students, and how the U.S. Department of Education provides support
and oversight for special education disciplinary placements. To
address these objectives, GAO conducted a study, using surveys and
site-visits, of special education disciplinary placements in three
states”Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
What GAO Found:
In the districts and schools in the three states GAO studied,
disciplined special education students were primarily placed in
in-school suspension rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home,
according to survey respondents. These short-term settings were used
most frequently because most of the special education students in
these schools and districts were removed from their regular
educational settings for periods of 10 days or less, according to
respondents. Special education students who were removed for longer
than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools or homebound
placements. In addition to considering the length of the student‘s
removal when deciding where to place disciplined special education
students, school and district officials considered the cost and
availability of placement options and the nature of the student‘s
offense and corresponding disciplinary action.
Schools and school district officials in the three states reported
that they provided a range of services to disciplined special
education students. However, how the schools and school districts
provided these services varied significantly. For example, some school
districts used self-paced instructional packages to provide
educational services to disciplined special education students. Other
school districts, however, used tutoring by special education
instructional personnel to provide educational services for similar
students. In addition to educational services, some disciplined
special education students had access to other services such as
counseling.
The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states
and school districts for special education disciplinary placements by
providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state
self-assessments, improvement plans, and data and conducting on-site
data collection visits in selected states. However, according to some
state and local officials, this guidance has not been specific enough.
In particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples
specifying whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted
as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In addition, Education‘s
IDEA oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance because it
relies on state monitoring efforts, including state self-assessments
and discipline data that have been shown to contain some inaccuracies.
Education‘s next generation of its oversight system has recently been
approved by the department and will be implemented in calendar year
2003. This new oversight system includes a component to validate data
used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education issue supplemental
guidance to state and local education agencies to assist them in
implementing IDEA's disciplinary provisions.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-550.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202)
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Disciplined Students Were Primarily Placed in In-School Suspension
Rooms and Out-of-School Suspensions at Home:
Schools and School Districts Provided a Range of Services to
Disciplined Special Education Students:
Education's Guidance and Oversight of Disciplinary Placements Has Been
Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
State Selection:
Site Visits:
Surveys:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by Short-and
Long-Term Placement Type in Selected Schools and Districts in Three
States:
Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits:
Abbreviations:
CIFMS: Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System
CIMP: Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IEP: Individualized Education Program:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 20, 2003:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Kennedy:
In the 2000-01 school year, education officials removed more than
91,000 special education students, including students with serious
emotional disturbance and specific learning disabilities, from their
current school settings for disciplinary reasons. This was
approximately 1.4 percent of all special education students who
received public educational services that year. Little is known,
however, about where local school districts and schools placed these
disciplined special education students or the extent to which these
students continued to receive services during their removal.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) enacted in
1990, special education students are entitled to specific rights and
services. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the removal of
special education students from their current educational settings for
any violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how long
these students could be removed without educational services.
Specifically, IDEA requires schools to provide educational services to
special education students who are removed from their current
educational settings for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year.
Schools are required to provide these students with the educational and
related services outlined in the student's individualized education
program (IEP).[Footnote 1] In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education
issued federal regulations that implemented the new IDEA special
education discipline requirements; states and local school districts
have also added their own disciplinary policies.
Because little is known about the disciplinary placements of special
education students, you asked us to determine: (1) where special
education students are placed when they are removed from their
educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent
local school districts in selected states continue educational services
for special education students who are placed in disciplinary settings
while they are disciplined, and what types of services are provided;
and (3) how Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary
placements used for special education students.
Because there were limited national data about where special education
students were placed when they were removed from their educational
settings for disciplinary reasons, we conducted an in-depth study of
the use of disciplinary placements for special education students in
the middle and high school grades in three states--Illinois, Maryland,
and North Carolina. We used national data on the number of students
served under IDEA and the extent to which these students were
disciplined to determine the states, school districts, and schools to
be included in our study. These states were selected because they
differed in the number and percent of special education students who
were disciplined and the number of disciplined special education
students who were removed from their educational settings on a short-
term or long-term basis. We collected data for school year 2001-02, the
most current data available. In these states, we surveyed a total of 36
district special education administrators and 78 school principals from
school districts representing a range of demographic characteristics.
We had response rates of 83 percent (30 school districts) for our
district special education administrators' survey and 63 percent (49
schools) for our survey of school officials.[Footnote 2] Some
respondents to the district and school surveys, however, did not answer
or provide complete information for all of the questions contained in
their respective surveys.
Therefore, for some issues, we report on a subset of the total
responses. Additionally, while we did not verify the reported data, the
information collected during the site visits to selected districts and
schools was consistent with information collected though the surveys.
Our results are not generalizeable to the population of districts and
schools in these three states or nationally. We also reviewed agency
documents to determine the federal role in providing oversight and
guidance for disciplinary placements and examined agency databases for
national data regarding the discipline of special education students.
In addition, we interviewed federal officials, national education
organizations' representatives, and special education experts
concerning disciplinary placements for special education students. We
conducted our work between May 2002 and April 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I explains
our methodology in more detail.
Results in Brief:
In the districts and schools in the three states selected for our
study, disciplined special education students who were removed from
their regular educational settings were primarily placed in two short-
term suspension settings: in-school suspension rooms or out-of-school
suspensions at home, according to survey respondents. The length of a
student's removal was a key consideration in placement decisions.
