Você está na página 1de 24

No.

444 July 10, 2002

Escaping IDEA
Freeing Parents, Teachers, and Students through
Deregulation and Choice
by Marie Gryphon and David Salisbury

Executive Summary

Originally enacted as the Education for All The process mandated by the statute has not
Handicapped Children Act, the Individuals with only failed to achieve its purpose of ensuring an
Disabilities in Education Act of 1975 was intend- appropriate education to each disabled child. It
ed to guarantee each disabled child access to a free has marginalized the parents it was intended to
appropriate public education. The act is arguably empower and has created a barrage of compliance-
the high-water mark of federal control of driven paperwork so overwhelming that special
American education, regulating nearly all aspects educators are driven to quit the profession.
of special education law and policy. IDEA is due Worse, IDEA’s adversarial nature has under-
for reauthorization this year. mined relationships between parents and educa-
With annual expenditures of about $50 bil- tors, pitting parent against school in a bitter strug-
lion, including $6 billion to $7 billion in federal gle over limited resources. Because the act’s proce-
contributions, special education is as troubled as dures require savvy, aggressive navigation, its ben-
it is costly. The occasion of IDEA’s reauthoriza- efits flow disproportionately to wealthy families,
tion has been marked by proposals intended to often leaving lower-income children underserved.
alleviate IDEA’s myriad, universally acknowl- IDEA has also precipitated a financial crisis in
edged problems while improving educational schools. Regulatory compliance and litigation costs
outcomes for disabled children. For better or for related to IDEA’s failed dispute resolution frame-
worse, IDEA reform will dictate special educa- work are soaking up precious resources needed for
tion’s prospects for the future. education, while IDEA funding rules have encour-
IDEA’s central failure is the complex and aged incorrect labeling of many students as disabled.
adversarial process required to determine the size The battle between parents and schools over
and nature of each disabled child’s entitlement to each child’s educational plan must end with a
special services. Recognizing that the educational decisive victory for parents in the form of
needs of disabled children differ widely, the act portable benefits. Special education should be
mandates that each child’s “individual education reformed to allow parents to control how their
plan,” or IEP, be created out of whole cloth by his child’s educational dollars are spent in the pub-
or her local school district in a series of meetings. lic or private school of their choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marie Gryphon is an education policy analyst and David Salisbury is director of the Center for Educational
Freedom at the Cato Institute.
IDEA has created costs, and creates contention between par-
a legal and regula- Introduction ents and school officials. In spite of the fact
that the act was intended to empower par-
tory quagmire for Since 1975, the law now known as the ents, even the most persistent parents find it
special education Individuals with Disabilities in Education difficult to navigate the procedures involved
Act has promised a “free appropriate public in special education under IDEA. Too often
that wastes education” to all children with disabilities. IDEA has marginalized the parents it was
resources, increas- Since that time, local public schools have intended to empower.
es costs, and cre- been required to accept all disabled students Also, IDEA’s emphasis on procedure has
and provide them with an educational plan burdened special education personnel with
ates contention in compliance with various federal procedur- excessive paperwork and meetings. That
between parents al requirements. In return, the act provides bureaucratic excess lowers morale among
and school for some discretionary federal funding to special education personnel and has
assist school districts to establish programs impaired the recruitment and retention of
officials. and procedures to meet the special needs of special education teachers.
students with disabilities. Students with dis- Worse, the inherently adversarial nature
abilities must be educated in the “least of IDEA’s processes causes children to be
restrictive environment,” meaning that they treated like pawns in a litigious tug of war
should be accommodated in regular class- between parents, attorneys, and government
rooms where possible. officials. IDEA’s reliance on due process
IDEA was part of an important effort in mechanisms results in better outcomes for
the 1970s to end discrimination against dis- savvy, affluent parents than for parents who
abled children by states and local school dis- are less able to hire attorneys or otherwise
tricts. Disabled students’ civil rights are pro- navigate IDEA’s complex procedures.
tected by the Equal Protection Clause and In addition to overregulating special edu-
Due Process Clause of the Constitution and cation, IDEA is burdened with a flawed fund-
by an anti-discrimination law commonly ing structure that has created incentives to
known as section 504.1 When it became clear overidentify students as learning disabled.
that disabled children were not being treated The fastest growing segment of the special
fairly under the law by public school sys- education student population is children
tems,2 Congress passed IDEA in an effort to diagnosed with a “specific learning disabili-
provide a regulatory framework, or process, ty.” Financial incentives to identify more and
as well as some funding to help states ensure more students as disabled inhibit efforts to
that disabled children would not suffer fur- prevent minor learning problems from
ther discrimination. becoming more severe. Assistant U.S.
IDEA is often conflated with the constitu- Secretary for Special Education and
tional rights of disabled children by defend- Rehabilitative Services Robert Pasternack
ers of the status quo. They wrongly argue highlighted this problem in his testimony
that changes to IDEA would amount to a before a congressional committee: “While
denial of equal protection to students with many children are appropriately classified as
special needs. In fact, IDEA is no more than a having learning disabilities, we know, for
regulatory process, a mechanism for helping example, that many are classified as such
to achieve the goal of equity for disabled stu- because of the lack of effective reading
dents. Policymakers should not hesitate to instruction . . . in the regular classroom.”3
reexamine whether IDEA is effectively meet- Many children are placed in special educa-
ing this challenge today. tion primarily because they are poor readers.
Though well intended, IDEA has created a In this case, effective intervention and reme-
legal and regulatory quagmire for special diation should make it possible for children
education that wastes resources, increases to catch up to their better reading peers.

2
Unfortunately, IDEA’s effect on the academ- This paper proposes fundamental
ic achievement of such children has not been reforms to improve educational results for
encouraging. The majority of students iden- students with disabilities. Policymakers
tified under IDEA continue in the program should carefully evaluate the experience of
until they leave school. Instead of serving as a the past 25 years. We can’t afford to be hesi-
way for children to catch up to their peers, tant about making changes, even radical
special education too often becomes what changes, to the act, if those changes will ben-
some commentators have called a “life sen- efit children and families.
tence” for children who have fallen behind.
Finally, IDEA is a further expansion of
federal spending and regulatory power into The Process: IDEA’s
an area the Constitution does not authorize. Dispute Resolution Model
As Roger Pilon explains, “From beginning to
end, the [Constitution] never mentions the The regulatory structure mandated by
word ‘education.’ The people, in 1787 or IDEA has not changed significantly since the
since, have never given the federal govern- original act became law in 1975. The funda- IDEA has wan-
ment any power over the subject—despite a mental purpose of the act was to end dis- dered far from
concern for education that surely predates crimination by public schools against dis-
the Constitution.”4 abled children, but the act was intended to the federal mis-
Yet today almost every aspect of a child’s further other goals as well. Recognizing, for sion to secure
interaction with local schools is dictated by instance, that children with disabilities vary equal protection
federal policy once the child is identified as widely in terms of needs and limitations, the
disabled. Although it has long been recog- act sought to achieve an individualized pro- for special needs
nized that those working closest to a child gram for each disabled child. IDEA’s authors children by man-
can make the best educational decisions, also sought to involve and empower parents
IDEA has replaced local control with federal in the choices made about the education of
dating a smother-
governance. Not only is this less effective, it their children. ing, procedurally
runs counter to constitutional authority. Like many laws passed at the time, IDEA driven system
Other than ensuring that students’ constitu- sought to further its goals by creating a com-
tional rights are upheld, the federal govern- prehensive and detailed series of regulations that hampers the
ment lacks authority to become involved in providing for meetings, record making, nego- efforts of special
what should be, under the Constitution, a tiation, due process hearings, administrative
local matter.5 IDEA has wandered far from review, alternative dispute resolution, and
education teach-
the federal mission to secure equal protec- legal remedies. 6 At each of those steps, IDEA ers and students.
tion for special needs children by mandating sought to create a balance of power between
a smothering, procedurally driven system public educators and parents, requiring the
that hampers the efforts of special education involvement of both at every step of the com-
teachers and students. plex IDEA-mandated bureaucratic process
States should consider turning down the designed as a series of forums for resolving
federal funds supplied in return for complying disputes presumed to crop up between the
with IDEA, as the costs of compliance exceed two interest groups. For this reason, IDEA is
the benefits and delay needed reforms. Alter- a “dispute resolution model” for deciding on
natively, as authorization for IDEA expires at and delivering special education services.7
the end of 2002, Congress has the opportunity
to correct many of the current defects of special Initial Identification
education law. Reauthorization of IDEA with- Before receiving special education services, a
out fundamental reform is the wrong idea. It is child must be referred by his or her parent or
time to consider a new approach for families teacher to special education experts employed
with children with disabilities. by the school district for evaluation.8 Because of

3
a heavy backlog, the evaluation process fre- officer may be a retired school district
quently takes many months,9 although states employee, either a special educator or a spe-
are required to make good faith efforts to iden- cial education administrator.18 If the parent
tify and serve disabled children under IDEA’s is dissatisfied with the result of this initial
“child find” requirement.10 School districts are hearing, he or she may (if the state has a two-
required to seek out disabled children in pri- tiered review system) appeal directly to the
vate, as well as public, educational settings.11 state board of education or its designated
hearing office, which may uphold or reverse
The Individual Education Plan the district hearing officer’s educational deci-
IDEA requires development of an individ- sion or remand the matter to an earlier stage
ual education plan (IEP) for each child iden- of due process.19
tified by a school district as disabled. Formal The due process hearings, both local and (if
meetings must be held to develop the IEP available) state, resemble trials in many
and must include the child’s special educa- respects, with formal procedures, witnesses’
tion teachers, general education teachers, testimony, opening and closing arguments,
and parents; the child him- or herself, if and a verbatim transcript.20 It is not at all
appropriate; and any experts, consultants, or uncommon for the due process stage of an
attorneys called upon by either the parents or IDEA dispute to take a year or longer.21
the school.12 Written notice of those meet- Attorney Jonathan A. Beyer comments,
ings, as well as all proposed actions under the “Hearings may extend for weeks, months and
IEP, is required by IDEA and must include a years only to return to a different stage of due
statement of procedural safeguards, includ- process before ever achieving closure.”22
ing information about independent evalua-
tions, parental consent, due process hearings, Litigation
civil actions, and attorney’s fees. 13 The Parents who have successfully exhausted
notices must be provided at several junctures, the preceding requirements and remain dis-
including when a child is referred to special satisfied may sue their school district in state
education, when a child is reevaluated, before or federal court for failure to provide a “free,
any IEP meeting, and whenever a complaint appropriate public education,” or FAPE. 23
about a child’s education is filed.14 FAPE is a term of art that includes compliance
The IEP itself must include a written diag- with IDEA’s processes, as well as an ill-defined
nosis of the child’s problems, a detailed minimum level of educational service.24
account of the special services he or she will The court will review all of the evidence col-
It is not at all receive, and statements of short- and long- lected during the previous administrative
term objectives and goals, as well as a record processes as well as any additional evidence
uncommon for of all procedures followed in its production.15 introduced by the parties and make a decision
the due process The IEP process must be repeated annually based on “the preponderance of the evidence.”25
stage of an IDEA for each child identified as disabled under If the plaintiff substantially prevails in court,
IDEA. During the annual meetings the IEP is the court may award attorneys’ fees in addition
dispute to take a reviewed and revised.16 to monetary and injunctive relief.26
year or longer.
Due Process
IDEA mandates a complex administrative Problems with IDEA
review of all disputes related to the IEP of a
disabled child. If a parent disagrees with any Virtually everyone is unhappy with the
part of the school district’s IEP, he or she may way IDEA currently performs, though few
request a formal appeal hearing before an have clear ideas about how to reform the sys-
ostensibly “impartial officer,” who will adju- tem.27 Below are a few of IDEA’s most signif-
dicate the dispute.17 In practice, the hearing icant failures.

4
Unnatural Enemies: The IEP as Opening Salvo thy that in this instance the father The IEP process
IDEA’s single worst feature is its propensi- was a psychologist.32 has become, not a
ty to turn would-be allies—parents and spe-
cial educators—into the equivalent of fight- Accordingly, the IEP process has become, meaningful inter-
ing dogs, specially trained to see one another not a meaningful interaction between parent action between
as the enemy throughout the cumbersome and teacher about the needs of a child, but an
processes mandated by the act. At fault is the opportunity for the school district to prepare a
parent and teacher
dispute resolution model (including the IEP, defense against a future lawsuit.33 One legal about the needs of
due process hearing, and litigation) for deter- expert has remarked, “You can fight over place- a child, but an
mining a child’s educational program. ment all you want, but if you want to win, you
The dispute resolution model, under need to control the content of the IEP.”34 opportunity for
which parents can walk away with either very Education scholar Guy Benveniste concurs that the school district
little or a great deal depending on their IEP reports are “less designed to address the to prepare a
aggressiveness and the quality of representa- problems of the child than to defend the dis-
tion they have, nurtures an artificially adver- trict against potential attack.”35 defense against a
sarial relationship between the two groups by Parents often feel blindsided by a cabal of future lawsuit.
splitting their interests. Parents want as special educators, professional administra-
many services as possible for their child, tors, and other experts acting on the advice of
while school districts are driven by budgetary school district attorneys. The Washington
constraints to try to shortchange every par- Post’s Jay Mathews recounted one particular-
ent who doesn’t make trouble.28 The result is ly shocking case:
a system that rewards posturing and threat-
ening rather than collaboration. IDEA par- Marvin and Amy Adams of
ent Ellen Tuttle complains, “I have to be a Weatherford, Texas, said that when
steamroller in my daughter’s life to get her they objected to the unannounced,
the help she needs.”29 and thus apparently illegal, presence
Procedural requirements intended to of a school district lawyer at one meet-
empower parents, such as a seemingly endless ing about their daughter Callie, who
series of meetings to which they must be invit- is autistic, the lawyer refused to leave.
ed, have failed to live up to their promise. Many After about 20 minutes of back
IDEA parents feel intensely marginalized by and forth arguing, during which my
IDEA’s processes, which are driven by school husband was called a “liar,” the lawyer
district employees bent on preserving the spe- and each and every one of the [school
cial education nest egg for future litigation-gen- district] employees just got up—en
erated emergencies.30 masse—and walked out of the room.
School personnel usually arrive at the The lawyer asked if the Adamses were
required meetings with a plan to present to par- leaving too, Amy said, and before they
ents as a fait accompli.31 They have superior could answer the lawyer said to them,
knowledge of the ins and outs of IDEA and “We’ll just get someone down here to
often intimidate parents who want a real role in remove you.”36
the process with professional jargon and proce-
dural hardball. One scholar analyzing multiple While that example is extreme, it is clear
IEP meetings observed: that the IEP process intended by IDEA’s
authors to be cooperative is nothing of the
Of the 14 conferences observed, in sort. School districts have the upper hand in
only one instance was the meeting this game most of the time: they have special
actually devoted to specifying goals education experts on staff to fill the IEP
and objectives jointly between the record with opinions in support of the dis-
parent and educators. It is notewor- trict’s plan, while those parents who can