Because most special education students were removed from their regular
educational settings for periods of 10 days or less, in-school
suspension rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home--short-term
disciplinary settings--were the most frequently used placement
settings, according to respondents. Special education students who were
removed for longer than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative
schools or homebound placements. Several other factors affected
placement decisions, including the cumulative number of days a student
had been removed during the school year, the cost and availability of
placement options, and the nature of the student's offense and
corresponding disciplinary action.
School and school district officials in the three states we studied
reported providing a variety of services in different settings to
disciplined special education students. However, the degree to which
the service included active instruction and the qualifications of the
service provider varied significantly. For example, some school
districts used self-paced instructional packages to provide educational
services to disciplined special education students. But, others used
more active instruction, such as tutoring by special education
instructional personnel. A disciplined special education student may
also have access to other services such as counseling, though the
availability of these services varied from district to district. School
district officials reported that they generally did not provide any
services to assist returning special education students in acclimating
to their regular educational setting after a disciplinary placement,
and the provision of such services is not required by law.
The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states
and school districts for disciplinary placements of special education
students by providing information on federal requirements and reviewing
state self-assessments, improvement plans, and data, and conducting on-
site data collection visits in selected states. However, according to
some state and local education officials, this guidance was not
specific enough. In particular, the regulations do not provide
illustrative examples specifying whether the days of in-school
suspension should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule.
Some state and local education officials also said that the information
contained in the regulations was difficult to access. In addition,
Education's oversight system, called the Continuous Improvement
Monitoring Process, may not detect possible noncompliance because it
relies on state monitoring efforts, including state self-assessments
and discipline data that contain some inaccuracies. According to
Education, some state monitoring systems were not effective at
identifying compliance issues with federal requirements and the
information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have
contained inaccurate information. States' discipline data contain some
inaccuracies because of inconsistent data collection, entry, and
verification within and across school districts. Education's next
generation oversight system, known as the Continuous Improvement and
Focused Monitoring System, has been recently approved by the department
and will be implemented during calendar year 2003, according to
Education officials. This new system was designed to focus the
attention of the department's monitoring efforts on the states that
need the most support to improve their performance. In addition,
Education plans to conduct site visits to selected states to validate
data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
In this report we are recommending that the Secretary of Education
issue supplemental guidance on IDEA's disciplinary provisions to state
and local education agencies to assist them in implementing the
provisions, particularly on determining whether a day of in-school
suspension should be counted as a day of removal under the 10-day rule.
Education indicated that it provided sufficient guidance and did not
see the need for supplemental guidance. However, some of the school and
school district officials we interviewed indicated that additional
guidance on this topic is needed.
Background:
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of
children with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities,
speech and language impairments, mental retardation, and serious
emotional disturbance. The law mandates that a free appropriate public
education be made available for all eligible children with
disabilities, ensures due process rights, requires an IEP for each
student, and requires the placement of children with disabilities in
the least restrictive environment. In school year 2002, more than 6
million children aged 3 through 21 received education services under
the act at a federal cost of approximately $8 billion. In addition,
state governments provided more than $48 billion in additional funding
to implement the act's requirements.
Under IDEA and the 1999 implementing federal regulations on discipline,
schools must follow certain procedures to remove a student from his or
her educational setting for disciplinary purposes. Specifically,
schools may suspend a special education student for up to 10 school
days in a given school year without providing educational
services.[Footnote 3] Under the regulations, school personnel in
consultation with the child's special education teacher are required to
determine the educational services needed to enable the child to
appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately
advance toward achieving the goals set out in the child's IEP.[Footnote
4] In addition, schools may repeatedly suspend a special education
student on a short-term basis (not more than 10 days) even if the
suspensions cumulatively total more than 10 school days, so long as
educational services are provided to the student after the tenth
suspension day in a given school year. The regulations also allow
schools to remove a special education student for up to 45 days to an
interim alternative educational setting if the student commits a
weapons or drug violation at school or is determined by a hearing
officer to be a danger to self or others. Additionally, if school
officials request an extension, a hearing officer may extend this 45-
day removal period.
Because school districts are provided considerable leeway in
determining disciplinary placements, they choose many settings to
function as disciplinary placements including, for example, in-school
suspension rooms, alternative schools, out of school suspensions at
home, and homebound placements. The difference between homebound
placements and out-of-school suspensions at home is that homebound
placements were generally used for extended periods and involved
service provisions, while out-of-school suspensions at home were used
for short periods of under 10 days and generally did not include the
provision of instructional services. School personnel and the student's
IEP team[Footnote 5] are responsible for making decisions regarding the
appropriateness of disciplinary settings. A hearing officer or court
may also make the decisions.
In 2001, we studied how IDEA regulations affected the ability of
schools to maintain a safe learning environment and whether regular and
special education students are disciplined in a similar
manner.[Footnote 6] We found that IDEA regulations played only a
limited role in affecting schools' ability to properly discipline
students and that in cases of serious misconduct, regular and special
education students were disciplined in a similar manner. Although the
study briefly touched upon the role alternative placements play in the
disciplinary process for special education students, a description of
the characteristics of these settings and the extent of their use fell
outside of the study's scope. Moreover, the study focused on serious
student misconduct (drugs, weapons, assault, rape, sexual assault, and
robbery) and did not focus on less serious offenses.
Disciplined Students Were Primarily Placed in In-School Suspension
Rooms and Out-of-School Suspensions at Home:
Disciplined special education students were primarily placed in one of
two short-term disciplinary settings: in-school suspension rooms or
out-of school suspension at home, according to survey respondents in
three selected states. The length of a student's removal was a key
consideration in placement decisions. Because most disciplined special
education students were generally removed for short periods of time,
these two short-term disciplinary settings were the most frequently
used. Students removed for longer periods (exceeding 10 days) were more
likely to be placed in settings with greater access to service
providers, such as alternative schools or homebound placements. Other
factors affecting placement decisions included the cumulative number of
days a student had been removed, the cost and availability of placement
options and the nature of the student offense. Our survey results
indicated that the placements of disciplined special education students
were similar to those of disciplined regular education students.
Of the 32 school officials who responded to our survey and could
provide student removal rate data, 31 reported that either in-school
suspension rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home were the most
frequently used placements for disciplined special education
students.[Footnote 7] While district special education administrators
and school officials primarily used short-term placements, such as in-
school suspension rooms and out-of-school suspensions at home, to
discipline special education students, they also reported placing
special education students in longer-term disciplinary placements such
as alternative schools and homebound placements.[Footnote 8] According
to survey respondents, about two-thirds of the districts and one-
quarter of the schools used these types of placements; they were used
much less frequently than short-term settings.
In addition to the length of the student's removal, school and district
administrators reported considering several other factors when making
placement decisions, including the cumulative number of days the
student had been removed during the school year, the cost and
availability of placement options, and the student's offense. First,
because federal law provides that special education students may not be
removed for more than 10 days in a school year without the provision of
services, schools and districts considered the cumulative number of
days a special education student had previously been removed when
making placement decisions for special education students. If a special
education student was about to exceed or had already exceeded the 10-
day limit, schools and districts generally placed the student in
settings with access to service providers, such as alternative schools
or homebound settings with services.
Second, due to cost and administrative concerns, most schools and
districts in the states we visited only placed disciplined students in
those placements to which they had readily available access. Under
special circumstances, such as unique student needs or court orders,
schools would remove students to placements that they did not normally
use such as residential schools that may be located outside of the
school district. If a placement with greater access to service
providers was not available or was too costly, some school and district
officials reported that they reduced the length of the student's
removal or eliminated the removal all together. In addition, the
schools that we visited in our study sometimes used the practice of
"banking" removal days, or allowing them to be "saved" and served
later, to make sure that the total number of days a student was removed
did not exceed 10 for a given school year. According to national
education organization officials, "banking" removal days is not an
uncommon practice because it allows school officials to ensure that
disciplined students do not reach the 10-day limit early in the school
year.
Finally, students' offenses and required disciplinary actions were also
considerations in placing a disciplined student. The schools districts
we visited operated under a student conduct code that required specific
disciplinary action for various offenses. The student conduct code
therefore often dictated placement decisions. For example, a weapons or
drugs offense might require placement at an alternative school, whereas
a lesser infraction, such as being disruptive, might require an in-
school suspension.
Disciplinary placements of special education students were similar to
those of other students, based on our survey results. In addition,
schools and districts generally used the same criteria in determining
where to place students. However, administrators reported considering
cumulative days that a student had been removed when placing special
education students but not when making placement decisions for regular
education students.
Schools and School Districts Provided a Range of Services to
Disciplined Special Education Students:
In the 2001-2002 school year, schools and school district officials in
the three states that we studied reported providing a range of services
to disciplined special education students. However, how schools and
school districts provided educational and other services varied
significantly. School district officials reported that they generally
did not provide any services to assist returning special education
students in acclimating to their regular educational setting after a
disciplinary placement, and the provision of such services is not
required by law.
Schools and School Districts Provided Educational Services, but These
Services Varied Significantly:
The educational services provided to students in disciplinary settings
varied considerably by the degree to which the service included active
instruction. For example, in one school, educational services for a
disciplined student consisted of an academic packet, which was
generally the material the student would miss when he or she was away
from the regular educational setting. When presented with a packet, it
was up to the student to work through and complete the packet. In
another district, educational services in disciplinary settings
included active instruction, such as tutoring by special education
instructional personnel. However, the amount of time spent giving the
disciplined student this instruction varied considerably. For example,
in one district, a special education student in a disciplinary setting
received 6 hours of active instruction per day, while in other schools
they received no instruction. Further, according to the district
officials we surveyed, the qualifications of instructional staff varied
widely across placements and disciplinary settings. For example, the
survey respondents in our study reported that educators at alternative
schools were more likely to be certified, while instructional staff in
in-school suspension rooms and homebound placements ranged in
qualifications from fully certified to uncertified.
Services Other Than Educational Services Were Sometimes Available,
though Their Availability Varied by Placement:
Special education students in disciplinary placements may have access
to other services in addition to educational services, although the
availability of these services varied. The type of service provided
usually depended on the needs of the student as defined in the
student's IEP as well as the availability of services[Footnote 9]
within the school district. In addition to educational services, other
services could be made available during disciplinary placements to meet
the requirements of the IEP, according to survey results. These
services could include: counseling and other related services.
Counseling by a guidance counselor was also commonly made available to
disciplined students. Related services such as speech pathology and
occupational therapy were less available. The availability of services
and providers was in large part determined by where a student was
placed while being disciplined. For example, students placed in
alternative schools generally had access to most services and
providers, whereas disciplined students placed in out-of-school
suspensions at home rarely had access to services other than
educational services. See table 1 for services and providers by
placement type.