5
afford to do so must hire their own experts to al, the level of antipathy in post–due
contradict the school district’s experts if the process relationships appears to us
parents wish to be taken seriously. generally to be much higher [in IDEA
Even parents possessed of the money and disputes] than in other areas of our
know-how to successfully navigate the sys- education practice.41
tem see the IEP process as an extended early
settlement conference for a legal dispute, IDEA parent Kathy Davis has lamented:
rather than a cooperative effort to educate a “In regard to the IEP process itself, I wish it
child. Not surprisingly, many of the parents stood for ‘Individual Encouragement to
who have navigated the process most suc- Parents.’ If we could change it, I would
cessfully are themselves attorneys. 37 Clint change it. In many ways this public law has
Bolick, a successful public interest lawyer become our enemy.”42
with the Institute for Justice and the parent
of a child with a borderline diagnosis of The Procedural Compliance Burden
learning disabled, wrote of IDEA, “If it’s this In addition to destroying trust between
perverse for me, I wonder how the system parents and educators, IDEA’s regulatory
works for parents who, unlike me, do not sue structure and decisional law nurture an
The dispute reso- bureaucrats for a living.”38 obsessive focus on procedural compliance.
lution model The dispute resolution model mandated Compliance, not educational outcome, is
mandated by by IDEA inevitably pits teacher and school regarded as the premier measure of success
against parent and child in a battle over both for a special education program.43 Education
IDEA inevitably educational philosophy and scarce resources. analyst Kalman R. Hettleman notes that
pits teacher and The ever-present threat of occasional out- “special education nationally is mired in a
sized payoffs required by court decision compliance model of accountability” under
school against means that special educators must jealously which procedural conformity is valued over
parent and child guard resources during the IEP process, academic progress. 44
in a battle over rather than determine in good faith what is Already endemic in IDEA’s statutory struc-
best for any individual child.39 ture, which offers more in the way of proce-
both educational Thus, the tragedy of IDEA’s dispute reso- dural protections than in substantive guaran-
philosophy and lution model is the loss to parents of the tees, the focus on process has been worsened
good counsel of a trusted special education by court interpretations of the act. The
scarce resources. expert about what is right for their child.40 Supreme Court has established a two-part test
Too often, parents lack needed information for deciding an IDEA lawsuit: (1) have all of
about available options, both inside and out- the procedural requirements of the act been
side the public school system. They need a met by the school district, and (2) if so, is the
fiduciary motivated to look out for their student’s IEP reasonably calculated to provide
child’s best interests. IDEA forces special educational benefit to the student?45
educators to deceptively present cheap and Lower federal courts have exacerbated the
easy strategies to parents as “appropriate,” procedural focus by relying largely on the so-
and that often destroys the relationship called Rowley test’s procedural prong to
between the two groups. IDEA attorney adjudicate IDEA disputes. Understandably
Kevin Lanigan observes: reluctant to decide pedagogical questions on
which they lack expertise, judges emphasize
Such [due process] proceedings tend procedural compliance in their opinions.
to foster mutual perceptions of dis- IDEA scholars Joyce O. Eckrem and Eliza J.
honesty between the parties and often McArthur write of the relative importance of
result in deep suspicion and hostility the procedural prong of the Rowley test:
between parents and school officials.
As a practical matter, another line of
While litigation is inherently adversari-
cases interpreting the first prong of

6
the Rowley test—compliance with must be painstakingly documented for poten-
procedures—began to supercede the tial use in due process hearings and subse-
“benefit” standard, because deter- quent litigation.50 The paperwork generated
mining compliance is much easier as a result of the IDEA compliance maze is so
than determining “benefit” under out of control that it is one of the few issues on
any standard.46 which parents, reformers, and the special edu-
cation establishment agree.51 The Counsel for
Because the substantive “educational bene- Exceptional Children, an advocacy organiza-
fit” prong has been so forgiving, while IDEA’s tion for disabled students, found after con-
myriad procedural requirements are so ducting a national survey of special educators
demanding, good IDEA attorneys know that that “the tyranny of paperwork overshadows
the way to prevail in an IDEA dispute is to liti- the thoughtful planning needed for individu-
gate the procedural compliance issue. Once a alized student instruction.”52
court has found a school district to be out of A recent federally funded survey revealed
compliance, virtually any substantive remedy that excessive paperwork and meetings were
may be obtained. One IDEA litigant recovered the top two reasons special educators left
the costs of a private special education day their jobs, exacerbating an existing shortage
school in a remote community, the cost of rent- of qualified teachers.53 Some special educa-
ing an apartment near the school, travel costs tion teachers are said to spend about 50 to 60
so that the family could periodically be reunit- percent of their time filling out the forms
ed at the primary residence, and attorney’s required by law or by their district’s defensive
fees.47 The remedy was awarded, not because legal strategy.54
the litigant proved the school district’s educa- Indeed, so convoluted are IDEA’s regulato-
tional plan was substantively inappropriate, ry requirements that a National Council on
but because the district had failed to comply Disability member recently testified before
with IDEA’s written notice requirements at one Congress that all 50 states and the District of
step of the compliance maze.48 Columbia remain out of compliance with the
Special education attorneys Eckrem and act, despite school districts’ best efforts to
McArthur write: comply.55 At least two states, Hawaii and
Maryland, are now operating their programs
The certainty with which a procedur- under the direct supervision of a federal
al flaw could destroy FAPE [a free, judge.56 Without a fundamental rethinking of
appropriate public education] rever- the IEP and administrative review processes,
berated throughout the special edu- IDEA compliance is unlikely to become less IDEA has gener-
cation community. No school dis- expensive or less burdensome.
trict attorney would recommend ated a wave of
pursuing a dispute with a parent The Litigation Explosion expensive and
through the Act’s administrative Finally, IDEA has generated a wave of chancy litigation,
hearing process and the courts, with- expensive and chancy litigation, enriching liti-
out first carefully analyzing the gation attorneys while draining school dis- enriching litiga-
District’s compliance status. And no tricts of needed resources. Parents who have tion attorneys
parent would formulate a case on the navigated their way through the preceding
basis of a “benefit” analysis without procedural mess are invited to sue their school
while draining
vigorously pursuing the District’s district for failing to provide a FAPE.57 school districts of
procedural compliance.49 Aggressive parents, often rightly angered by needed resources.
the school district’s unresponsive bureaucracy
Because it is a matter of financial survival and out of patience with IDEA’s picayune due
for school districts to comply with IDEA’s process requirements, have done so. The result
myriad requirements, every procedural step has been that a “whole cottage industry of

7
Savvy, affluent lawyers and advocates has grown up to help on the general education curriculum. In fact,
parents who are parents get what they want out of the school both groups are correct. Provision of special
system.”58 education under IDEA is schizophrenically
comfortable with Partly to blame is IDEA’s vague statutory too generous and too stingy.
attorneys and con- language concerning the extent of a disabled Arcane procedural rules, vague legal stan-
child’s entitlement to special education ser- dards, and frequent recourse to litigation have
fident expressing vices.59 Justice Rehnquist opined in the land- produced a two-tiered system of special educa-
their views to edu- mark IDEA case, Board of Education v. Rowley, tion. Savvy, affluent parents who are comfort-
cators are receiv- that the statute’s definition of appropriateness able with attorneys and confident expressing
“tends toward the cryptic rather than the com- their views to educators are receiving an inor-
ing an inordinate prehensive.”60 The Rowley Court, while estab- dinate share of the total resources available for
share of the total lishing the two-part procedural and substance special education.67 Other children with spe-
resources avail- inquiry that has played a role in the increasing cial needs receive much less, often less than
procedural focus of litigants, declined to create they need.68 Indeed, IDEA has been likened to
able for special a clear test for determining whether a given stu- “a huge regressive tax—helpful to those
education. dent’s IEP is “appropriate.” Federal courts have wealthy enough to take advantage of it and
largely clung instead to a case-by-case approach often harmful to those who are not.”69
to the substantive issue.61 As the social stigma associated with disabili-
The heart of the problem with substantive ty has decreased, affluent parents have come to
review of a child’s IEP is that judges are ill suit- realize that a classification as “learning dis-
ed to determine what educational program is abled” can have substantial benefits for their
“appropriate” for a disabled child by any stan- children, from free tutoring or note-taking ser-
dard.62 Even professional educators often can- vices to extra time on tests.70 Bolick points out,
not agree on what constitutes an “appropriate “In affluent Greenwich, Connecticut, nearly
education.”63 For that reason, IDEA decisions one in three students has the learning disabled,
are often inconsistent, unpredictable, and or LD, label and accompanying benefits.”71
therefore unfair.64 Education scholar Paul Hill While children from families with more
has called IDEA the “high water mark of than $100,000 in annual income make up
resource allocation by court decision.”65 only 13 percent of SAT test takers in a given
IDEA litigation has been on the rise in year, they constitute 27 percent of those who
recent years, as more and more children have receive special accommodations on the
been identified as disabled.66 As federal SAT.72 Affluent parents are also the most
appellate courts fashion vague and conflict- likely to obtain private school placements for
ing standards for unwieldy IDEA cases, edu- their disabled children.73
cation attorneys collect large fees from all One special education study concluded:
parties, draining schools and parents of
funds needed for education. Because the degree of choice extended
to special-needs students depends in
IDEA’s Inequities large part on the parents’ pushiness, it
To listen to IDEA’s critics is to be confront- should come as no surprise . . . that in
ed by seemingly inconsistent condemnations. many school districts there is not one
Some critics insist that IDEA still too often special education program but two,
provides insufficient services to disabled chil- separate and unequal. This dual sys-
dren, “warehousing” them in separate class- tem, keyed to parents’ differing levels
rooms where little is taught. Other critics will of savvy and persistence, unlawfully
indignantly recount stories of disabled chil- deprives some special education stu-
dren receiving obscenely generous benefits at dents of essential services while provid-
public expense, draining resources from pub- ing others with a premium private edu-
lic school districts that could be better spent cation at public expense.74

8
As long as the type and cost of each dis- of children categorized as learning disabled. Often, a school
abled child’s benefit are determined under The number of children so identified grew by district has a
IDEA’s failed dispute resolution model, an extraordinary 242 percent between 1979 and
IDEA’s chronic inequities will be impossible 1997 (Figure 1). The number of children in all financial incen-
to alleviate. the other disability categories combined tive to identify
increased by only 13 percent during the same
Skyrocketing Costs period. Today, learning disabled children
disabled children
The amount spent on special education ser- account for nearly 50 percent of children in spe- under IDEA,
vices as a percentage of the total education bud- cial education (Table 1). since those chil-
get has risen sharply since IDEA was passed. In Several factors have contributed to the
1977 services for disabled students accounted growth in the number of children diagnosed as dren bring addi-
for 16.6 percent of total education spending. learning disabled. Often, a school district has a tional federal and
Today the $78.3 billion spent on special educa- financial incentive to identify disabled children
state funds into
tion students at the local, state, and federal lev- under IDEA, since those children bring addi-
els accounts for 21.4 percent of the $360.2 bil- tional federal and state funds into the school. the school.
lion spent on elementary and secondary public Many of those children may be low achieving,
education in the United States.75 The number but not disabled in any traditional meaning of
of school-aged children receiving special educa- the word. This incentive may be extremely pow-
tion services also increased during that period, erful in poorer districts that serve large popula-
from about 8.5 percent in 1977–78 to nearly 13 tions of low-achieving students, as each student
percent in 1999–2000.76 The implication is that placed in special education maximizes the pro-
the growth in special education spending is pri- curement of state and federal funds needed to
marily due to the increased number of students augment low local tax revenues.77 In addition,
receiving special education services. parents often seek admission of their children
The growth of special education can be to special education programs because of the
attributed largely to a sharp rise in the number increased resources that are available.78

Figure 1
Number of Children in Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled, by Category
of Disability (thousands)

3,000

2,500 Specific Learning Disability


Speech or Language Impairments
Mental Retardation
2,000 Serious Emotional Disturbance
Hearing Impairments
Orthopedic Impairments
1,500 Other Health Impairments
Visual Impairments
Multiple Disabilities
1,000
Deafness-Blindness
Autism and Other

500 Preschool Disabled

0
1976–77 1980-81 1985–86 1990–91 1995–96 1999–2000

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
2001 (Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 2002), p. 66, Table 52.

9
Table 1
Percentage of Children Aged 6 through 21 Served under IDEA by Category of
Disability, 1976–77 and 1999–2000

Disability 1976–77 1999–2000

Specific learning disabilities 21.5 45.7


Speech and language impairments 35.2 17.4
Mental retardation 26.0 9.7
Emotional disturbance 7.7 7.6
Hearing impairments 2.4 1.1
Orthopedic impairments 2.4 1.1
Other health impairments 3.8 4.1
Visual impairment 1.0 .04
Multiple disabilities na 1.8
Deafness, blindness na <.05
Autism and traumatic brain injury na 1.3
Developmental delay 5.3 .03
Preschool disabled na 9.4

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
2001 (Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 2002), p. 66, Table 52.

Note: na = not available.

Compounding this problem is the fact that American children in public schools. There is
the condition known as SLD (specific learning ample evidence to suggest that millions of
disability) lacks a clear, specific definition, children who are currently receiving long-
making it possible to categorize almost any term and expensive special education services
low- or under-achieving child as SLD. would not need such services if their instruc-
Commenting on the various behaviors or con- tional needs had been addressed at an early
ditions that can be used to categorize a child stage. According to G. Reid Lyon of the
as SLD, experts have opined that nearly 80 National Institute of Child Health and
percent of American school children qualify as Human Development, the category “learning
Parents often disabled under one definition or another.79 disabled” has become a “sociological sponge
Because SLD is the only disability now defined to wipe up the spills of general education.”81
seek admission of by statute instead of administrative regula- Most identified learning disabilities have to
their children to tion, the Department of Education is limited do with reading failure—approximately 80
special education in its ability to curb abuse of the designation.80 percent of children with a learning disability
One unfortunate byproduct of the incen- have difficulty primarily with reading.82
programs because tive to overidentify students under IDEA is Difficulty with reading affects a student’s per-
of the increased lack of early intervention for minor learning formance in almost every other subject area, so
problems. Because of this, minor problems a reading difficulty leads to failure in other
resources that are that could have been prevented if identified academic areas, feeding a cycle of academic
available. and dealt with at the right time grow into frustration and personal failure. A student
intractable problems that require more who is a poor reader goes on to become a poor
aggressive and expensive treatment. This is student overall. The unfortunate thing is that
particularly true of learning disabilities. many of these problems are preventable and
Today, learning disability is the most fre- these children would not be experiencing dif-
quently identified type of disability among ficulties today if they had received effective

10
reading instruction in the early grades.83 In Moreover, at individual schools special Reading prob-
addition, experts point out that learning dis- education teachers are spending nearly half lems are pre-
abled has become a catchall category for the their time on compliance-related meetings
instructional failures of earlier grades.84 and paperwork.89 Accordingly, the act’s com- ventable and chil-
Congress amended IDEA in 1997 to rem- pliance demands cost each school district dren would not
edy the problem of overidentification, chang- many millions of dollars annually at the
ing from a funding formula based on stu- school level as well. In the city of Baltimore
be experiencing
dent count to one based partially on total alone, annual IDEA regulatory compliance difficulties today
student enrollment. This should help to alle- costs were recently estimated at $28 mil- if they had
viate the problem of financial incentives for lion.90 The American Institutes for Research
labeling children as disabled. The 2000–01 has conservatively estimated combined received effective
school year was the first year to fall under the school-level and central office expenditures reading instruc-
revised funding formula so the effects of related to assessment, evaluation, and IEPs at tion in the early
these changes have not yet been seen.85 $6.7 billion nationally, a figure that does not
The IDEA-mandated bureaucratic process even appear to include most legal expenses. 91 grades.
also imposes enormous transaction costs on The financial crisis precipitated by IDEA
school districts. Due process hearings, IEP in public school districts around the country
meetings, record keeping, and administra- has lent urgency to the reform debate.
tive reviews all require that districts commit Summarizing the financial problems facing
resources to defending the school’s prac- IDEA, Los Angeles–area superintendent
tices and placements. Funds that could be James Fleming stated: “If you criticize [IDEA]
better spent if devoted to the education of a you will be publicly vilified as anti-handicap.
child must be used to defray procedural and But what is happening now will absolutely
legal costs. destroy public education before the next
Economists at the American Institutes for decade is out.”92
Research estimate that about $5 billion is
spent annually on special education adminis- Low Academic Gains
tration, an estimate that does not include any Because IDEA funding to states is contin-
general education administrative expenses gent on regulatory compliance, states have
for disabled students.86 Of that amount, $4 unsurprisingly focused on compliance and
billion is spent on central office special edu- process rather than education. There are no
cation administration, rather than school- rewards for states that actually demonstrate
level administration. This $4 billion spent progress in educating their disabled stu-
nationally on activities occurring nowhere dents, nor are there sanctions against states
near children covers “administration, coordi- where students fail to show reasonable acad-
nation, staff supervision, monitoring and emic achievement. States are judged solely on
evaluation, due process, mediation, litigation the degree to which procedural regulations
support, assessment of student progress, and are satisfied and the right paperwork
eligibility determination.”87 processed correctly and on time.
At least half of the foregoing central office Even the national assessments that have
activities are made necessary by IDEA’s dis- been designed to look at special education
pute resolution framework, which demands programs collect data only on program char-
due process, mediation, and litigation expen- acteristics, not the academic gains of special
ditures as well as the monitoring and assess- education students.93 What is known about
ment regimens that make it possible for the academic gains of children in special edu-
school districts to win cases. School districts cation programs is not encouraging.
can ill afford to use limited special education Economist Eric Hanushek and his colleagues
resources to pay these substantial procedural revealed that the average educational
and legal costs.88 improvement for children diagnosed with