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by Short-and
Long-Term Placement Type in Selected Schools and Districts in Three
States:
Placement type: Short-term placements: In-school suspension; Services
available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term placements:
Remediation/tutoring and counseling; Providers available in majority
of placements[B]: Short-term placements: Teacher.[C].
Placement type: Short-term placements: Out-of-school suspension at
home; Services available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term
placements: Services other than educational rarely available in this
setting; Providers available in majority of placements[B]: Short-term
placements: [Empty].
Placement type: Short-term placements: Alternative school; Services
available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term placements:
Remediation/tutoring, counseling, substance abuse counseling, related
services, and employment transition services; Providers available in
majority of placements[B]: Short-term placements: Teacher, guidance
counselor, psychologist/psychiatrist, related service provider, and
teacher's aide.
Placement type: Short-term placements: Homebound placement; Services
available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term placements:
Remediation/tutoring and related services; Providers available in
majority of placements[B]: Short-term placements: Teacher and related
service provider.
Placement type: Short-term placements: Nonpublic or private school
placement; Services available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term
placements: Remediation/tutoring, counseling, related services, and
employment transition services; Providers available in majority of
placements[B]: Short-term placements: Teacher, academic specialist,
psychologist/psychiatrist, related service provider, teacher's aide,
one-to-one crisis intervention specialist, social worker, and
employment transition specialist.
Placement type: Short-term placements: Residential program; Services
available in majority of placements[A]: Short-term placements:
Remediation/tutoring, counseling, related services, and employment
transition services; Providers available in majority of placements[B]:
Short-term placements: Teacher, psychologist/psychiatrist, related
service provider, teacher's aide, social worker, and employment
transition specialist.
Source: GAO school and district survey data in three selected states.
[A] We define services as being available when they are available to
disciplined special education students 50 percent or more of the time
in a given placement. For example, 38 of 49 respondents indicated "in-
school" suspensions were used, and 28 of that 49 reported that "related
services" were available in that type of placement.
[B] We define providers available as being available to special
education students 50 percent or more of the time in a given placement.
[C] Teacher includes certified regular education or special education
teachers.
[End of table]
School Districts Generally Did Not Provide Services to Assist Students
Transferring from a Long-Term Disciplinary Placement:
School districts generally did not provide reintegration services for
disciplined special education students returning from long-term
placements. Education's regulations do not require the provision of
reintegration services for students with disabilities, and only about
one-third of school districts we surveyed indicated that they provided
them. While such services are not required, national education
organizations' officials agreed that the provision of reintegration
services helps students make a successful transition back to their
regular educational setting.
When reintegration services were provided, they varied greatly. For
example, in one school district, school officials allowed students to
transition slowly from their long-term disciplinary setting, gradually
increasing the amount of time per day that students spent in their
regular educational settings. However, in some instances, reintegration
services were limited. For example, in one district, officials said
that reintegration services consisted of receiving a folder of
information about the students experiences at the alternative school,
and in other schools these services consisted of a meeting, prior to
the student's return to the regular educational setting, between the
school administrators, the disciplined student, and his or her parents.
Education's Guidance and Oversight of Disciplinary Placements Has Been
Limited:
Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school
districts for disciplinary placements of special education students by
providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-
assessments, improvement plans, and data, and conducting on-site data
collection visits in selected states. However, the guidance on certain
aspects of disciplinary placements was limited. In addition,
Education's oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance. The
system relies on the results of state monitoring efforts that are not
always reliable and discipline data that contain some inaccuracies.
Education's next generation oversight system, known as the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System, has been recently approved
by the department and will be implemented in calendar year 2003,
according to Education officials. This new system was designed to focus
the attention of the department's monitoring efforts on the states that
need the most support to improve their performance. In addition,
Education plans to conduct site visits in selected states to validate
data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
Education Provided General Guidance on Special Education Disciplinary
Placements:
Under its responsibilities for IDEA implementation, Education provided
general guidance to state and local education officials on disciplinary
placement issues. However, according to some state and local education
officials, this guidance was not specific enough. For example, while
the department provided assistance in the form of information and
technical assistance concerning the general implementation the act's
disciplinary requirements, the assistance generally did not include
enough details on disciplinary placement questions, such as how to
determine whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as
days of removal under the 10-day rule. Further, national education
organization officials also cited the limited federal guidance on in-
school suspension.
According to some district officials, while Education's regulations
describe IDEA's 10-day rule, the guidance is limited because the
regulations do not provide illustrative examples concerning how the 10-
day rule could be applied to a range of circumstances at the local
level. Under the 10-day rule, schools can discipline special education
students for up to 10 days in a school year without providing
educational or other services specified in their IEPs. However, some
school and district officials indicated that being provided with
examples that illustrate how to determine whether the days of in-school
suspension should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule
would assist them in ensuring that disciplined special education
students are not without their IEP services for more than 10 cumulative
days in a school year.