11
learning disabilities and placed in special had made little or no progress in the preceding
education was 0.04 standard deviations in 16 months in special education. After an
reading and 0.14 in math.94 eight-week intervention, 40 percent of those
Although those numbers suggest that stu- children were able to return to regular classes
dents receive some benefit from special educa- (compared with the normal rate for leaving
tion, the gains are very small—not enough to special education of 5 percent).98
noticeably affect a learning deficit let alone School leaders themselves admit that special
eliminate it. For that reason, the bulk of these education students are not coming close to
children remain perpetually in special educa- reaching their academic potential.99 Other
tion programs, never catching up to their high- experts have pointed out that special education
er achieving classmates. According to Lyon, services are often ineffective because they are
“Gains are so small that [special education] provided too late to children who are already far
children are not closing the gap” between them- behind, particularly in the case of reading.100
selves and other students.95
Achievement of students in Baltimore,
Maryland, is reflective of the low achieve- Solution: Deregulation and
The only way to ment gains made by special education stu- Parental Choice
dents. Last year, for example, only 9.6 percent
resolve the prob- of special education third grade students Virtually all concerned parties are very dis-
lems is to replace scored satisfactory or better on the Maryland satisfied with the way IDEA has functioned.101
state performance tests in reading. By grade The spectacular failure of current IDEA
IDEA’s dispute eight, the percentage of students scoring sat- processes to serve students, parents, and
resolution model isfactory or better had dropped to 1 percent. teachers was summed up by one IDEA parent:
Even more telling is that the gap in test
with genuine pri- scores between special education students Over the last eleven years we have seen
vate choice for and regular students widened over time. For what a legacy has been created. I can’t
parents of dis- example, in grade two, the percentage of gen- imagine how it must feel to be part of
eral education students with passing scores the creation of this sad, sad mess—
abled children. in reading was 44 percent; only 24 percent of where children are pariahs, their fam-
special education students had passing ilies are the enemy, “special” means
scores. In grade six, 31 percent of general edu- “can’t be done,” and education has
cation students had passing scores but only 8 long been forgotten . . . for the record,
percent of special education students did.96 the culture of the Special Education
Other studies have documented that spe- Administration is a closed-mouth,
cial education instructional-remediation pro- non-collaborative, non-responsive,
grams are not effective for children who are anti-family fortress. . . .102
poor readers. For example, one study reported
that 80 percent of poor readers in special edu- The roadblock to meaningful reform so far
cation remediation made no measurable gain has been a reluctance to rethink the Byzantine
during the school year.97 The lack of progress procedural structure that forms the very heart
by poor readers in special education is unfor- of the act. The only way to resolve the prob-
tunate, since proven methods exist for effec- lems of skyrocketing transactional costs,
tive remediation in reading. For example, adversarial relationships between parents and
Joseph Torgesen and his colleagues conducted teachers, and inequity is to replace IDEA’s dis-
tests of well-designed reading remediation pute resolution model with genuine private
programs including the Lindamood Auditory choice for parents of disabled children. The
Discrimination in Depth Program and battle between parents and educators must
“Embedded Phonics.” Those programs end with a decisive victory for parents, in the
showed far superior results with children who form of portable benefits.

12
One state, Florida, has already has already Florida program, while similarly disabled chil-
moved in that direction. Under legislation dren may receive less.
passed in 1999 and expanded in 2000 and Because financial incentives still require
2001, children with physical or mental disabil- schools and parents to fight through the IEP
ities are eligible for tuition scholarships that and due process procedures in Florida,
can be used to attend any public or private inequities and waste persist in the state’s special
school of the family’s choice. Last year, just education program. Rep. Rick Keller (R-Fla.)
over 4,000 disabled children chose to use commented on the continuing burden IDEA
scholarships to attend a private school rather places on the innovative Florida program,
than their neighborhood public school.103 (See
Appendix for a listing of some private schools No matter which school I visit in
that serve children with disabilities.) Orlando, the message from the
To obtain a McKay scholarship, parents do teachers is always the same—our
not have to demonstrate that their disabled bloated government regulations are
child is lagging behind academically or is not burying them in paperwork, wasting
making progress on his or her IEP. Parental precious hours that could be spent
dissatisfaction is enough for a disabled child helping disabled children learn.107
enrolled in a public school to be eligible. The
Florida program simply makes special educa- For state-level choice-based reforms such
tion benefits portable, allowing parents, rather as Florida’s program to live up to their poten-
than school district administrators, to decide tial, they must be freed from IDEA’s burden-
which school should receive the educational some processes.
funds already being spent on a child. There is
no additional cost to the state. States Should Escape IDEA’s Failed
Though the Florida program is a big step System by Refusing Federal Funds
in the right direction, the state is still ham- States can implement choice-based, dereg-
pered by IDEA’s procedural requirements, ulatory reforms of special education at once
which it is not empowered to eliminate. by turning down the federal funds associated
Although Florida’s private schools do not with IDEA. The act is a funding statute,
themselves fall under IDEA’s jurisdiction,104 meaning that only states that accept its fed-
parents of disabled students in Florida must eral funds have to comply with its man-
still wend their way through the IEP and due dates. 108 Congress originally envisioned cov-
process procedures mandated by the act and ering 40 percent of special education costs
spend at least a year following the IEP in the with federal dollars, but despite larger-than- States can imple-
public school system before electing to take expected dollar increases from the federal
advantage of a scholarship.105 government, the federal portion of special ment choice-
Even then, a parent’s aggressive and savvy education funding has sometimes fallen based, deregula-
performance in the IEP fight will pay off—the below 15 percent. tory reforms of
amount of a McKay scholarship is determined States should compare the amount of federal
by “the base student allocation in the Florida funding they receive with the sums they must special education
Education Finance Program multiplied by the spend, not on education, but on procedural at once by turn-
appropriate cost factor for the educational program compliance with IDEA. Many states will find
that would have been provided for the student in the that turning down federal funds in favor of uni-
ing down the fed-
district school to which he or she was assigned, lateral reform will produce savings rather than eral funds associ-
multiplied by the district cost differential.”106 additional state costs. For the year 1999–2000, ated with IDEA.
Accordingly, the parent who most effectively Congress appropriated about $4.5 billion in
pressures the state for the most expensive ser- basic and preschool IDEA funds.109 The same
vices during the IEP process will be rewarded year, the American Institutes for Research esti-
with a large scholarship amount under the mates that $6.7 billion was spent at the state and

13
Many states will local level for “assessment, evaluation and IEP if reasonably calculated to provide the state’s
find that turning related activities.” 110 Though choice-based disabled children with adequate resources to
reform would not eliminate assessment expenses obtain an appropriate education.
down federal entirely, they could be very significantly reduced. Parents in “reform states” would be
funds in favor of Moreover, the $6.7 billion estimate does not allowed to select from the menu of available
appear to include many due process and litiga- special services offered by public schools, up
unilateral reform tion expenses, nor does it include fee awards to to the amount of the child’s defined mone-
will produce successful plaintiffs’ attorneys. tary contribution under the matrix, with the
savings rather Careful fiscal analysis should convince advice of special educators or anyone else the
many states that it is time to opt out of this parents felt was appropriate. Or the parent
than additional failed program by refusing its federal funds in could take his or her child’s total education-
state costs. favor of state law reforms that eliminate al allowance to a private school of choice.
IDEA’s dysfunctional procedural require- Because parental choice would replace
ments. In addition to probable financial gains, negotiation as the method of determining a
states would enjoy increased autonomy and child’s educational plan, reform states would
massive regulatory and legal relief. As be exempt from all of the IEP and due
described hereafter, parents and students in process requirements of IDEA and would no
states that implement choice-based reform longer be subject to civil suit for failure to
would experience greater educational freedom provide an “appropriate” education. The sole
and opportunities and face fewer bureaucratic remaining potential dispute would be the
barriers. accuracy of the child’s diagnosis and, accord-
ingly, the size of his or her monetary contri-
Alternatively, Congress Could Create a bution. Reform states would be required to
Choice-Based Reform Option for States create rules for genuinely independent bind-
Although ideally all responsibility for spe- ing arbitration of disputes related to the
cial education should lie with the states, state diagnosis of a child covered by IDEA.
lawmakers may find it politically impossible The end result for a state opting into
to turn down federal funds to pursue inde- reform would be a state-administered, largely
pendent reform strategies, even if they deter- state-funded portable benefits plan.
mine it would be good public policy to do so.
Alternatively, Congress could amend IDEA Reform States Will Avoid IDEA’s Worst
to allow states to opt into a reformed special Problems
education system, which would eliminate the Reform states, whether they have unilater-
failed dispute resolution model entirely in ally reformed or opted-in to a federally
favor of a state-administered, largely state- authorized deregulatory plan, will save tens
funded system based on parental choice. of millions of dollars that are now devoted to
A state would opt into the program by cre- procedural compliance, legal posturing, and
ating a matrix of disability categories and litigation. If even half of the annual $6.7 bil-
monetary contributions designed to represent lion devoted to “assessment, evaluation and
the total average cost of both general and spe- IEP related expenditures” were eliminated,
cial services required to educate a child in each $3.35 billion could be saved nationally on
category of disability. The state would then those items alone. States and parents would
create a menu of special education services no also save millions more on IDEA attorneys’
less comprehensive than those currently avail- fees and other legal expenses. Those current-
able in each school district and their estimated ly wasted sums could be devoted instead to
cost per child per hour or per semester, as educational expenses, improving both special
appropriate. The matrix and menu would be education and general education.
submitted to the U.S. Department of Although disputes will continue to crop
Education and approved for a five-year period up over a given child’s disability category,