Education officials suggested that state and local education officials
who need clarification of the 10-day rule refer to the disciplinary
section of the preamble to the regulations and the discussion of
comments on the act's disciplinary requirements. The information that
Education identified concerning in-school suspension as it applies to
the 10-day rule is not in the federal regulations. Rather, the
discussion of in-schools suspension appears only in a 1999 Federal
Register notice,[Footnote 10] a document that is less accessible to the
public than departmental regulations. As a result, some school
officials may have been unaware that the Federal Register notice
accompanying the IDEA discipline regulations contained criteria to be
used in determining whether days of in-school suspension should be
counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In this notice,
Education provided general criteria for determining whether a day in
in-school suspension should be counted as a day of suspension, but it
does not provide details and examples to assist schools and districts
in applying the criteria.[Footnote 11] Our findings regarding the
limited guidance available and accessible on in-school suspensions are
consistent with the findings of the 2002 President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education.[Footnote 12]
Education's Oversight System May Not Have the Necessary Information to
Determine if Disciplinary Requirements Were Met:
Education's oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance
because it relies on state-submitted information that may not be
reliable. Therefore, Education may be unable to identify the
appropriate level of oversight for particular states. According to
Education officials, Education's next generation oversight system--
known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System--was
recently approved by the department and will be implemented during
calendar year 2003. This new system was designed to focus the attention
of the department's monitoring efforts on the states that need the most
support to improve their performance. In addition, Education plans to
conduct site visits in selected states to validate data used by the
system to make federal oversight decisions.
Under IDEA, states have oversight responsibility for monitoring the
implementation of a broad set of requirements under the act, including
disciplinary placements. States have responsibility for monitoring
districts' implementation of IDEA requirements and preparing reports
for Education, documenting the results of their oversight efforts.
States generally fulfill this responsibility by engaging in activities
such as gathering discipline data and by requiring districts to
complete reports documenting compliance with requirements.
Education has responsibility for overseeing state compliance with IDEA
requirements. In 1998, Education implemented an oversight system known
as the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). The oversight
system relies on the administrative review of information obtained
primarily from two sources: (1) state monitoring efforts and (2) state
discipline data. Education uses information obtained from these two
sources to determine the appropriate amount of federal oversight that a
state will receive, such as whether or not a site visit to the state
will be conducted. If the information submitted indicates that the
state is in compliance with IDEA requirements or has proposed
strategies to come into compliance, Education officials continue to
track IDEA implementation but generally do not visit the state.
However, if the department's administrative review determines that the
state did not effectively identify areas of noncompliance and other
areas needing improvement, Education officials will conduct one or more
site visits to the state to assess the situation and assist the state
in developing improvement strategies.
Under the CIMP oversight system, states are expected by Education to
undertake a number of monitoring activities to demonstrate their
compliance with IDEA requirements. It is the responsibility of each
state to work with a diverse group of stakeholders, including state and
local education officials, parents, and advocacy groups, to evaluate
the state's effectiveness in achieving compliance with IDEA. This
generally involves conducting a self-assessment and developing an
improvement plan to correct any deficiencies. According to Education
officials, states were strongly encouraged to document state
performance, as part of the self-assessment process, by submitting an
analysis of their monitoring findings of the school districts. States
were also encouraged to document corrective actions taken by districts
to address the findings and any enforcement activities undertaken by
the state to ensure correction. Education used this information to
document state performance and to determine if states were meeting
their general supervisory responsibilities.
According to Education, some state monitoring systems were not
effective at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements,
and the information that the states subsequently reported to Education
may have contained inaccurate information. During the period July 1,
1999 through February 25, 2003, Education officials conducted federal
IDEA monitoring site visits to 12 states and the District of Columbia.
In 6 of these locations, Education officials noted that the state IDEA
monitoring systems were not effective in identifying and correcting
noncompliance with federal requirements. For example, in a site visit
to one state, Education officials found that despite the fact that
psychological services are supposed to be offered, five school
districts that they visited were not providing them unless they were
required to by a due process hearing. However, the state education
officials had identified four of these five districts as compliant.
Further, Education's 2001 Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act[Footnote 13] noted that many states still do not have effective
systems for identifying noncompliance, or, when they do identify
noncompliance with federal requirements, they do not have effective
follow-up or enforcement strategies to ensure that public agencies
correct the noncompliance.
In addition to relying on state monitoring systems, Education also
relies on state-collected discipline data as a source for its
administrative review of states' compliance with IDEA requirements.
However, the discipline data used by the oversight system contain some
inaccuracies, although according to Education officials, its accuracy
is improving. For example, Education has taken steps to validate the
accuracy of the data through the regular application of data checks by
its contractor and by providing technical assistance to state special
education data managers on the collection of discipline data of the
semiannual meeting at the Education Information Advisory Committee of
the Council of Chief State School Officers. Some reasons for
inaccuracies in the data included: unclear definitions; inconsistent
data collection, entry, and verification within and across school
districts; and poor response rates from schools and districts. The 2002
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education also
identified data quality issues, including inconsistent reporting and
data formats.[Footnote 14] While Education officials acknowledged that
the special education discipline data contain some inaccuracies, they
indicated that states were taking measures to improve the accuracy of
the data. In addition, Education officials reported that they expect
the accuracy of the discipline data to improve as school officials
become more familiar with the data collection process. At this point,
these data are the only discipline data available, so Education still
is relying on them, although the agency recognizes their limitations.
Education is planning to implement the next generation of its CIMP
oversight system known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring System (CIFMS), which was approved in April 2003. According
to Education officials, the new system will implement an integrated,
four-part accountability strategy, with an emphasis on targeting those
states most at risk for being out of compliance. This strategy includes
(1) verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of states' monitoring,
assessment, and data collection systems; (2) focusing more oversight
and monitoring attention to states at high risk of compliance,
financial, and/or management failure; (3) supporting states in
assessing their performance and compliance and in planning,
implementing, and evaluating improvement strategies; and (4) focusing
Education's intervention on states with low ranking performance on
critical performance indicators. This focused approach is aligned with
the recommendations of the President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education and was designed to focus the department's monitoring
efforts on the states that need the most support to improve their
performance.[Footnote 15] In addition, because Education's monitoring
relies so heavily on state-reported data regarding performance and
compliance, Education has developed plans to ensure the effectiveness
of states' data collection systems. To this end, Education officials
told us that Education staff would visit 20-30 states in the next year
to meet with state officials to verify the effectiveness of their data
collection and monitoring systems.