14
“the majority of cases [under current IDEA the school district or face the financial and
law] have focused on the individual child and personal costs of a potentially years-long hear-
the adequacy of the program proposed by the ing and appeals process.116 Similarly, the elim-
school district to meet that child’s needs.”111 ination of the IEP and due process regimens
Accordingly, IDEA-related disputes in reform will free special educators from the meetings
states should become far more rare. In addi- and paperwork that have come to dominate
tion, the issue of whether a disability has their days, allowing them to focus once again
been correctly diagnosed is far simpler than on teaching children.
that of whether a specific educational pro- Reform states will alleviate the problem of
gram conceived by a school district is “appro- overidentification of children as having dis-
priate” for a given child. The disputes that abilities, a phenomenon that has contributed
remain to be resolved through binding arbi- to IDEA’s increasing costs. Although the
tration will thus be far shorter, simpler, and 1997 amendments to IDEA may prove effec-
cheaper than present litigation. tive in reducing financial incentives for states
The educational choices available in to over-identify minor disabilities, many
reform states should also be effective in states still distribute funds to school districts
increasing the quality of education available on the basis of numbers of disabled children.
to most disabled children. Choices are partic- By tying an agreed level of funding directly to Although parents
ularly beneficial to special education stu- each disabled child, and giving each family often lack the
dents because of the variety of disabilities control over how those funds are spent, professional
they struggle with and because of significant reform states will eliminate the remaining
recent and ongoing advances in special edu- tendencies of school districts to compete for expertise of spe-
cation. Public institutions by their nature extra funds through overdiagnosis.117 cial educators,
often change too slowly to keep pace with Also important will be the increased equi-
rapidly evolving techniques and technologies ty with which special education resources
they have an
in special education,112 and in many areas of will be distributed in reform states. IDEA incentive to seek
special education, even experts lack consen- parents will not be sorted, as they now are, out the very best
sus about which pedagogical techniques are into separate camps of winners and losers on
most effective.113 the basis of their personal educational attain- sources of infor-
Parents have better information and bet- ment, financial resources, or litigious nature. mation and
ter incentives to make optimal decisions for Each parent will receive the same defined
advice.
their children than do school districts. 114 As monetary contribution, depending on type
Kotler observes, “Parents better understand of disability, to be spent on the educational
their child’s abilities and potential than a resources the parent believes will be most
professional who typically makes judgments helpful to his or her disabled child. Reform
based on a very brief acquaintance with the states will see a shift in resources away from
child.”115 Although parents often lack the procedural compliance costs, litigation costs,
professional expertise of special educators, and a small number of savvy or lucky parents
they have an incentive to seek out the very and toward lower-income children with dis-
best sources of information and advice. A abilities who are currently underserved.
public school district will never be similarly Perhaps most critical, replacement of the
motivated to spend weeks and months dispute resolution model of IDEA with
researching educational alternatives for a sin- parental choice in reform states will restore
gle child. Accordingly, choice-based reform trust between parents and educators, whose
should result in better educational outcomes interests are no longer misaligned. With the
for disabled children. size of a child’s benefit no longer in question,
Parental choice in reform states will also teachers can collaborate with parents to
relieve parents of their current Hobson’s determine how the child’s allotment might
choice: accept an objectionable plan created by best be spent. If the two cannot agree, the

15
parent is welcome to find another teacher or children account for more than a third of the
school with which to work. As with other District’s $167 million special education
consensual fiduciary relationships—banker budget, although they are less than one-sixth
and investor, attorney and client—the new of all disabled children in the District.122 The
teacher-parent relationship will be built on District pays for some students to be trans-
trust, honesty, and results. Successful special ported to and from private schools as far
educators and schools will be those that serve away as Delaware.123
parents and children well. By contrast, the District’s remaining spe-
cial needs children are served in the district
The District of Columbia Should Become public school system, despite the fact that
an Example of Reform “programs in public schools have not been
Congress should spearhead state-level very helpful” to many disabled children,
reform by implementing a system of choice according to special education psychologist
for District of Columbia parents of special William Boston.124 Robert Worth recounts
needs children. The District can serve as an the story of one child caught in the District’s
inspiration for states to take advantage of the public special education system:
reform opportunity, reducing bureaucracy
and empowering parents. When [Saundra] started having trou-
Special education accounts for a third of ble in the first grade, she was
total education spending in the District, placed—like many kids in D.C.—into
although only about 10 percent of students a dead-end classroom where she
are classified as disabled.118 The District’s pub- learned nothing. In her case, it was a
lic schools are projected to have $79 million in class for the mentally retarded. It
cost overruns by September 30, 2002, and the took six years for a teacher to notice
high cost of special education is a “major that Saundra wasn’t retarded at all.
problem” contributing to the overspending, Now she’s catching up, but probably
according to Council Chair Linda Cropp.119 not fast enough to attend college
Despite huge sums expended on special next year. “You can never make up
education in the District, few state programs for that lost time,” says one social
are as notorious for waste and abuse. The worker who has helped Saundra.125
Washington Times recently noted that “the
District’s program is not very helpful to chil- Editorial columnist Deborah Simmons,
dren with special needs, and its management looking at the waste and inequities of the
Congress should is lousy and costly.”120 Corruption is a prob- District’s current special education system,
lem; recent news reports indicate that a net- has opined, “Wouldn’t it be nice if parents of
spearhead state- work of IDEA attorneys and former District special education children, regardless of their
level reform by school employees has been simultaneously child’s ‘special’ circumstances, were offered
implementing a operating law firms, testing centers and even vouchers?” 126 Indeed, equalizing the amount
private schools, filing IDEA suits against the available to each child with the same diagno-
system of choice District for inadequate services, demanding sis, and making those benefits portable,
for District of that their clients be assigned to their own would go a long way toward resolving the
programs, and then overbilling the District unfairness of the District’s current system.
Columbia parents for services. 121 Congress should develop, or require the
of special needs Moreover, disabled children in the District leadership to develop, a deregulato-
children. District of Columbia suffer disproportion- ry, choice-based reform plan for special edu-
ately from the inequities that plague the sys- cation. Such reform will both improve one of
tem nationally. Parents who navigate the sys- the nation’s most nonfunctional special edu-
tem successfully may obtain extremely gener- cation systems and demonstrate the benefits
ous benefits. Private placements for their of choice-based reform nationally.

16
This appendix includes only a sampling of Parental choice
Conclusion schools that accept children with special needs through portable
or that specialize exclusively in serving such
Some federal lawmakers are currently children. The idea that private schools pass by benefits offers
pushing for large funding increases for IDEA children with behavioral, emotional, physical, disabled children
without fundamental reform, but increasing or educational problems is untrue. In fact,
funding for a failed regulatory approach many public school districts rely on private
their best chance
would be counterproductive to the special providers to teach the severely disabled as well to obtain mean-
education reform effort. Keeping the federal as many at risk and learning disabled stu- ingful education-
contribution small (recently around 10 to 15 dents. According to Department of Education
percent of special education costs) would statistics, more than 2 percent of the nation’s al opportunities.
encourage states to reform their special edu- learning disabled student population—
cation programs individually, discarding the 120,000 students—are placed by local school
federal money as not worth the compliance boards in private schools.129
and litigation costs associated with IDEA. By It is also useful to note that many foreign
contrast, additional federal funding without countries have a successful track record in
reform will indefinitely stymie this healthy making use of private providers of special edu-
impulse by bribing states to continue to use cation. In fact, the European Agency for
IDEA’s failed dispute resolution model. Development in Special Needs Education has
States should choose to adopt reformed sys- concluded that the countries that are most
tems based on deregulation and parental successful at helping the learning disabled are
choice. Alternatively, Congress could reform those that use multiple service providers.130
IDEA to offer states a meaningful way out of
the old system, based on respect for individual Private Service Providers for Special
parents and families. Parental choice through Education Students
portable benefits offers disabled children their
best chance to obtain meaningful educational Paladin Academy
opportunities. Raising a disabled child is diffi- Nobel Learning Communities
cult enough without fighting protracted annu- 1615 West Chester Pike
al battles with her teachers, her school, and its West Chester, PA 19382-7956
lawyers about the programs and services she 1-800-288-1236
needs most. Lawmakers should act now to (Locations in FL, CA, NC, WA, VA, and NV)
allow every parent of a disabled child the mean- Devereux Santa Barbara
ingful choices now reserved to a lucky few. P.O. Box 1079
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
(805) 968-2525
Appendix: Private Schools ASAH
Serving Children with Lexington Square
2125 Route 33
Disabilities Hamilton Square, NJ 08690
A growing number of private schools serve (609) 890-1400
children with disabilities or other special needs. asahinc@aol.com
According to the Directory for Exceptional Hillside Children’s Center
Children, there are more than 2,500 private 1183 Monroe Ave.
schools and clinics serving children with physi- Rochester, NY 14620
cal and learning disabilities.127 More than (716) 256-7500
160,000 special education students are current- Institute for the Redesign of Learning
ly being educated in private facilities, paid for by 1137 Huntington Dr.
either public or private funds.128 South Pasadena, CA 91030

17
(213) 341-5580 Vancouver, WA 98662
Mercy Special Learning Center 1-800-833-4678
830 South Woodward St. Kaplan Inc.
Allentown, PA 18103 Corporate Office
(215) 797-8242 888 7th Ave.
National Association of Private Schools New York, NY 10106
for Exceptional Children 1-800-KAP-TEST
1522 K St. NW, Suite 1032 www.kaplan.com
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-3338 At Risk Students
EduCare Learning Center
1965 51 Street NE Corrections Corporation of America
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 10 Burton Hills Blvd.
1-877-255-8133 Nashville, TN 37215
Kids 1, Inc. (800) 624-2931
11 Lexington Ave. (615) 263-3140 (fax)
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 www.correctionscorp.com
(908) 422-3838 Cornell Corrections
Huntington Learning Centers Cornell Abraxas Leadership Academy
496 Kinderkamack Rd. 2915 North 3rd St.
Oradell, NJ 07649 Harrisburg, PA 17110- 2101
1-800-CAN-LEARN (210) 499-5509
(Located throughout the U.S.) www.cornellcorrections.com
Success Lab Learning Center Rescare
1033 West Van Buren, Suite 700 10140 Lin Station Rd.
Chicago, IL 60607 Louisville, KY 40223
312-492-8730 www.rescare.com
Scientific Learning Corporation Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 500 4200 Wackenhut Drive
Oakland, CA 94612-2040 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-4243
1-888-665-9707 1- 800-666-5640
(561) 691-6659 (fax)
Outsourcing and Staffing Services wccinfo@wcc-corrections.com
http://www.wackenhut.com/fr-wcc.htm
Total Education Solutions Alternative Education Resource
1137 Huntington Drive Organization
South Pasadena, CA 91030 417 Roslyn Road
1-877-TES-IDEA Roslyn Heights, NY 11577
(323) 257-0284 (fax) (516) 621-2195
jmintz@igc.apc.org
In-School Tutoring Father Flanagan’s Boys Home
Boys Town, NE 68010
Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc. (402) 498-1305
1 Penn Plaza Ombudsman Educational Services
New York, NY 10119 1585 North Milwaukee Ave.
1-888-7SYLVAN Libertyville, IL 60048
www.sylvanlearning.com (708) 367-6383
HOSTS Learning Options for Youth
8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 201 2529 Foothill Blvd., Suite 1

18
La Crescenta CA, 91214
(818) 542-3555 Notes
Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. 1. U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment;
Columbus Center and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112,
One Alhambra Plaza sec. 504, 87 Stat. 394 (codified, as amended, at 29
Suite 750 U.S.C., sec. 794).
Coral Gables, FL 33134 2. A federal court found that Pennsylvania
(305) 569-6993 statutes excluding disabled children from public
www.ramsay.com schools lacked a rational basis. P.A.R.C. v.
Children’s Comprehensive Services Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279,
283 (1972). Also applying rational basis review,
Keystone Education and Youth Services another federal court held that a District of
3401 West End Ave Suite 400 Columbia provision excluding disabled children
Nashville, TN 37203 from school was unconstitutional. Mills v. Board of
(615) 250-0000 Education, 348 F. Supp. 866, 875 (1972).
(615) 250-1000 (fax) 3. Robert H. Pasternack, Testimony on IDEA
Richard M. Milburn High School reauthorization before the Senate Committee on
14416 Jefferson Davis Hwy. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 107th
Suite 12 Cong., 1st sess., March 21, 2001, www.ed.gov/
Speeches/03-2002/20020321.html.
Woodbridge, VA 22191
(703) 494-0147 4. Roger Pilon, “Ignoring Constitutional Limits,”
Sobriety High School in The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton, ed. Roger
5250 West 73rd Street, Suite A Pilon (Washington: Cato Institute, 2000), p. 39.
Edina, MN 55439 5. See The Cato Handbook for Congress: 107th Congress
(612) 831-7138 (Washington: Cato Institute, 2001), pp. 133–40.
Woodbury Reports Inc.
P.O. Box 1107 6. “IDEA originated during a jurisprudential era
in which the United States Supreme Court
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 demonstrated a preference for protecting welfare
(202) 267-7758 claims through formal procedural rights.”
loi@woodbury.com Jonathan A. Beyer, “A Modest Proposal:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/ Mediating IDEA Disputes without Splitting the
Baby,” Journal of Law & Education 28 (1999): 37.
Youth Services International
2 Park Center Court Suite 200 7. “The trouble [with IDEA] is that it pits the inter-
Owings Mills, MD 21117 est of every single disabled child against the broad-
(410) 365-8600 er interest of the school.” Robert Worth, “The
Scandal of Special Ed,” Washington Monthly, June
ysiweb@youthservices.com 1999.
Maplebrook School
P.O. Box 118 North Road 8. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act,
Amenia, NY 12501 U.S.C. 20, sec. 1414(a). Cited hereafter as IDEA. See
also Terry Jean Seligman, “An IDEA Schools Can
(914) 373-8191 Use: Lessons from Special Education Legislation,”
Rebound Fordham Urban Law Journal 29 (2001): 762–63.
1700 Broadway, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80290-2201 9. Worth notes that initial identification and
reevaluation processes are frequently delayed:
(800) 444-9717 “Despite all those bureaucrats hired to evaluate
The National Catholic Education and place students, more than 250 students in DC
Association haven’t received an initial evaluation, and almost
1077 30th St. NW, Suite 100 2,200 are overdue for their second evaluation.”
Washington, DC 20007 10. IDEA, sec. 1412(a)(3).
(202) 337-6232
nceaadmin@ncea.org 11. Ibid., sec. 1412(a)(10)(A)(ii).

19
12. Tyce Palmaffy, “The Evolution of the Federal 29. Quoted in Jay Mathews, “Class Struggle,”
Role,” in Rethinking Special Education for a New Washington Post Online, February 5, 2002.
Century, ed. C. E. Finn et al. (Washington: Thomas B. Education writer Tyce Palmaffy also observes:
Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy “The threat of a hearing . . . is an essential element
Institute, 2001), p. 7. See also W.G. v. Board of Trustees in the relationship between districts and parents
of Target Range School District, 960 F.2d 1479, 1485 because it raises the stakes in disputes over place-
(9th Cir. 1992). ment.” Palmaffy, p. 16.