Conclusions:
Each year, the federal government makes a considerable investment to
ensure that a free appropriate public education is available for
children with disabilities. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow
the removal of special education students from their current
educational settings for any violation of school rules, but imposed
limitations on how long these students could be removed without
educational services. District and school officials in our survey
reported that they are providing a range of services in different
settings to disciplined special education students. However, they
reported that additional guidance, especially more specificity
concerning whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted
as days of removal under the 10-day rule, would be helpful. Education's
current guidance concerning how these provisions should be implemented
is broad, thus leaving local school and school district officials
flexibility in interpreting how these requirements should be
implemented. Because state and local school district officials may not
have the specific information that they need to comply with federal
requirements, disciplined special education students may not receive
timely protections and services.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education issue supplemental
guidance to state and local education agencies on IDEA's disciplinary
provisions that includes examples to assist states and local education
agencies in implementing the provisions in the law related to
disciplinary placements. In particular, the guidance should include
examples for applying IDEA's 10-day rule, including illustrations on
how to determine whether a day of in-school suspension should be
counted as a day of removal.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
Education officials indicated that they provided sufficient guidance on
IDEA's disciplinary provisions and did not see the need for
supplemental guidance. Education cited four existing documents that
discuss IDEA discipline issues. In addition, Education officials
provided new information in their comments on the draft that indicated
that they plan to validate state discipline data as part of their newly
approved monitoring system. Consequently, we modified the report to
reflect Education's validation plans. Education officials also provided
technical comments that we incorporated into the report where
appropriate. Education's comments are reproduced in appendix II.
We continue to believe that additional guidance is needed; however, we
modified the report to reflect that clarification of how to count in-
school days under IDEA's 10-day rule was the primary area in which
guidance was needed. Education officials also noted that any guidance
should be provided after IDEA has been reauthorized. We concur with
Education's proposal to issue any additional guidance after the
reauthorization has been completed.
Education included in its comments new information concerning the data
verification aspect of its IDEA monitoring systems and, as a result, we
withdrew a recommendation on data validation. We reviewed the
information provided--Office of Special Education Programs Memorandum
03-05, dated April, 8, 2003--as well as technical comments that
described Education's plans to implement a process to verify state
monitoring, assessment, and data as part of its focused monitoring
system. We acknowledge Education's efforts in this regard and encourage
the department to continue to periodically validate the information
that is used by its IDEA monitoring systems.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report
until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be made
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please
contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Harriet Ganson on (202) 512-7042 if you
or your staff have any questions about this report. Other contacts and
major contributors are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Marnie S. Shaul
Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Signed by Marnie S. Shaul
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions asked GAO to determine: (1) where special
education students are placed when they are removed from their
educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent
local school districts in selected states continue educational services
for special education students who are placed in disciplinary settings
while they are disciplined and what types of services are provided; and
(3) how Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary
placements used for special education students. In our review of
disciplinary placements, we focused on middle school and high school
students and their placements, but did not include information about
disciplinary placements for elementary school students. Elementary
school information was excluded because National Center for Education
Statistics data indicated that elementary schools experienced fewer
disciplinary problems than middle schools or high schools. Our study
collected information about disciplinary placements from the 2001-2002
school year, the most current full year data available.
To respond to this inquiry, we conducted an in-depth review of the use
of disciplinary placements for special education students at middle and
high schools in three states--Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
These states were selected because they represented different levels of
disciplinary activity, such as the number and percent of special
education students who were disciplined and the number of disciplined
special education students who were removed from their educational
settings on either a short-term (10 days or less) or long-term (more
than 10 days) basis. In these states, we surveyed a nonprobability
sample of 36 district special education administrators and 78
administrators from school districts of varying characteristics. In
addition, we reviewed U.S. Department of Education documents to
determine the federal role in providing oversight and guidance for
disciplinary placements and examined Education databases for national
data regarding the discipline of special education students. We also
interviewed federal officials, national education organizations'
representatives, and special education experts concerning disciplinary
placements for special education students.
State Selection:
We selected three states in which to conduct our study of disciplinary
placements based on several criteria. To ensure sufficiency of data to
analyze, we identified 19 states that disciplined 1,000 or more special
education students during the 1999-2000 school year. These 19 states
were divided into three categories, (above average, below average, and
average) depending upon the percent of special education students
disciplined per year, with the national average being 1.12 percent. We
then chose candidates from each category and spoke with state
administrators to determine the extent to which these states collected
discipline data. On the basis of these criteria, we selected Maryland
(above average: 1.80 percent), Illinois (below average: 0.55 percent),
and North Carolina (average: 0.89 percent) for analysis.
Site Visits:
In each state, we visited two school districts of varying
characteristics. The districts were selected for variance in the number
of special education students served, their geographic location--urban,
suburban, or rural--and when possible, their overall rate of free and
reduced school lunches (with the objective of gathering information
from schools and districts serving a range of family incomes). During
these visits, we met with district administrators; high school, middle
school, and alternative school principals; administrators; and teachers
when they were available. We also toured disciplinary placements.
Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits:
State: Illinois; Local school district: City of Chicago School District
299; City: Chicago.
State: Illinois; Local school district: Wesclin Community Unit School
District 3; City: Trenton.
State: Maryland; Local school district: Allegany County Public Schools;
City: Cumberland.
State: Maryland; Local school district: Baltimore City Public School
System; City: Baltimore.
State: North Carolina; Local school district: Guilford County Schools;
City: Greensboro.
State: North Carolina; Local school district: Wake County Schools;
City: Raleigh.
Source: GAO analysis of Education's data.
[End of table]
Additionally, we visited state Departments of Education and spoke with
special education directors about their state's policy and procedures
for disciplinary placements.
Surveys:
We distributed 2 survey questionnaires--one to selected school district
special education directors and one to middle and high school
administrators--in Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These
surveys focused on the use of disciplinary placements for special
education students during school year 2000-2001. The school district
survey was sent to 12 selected school district special education
administrators in each state for a total of 36 surveys. The surveyed
districts were selected using criteria similar to that used in
determining the sites to be visited--variance in the number of special
education students served, their geographic location--urban, suburban,
or rural--and when possible, their overall rate of free and reduced
school lunches. We received 30 responses to the survey (83 percent). A
second survey obtained information concerning special education
disciplinary placements from selected middle and high school
administrators. Using similar selection criteria to the school district
survey, we distributed surveys to 26 middle and high school
administrators in each state for a total of 78 school surveys. We
surveyed one middle school principal and one high school principal from
schools located within the 12 districts selected for the district
survey. We also selected an additional two principals from large, urban
districts to address size and diversity issues. We received 49
responses to the survey (63 percent). This nonprobability sample review
of schools and districts in three states does not allow us to draw
conclusions about all schools and districts covered by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act authorization.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES:
May 1, 2003:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report entitled,
"Special Education: Clearer Guidance and Improved Oversight Would
Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Requirements" (GAO-03-
550). I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Department of Education.
We have reviewed the draft Report and note that it has two overarching
recommendations for the Department: 1) Issue supplemental guidance to
state and local education agencies on the IDEA's [Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act's] disciplinary provisions, specifically
including examples of the IDEA's 10-day rule; and 2) Incorporate
periodic site visits, as appropriate, in its oversight system to
systematically and periodically validate the reliability of the
information the system uses to determine whether a State has met IDEA's
disciplinary requirements.
Regarding the first recommendation, we feel that it is important to
recognize that the IDEA is currently being reauthorized. A bill to
amend the IDEA, H.R. 1350, was passed by the House on April 30 and it
is anticipated that the Senate also will be taking up a bill soon. We
believe any additional guidance should be provided after the
legislative reauthorization process is concluded and in light of any
revisions to the law. To do otherwise would be more confusing than
helpful to the field.
We feel that we are implementing the intent of the second
recommendation in our Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring
System. We have received final Department clearance on our four-part
accountability strategy and have provided details in the enclosures to
this letter that clarify the process we are implementing to validate
the data the Department receives from States. Our past monitoring
process, our current process for this calendar year, as well as plans
for the future, all include periodic on-site visits to verify State
procedures and information.
The enclosures to this letter provide both general and specific
information and comments in response to the draft report. We would be
happy to meet with you to further discuss our comments.
I hope you find our comments have been helpful. Sincerely,
Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary:
Signed for Robert H. Pasternack:
Enclosures:
Enclosure A:
General Comments Regarding Recommendation 1:
The Department needs to - Issue supplemental guidance to State and
local education agencies on IDEA's disciplinary provisions,
specifically including examples of the IDEA's 10-day rule;
Since the enactment of the 1997 IDEA amendments, the Department has
issued numerous documents that address questions regarding the
discipline procedures and offered to provide copies if GAO needed them:
l. Q&A in the final regulations (on the Department's and IDEA partner's
websites):
2. Numerous letters responding to specific inquiries related to
discipline provisions (see attached list of letters related to
discipline).
3. IDEA-Provisions of Special Interest to Administrators (1999) (on the
Department's and IDEA partners' websites):
4. Discipline Procedures - Topic Brief (1999) (on the Department's and
IDEA partners' websites):
The Department notes that the only example of the need for more
guidance (repeated several times in the Report) is the fact that
guidance should include "examples for applying IDEA's 10-day rule,
including illustrations on how to determine whether a day of in-school
suspension should be counted as a day of removal." While OSEP has
received numerous requests for clarification regarding the discipline
provisions since the IDEA Amendments of 1997 were enacted, as noted in
the attached list of letters related to discipline, no such requests
have focused on the treatment of in-school suspensions as they relate
to the 10-day rule (§300.520(a)).
General Comments Regarding Recommendation 2:
The Department needs to --Incorporate periodic site visits, as
appropriate, in its oversight system to systematically and periodically
validate the reliability of the information the system uses to
determine whether a State has met IDEA's disciplinary requirements.
The Report in several places concludes that "neither the current nor
the proposed systems include a formal mechanism to validate the
reliability of the data used to make federal oversight decisions." This
statement is inaccurate, in that the Department's past monitoring
process, our current process for this calendar year, as well as plans
for the future, all include periodic on-site visits to verify State
procedures and information.
The Department's strategy for improving compliance with the IDEA during
2003 is specifically designed to verify the validity and reliability of
States' general supervision (monitoring, compliant resolution and due
process), collection of State-reported data (including the discipline
data), and State assessment systems. Although the Report acknowledges
that the Department will be:
conducting on-site visits to 20 to 40 States during the calendar year
(please revise these numbers to 20 to 30), it does not recognize that
the purpose of these visits is to determine the extent to which the
Department can rely on States' monitoring results and State-reported
data.
As described in the attached memorandum to States (dated April 8,
2003), because the IDEA monitoring system relies heavily on State-
reported data and States' systems for ensuring compliance (monitoring,
complaint resolution and due process hearings), the focus of our
monitoring for this calendar year will be on verifying the
effectiveness of States' systems for data collection, assessment and
general supervision. The Department's Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) will complete a desk audit of all States' systems for
data collection, assessment and general supervision and conduct on-site
visits to 20 to 30 States. The 20 to 30 States will be chosen using two
criteria: 1) Low performance on critical performance indicators; and 2)
Random selection. While visiting the States, OSEP will review documents
and interview State staff to determine the validity and reliability of
data and information from the States' systems. The information from
these two processes (desk audits and on-site verification visits) will
be used to validate the reliability of the data used by OSEP in making
oversight decisions.
Please note that while neither the most recent nor the revised
monitoring systems used by the Department provide for on-site
verification of every State's monitoring and data collection systems,
both OSEP monitoring systems have included the use of stakeholder
groups to review and verify the State's submissions. These broad-based
stakeholders are intended to represent the various groups within a
State with access to current information regarding the status of
compliance and other issues affecting services for children with
disabilities. Therefore, the use of stakeholders for each State serves
as verification that a State's submissions are based upon what is
currently occurring in that State. In addition, the Report doesn't
recognize that since the passage of IDEA 97, OSEP has conducted on-site
data collection visits in 29 States. In addition, OSEP has been in
approximately 20 additional States to meet with State steering
committees to assist with the development of self-assessments and/or
improvement plans.
As noted above, because of the repetitive nature of the report, there
are numerous instances in the report where inaccurate comments are made
relative to the Department's monitoring of the IDEA, specifically
verifying the accuracy of States' oversight and data collection
systems. We respectively request that all instances be corrected to
accurately reflect the Department's system.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Arthur T. Merriam Jr., (617) 788-0541:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tamara Fucile and James Kim made significant contributions to this
report, in all aspects of the work throughout the assignment. In
addition, Katherine Bittinger contributed to the initial design of the
assignment, Ronald La Due Lake assisted in the design of the school
district and school surveys; Lise Levie assisted in the management of
the school survey; George Quinn, Jr., conducted the data analysis for
both surveys; Behn Miller provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou
assisted in the message and report development.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The term "individualized education program" refers to a written
statement that is developed for each student with a disability that
specifies the goals and objectives for the student, describes the
services the student will receive, and specifies the extent to which
the student will participate in the regular education settings with
nondisabled peers and/or in the general curriculum adopted for all
students.
[2] School district special education directors, student service
directors, and other staff, or a combination of these district
personnel responded to GAO's survey of school district special
education directors. School principals, assistant principals, special
education coordinators, and other staff, or a combination of these
school personnel responded to GAO's survey of middle and high school
officials.
[3] Where a special education student's misconduct is not a
manifestation of the student's disability, the student is subject to
the same disciplinary procedures applicable to children without
disabilities, including long-term suspensions (more than 10 days) and
expulsions. However, the school must still provide educational services
that enable the child to progress appropriately towards the student's
IEP goals.
[4] It is important to note that for students removed for behavior that
is not a manifestation of their disability, the IEP team determines the
extent to which services are necessary to enable the child to
appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately
advance toward achieving the goals set out in the child's IEP.
[5] The term "individualized education program team" refers to the
group of individuals, including school administrators, regular and
special education teachers, and parents, who are responsible for
developing, reviewing, or revising an individualized education program
for a student with a disability.
[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Discipline: Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act, GAO-01-210 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25,
2001).
[7] Seventeen of the 49 respondents to the survey of middle and high
school officials did not provide removal rate data for disciplined
special education students. The extent to which districts officials
were knowledgeable of schools' use of in-school suspension settings
varied. As a result, we were unable to collect reliable information
about the use of in-school suspension rooms from district
administrators.
[8] Short-term disciplinary placements refers to those placements that
are used to discipline special education students for 10 days or less.
Longer-term disciplinary placements refers to those placements that are
used to discipline special education students for more than 10 days.
[9] We define services as being available when they are available to
disciplined special education students 50 percent or more of the time
in a given disciplinary placement.
[10] See 64 Fed. Reg. 12619 (1999).
[11] According to Education's criteria, an in-school suspension would
not be considered a day of suspension as long as the child is afforded
the opportunity to continue to appropriately progress in the general
curriculum, continue to receive the services specified on his or her
IEP, and continue to participate with nondisabled children to the
extent they would have in their current placement.
[12] The President's Commission found that Education's regulations
implementing IDEA are unreasonably complex and burdensome for state and
local agencies to comply with. For more information on the President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, see A New Era:
Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, U.S.
Department of Education, President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (July 2002).
[13] See To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All
Children with Disabilities: Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress on
the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
U.S. Department of Education (Mar. 2002).
[14] For more information on the President's Commission on Excellence
in Special Education, see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for
Children and Their Families, U.S. Department of Education, President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
[15] For more information on the President's Commission on Excellence
in Special Education, see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for
Children and Their Families, U.S. Department of Education, President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