13. Union School District v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1526 30. Stephen A. Rosenbaum, “When It’s Not
(9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 428 (1994). Apparent: Some Modest Advice to Parent Advocates
for Students with Disabilities,” U.C. Davis Journal of
14. IDEA, sec. 1415(d); and Kevin J. Lanigan et al., Juvenile Law & Policy 5 (2001): 181.
“Nasty, Brutish . . . and Often Not Very Short: The
Attorney Perspective on Due Process,” in Rethinking 31. Kotler, p. 364.
Special Education for a New Century, p. 217.
32. Ibid., p. 397 n. 124, citing Sue Goldstein et al.,
15. Ibid. “An Observational Analysis of the IEP Conference,”
Exceptional Children 46 (1980): 282.
16. IDEA, secs. 1413(a)(11), 1414(a)(5).
33. The Council for Exceptional Children has
17. Palmaffy, p. 8. See also Board of Education v. stated that IEP-related paperwork “is designed to
Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 182 (1982). keep the school system out of a lawsuit” rather
than to improve the quality of a student’s educa-
18. Martin A. Kotler, “The Individuals with tional plan. Kalman R. Hettleman, “Still Getting
Disabilities in Education Act: A Parent’s Perspec- It Wrong: The Continuing Failure of Special
tive and Proposal for Change,” University of Education in the Baltimore City Public Schools,”
Michigan Journal of Law Reform 27 (1994): 386. Abell Foundation, Baltimore, 2002, p. 11.

19. Palmaffy, p. 8. 34. Jean B. Crockett, “Special Education: The Least


Restrictive Environment and the 1997 IDEA
20. Lanigan et al., p. 219. Amendments and Federal Regulations,” Journal of
Law & Education 28 (1999): 558, citing Jeffrey
21. Lanigan et al. describe the typical due process Champagne, “LRE: Decisions in Sequence,” Paper
hearing schedule. Ibid., p. 225. presented at Symposium of Annual Conference of
the National Association of Private Schools for
22. Beyer, p. 42. Exceptional Children, 1992, p. 14.
23. IDEA, sec. 1415(i)(2)(A). 35. Quoted in Rosenbaum, p. 198 n. 62.
24. Rowley at 206–7. 36. Mathews.
25. IDEA, sec. 1415(i)(2)(B)(3). Despite statutory 37. See, for example, Kotler, passim. See generally
language implying a de novo review of the merits, Lisa Osborne, “The Reality of Parents Acting as
courts have accorded some deference to the deter- Attorneys for Their Disabled Child,” Journal of
minations of special education administrators on Law & Education 29 (2000): 249.
the question of appropriateness. The Supreme
Court has held that “due weight shall be given to 38. Clint Bolick, “A Bad IDEA Is Disabling Public
these [administrative] proceedings.” Rowley at 206. Schools,” Education Week, September 5, 2001.
26. IDEA, sec. §1415(i)(3)(B). 39. One education researcher observed this conflict
of interest all too clearly during the IEP process: “A
27. Palmaffy, p. 19. private school placement for a particular child,
while indicated, would not be recommended
28. One commentator sums up the effect of because of the expense. The core evaluation team’s
IDEA’s dispute resolution model on parent-school position would be that the child’s needs could be
relations: “IDEA assurances of a free and appropri- met within the public school system, although the
ate education for each child with disabilities then principal very vocally opposed the return of the
engender a zero-sum game for special education child to his school.” Kotler, p. 368.
resources, in which parents are poised to compete
for public resources to obtain more educational 40. Even experts generally favorable to IDEA agree:
resources for their child.” Beyer, pp. 40–41. “When people look to the legal system as a first

20
resort, relationships between schools and parents 59. Ibid. See also Palmaffy, p. 9.
can quickly become adversarial, sometimes to the
detriment of the child’s education.” American 60. Rowley at 188.
Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education
Policy, Twenty-Five Years of Educating Children with 61. The Rowley Court held, “We do not attempt
Disabilities: The Good News and the Work Ahead today to establish any one test for determining
(Washington: American Youth Policy Forum and the adequacy of educational benefits conferred by
Center on Education Policy, 2001), p. 56. all children covered by the Act.” Ibid. at 202.

41. Lanigan et al., p. 227. 62. As one commentator observed, “A procedural


focus may aid judicial officers lacking extensive
42. Quoted in Rosenbaum, p. 159. expertise in special education.” Beyer, p. 39.

43. Wade F. Horn and Douglas Tynan, “Time to Make 63. Kotler, p. 376.
Special Education ‘Special’ Again,” in Rethinking Special
Education for a New Century, p. 34. 64. “The result [of IDEA’s vague language] is often
a quagmire of inconsistent and inequitable opin-
44. Hettleman, “Still Getting It Wrong,” p. 12. ions.” Ladonna L. Boeckman, “Bestowing the Key
to Public Education: The Effects of Judicial
45. Rowley at 206–7. Determinations of the Individuals with Disabilities
in Education Act on Disabled and Nondisabled
46. Joyce O. Eckrem and Eliza J. McArthur, “Is the Students,” Drake Law Review 46 (1998): 880.
Rowley Standard Dead? From Access to Results,” U.C.
Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 5 (2001): 206. 65. Quoted in Palmaffy, p. 6.

47. Ibid., p. 206, citing Union School at 1526. 66. Education legal scholars have pointed out
that special education disputes are reaching
48. Ibid. courts with greater frequency. Thomas A. Mays
and Perry Zirkel, “State Educational Agencies and
49. Ibid. Special Education: Obligations and Liabilities,”
Boston Public Interest Law Journal 10 (2000): 62.
50. One school district loses the equivalent of 78
school years of instruction annually due to time 67. Parent and attorney Martin A. Kotler observes,
spent “preparing for, attending, and documenting “Procedural protections all too often have been
their annual meeting with each disabled child’s par- reduced to an empty ritual for all but the most
ents to review and revise the child’s education plan.” educated and wealthy.” Kotler, p. 341.
Andrew Mollison, “Congress Rethinks Special
Education; Hearings Begin on Improving Law,” 68. “There is a powerful minority of parents who
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 22, 2002. know their legal rights and aren’t afraid to exer-
cise them. But most parents are at a decided dis-
51. The “compliance maze” is a term coined by advantage vis-à-vis school administrators. They
researcher Kalman R. Hettleman to describe don’t know their rights, have little experience
IDEA compliance in Baltimore’s special educa- with the legal system, and tend to respect the deci-
tion program. Hettleman, “Still Getting It sions of professional educators.” Palmaffy, p. 15.
Wrong,” p. 12.
69. Worth.
52. Ibid., p. 11.
70. “Nationally, the LD explosion has been set off
53. Mollison. by affluent parents.” Hettleman, ”Still Getting It
Wrong,” p. 28.
54. Worth.
71. Bolick.
55. Mollison.
72. Horn and Tynan, p. 31.
56. Hettleman, “Still Getting It Wrong”; and
“Education Official Says State Has Met 90 Percent 73. Palmaffy, p. 15.
of Special Education Benchmarks,” Associated Press
State & Local Wire, March 26, 2002. 74. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century,
“Chapter Highlights,” p. xix.
57. IDEA, sec. 1415(i)(2)(A).
75. American Institutes for Research, What Are We
58. Worth. Spending on Special Education Services in the United

21
States, 1999–2000? Advance Report 1, Special 88. One recent study by the Abell Foundation
Education Expenditure Project (Washington: revealed that the city of Baltimore, Maryland,
American Institutes for Research, March 2002), pp. alone was spending an estimated $28 million
2–3. The $360.2 billion total education expenditure annually on IDEA procedural compliance and lit-
figure is AIR’s estimate based on figures published igation costs. Hettleman, “Still Getting It
in the National Digest of Education Statistics. Wrong,” p. 20.

76. American Institutes for Research, p. 7. See also 89. Worth; and Hettleman, “Still Getting It
Don Soifer, “Almost 1 in 8 Students Labeled Wrong,” p. 18.
‘Disabled,’” School Reform News, April 2002.
90. Ibid., p. 20.
77. Horn and Tynan, pp. 23–51, provide an excel-
lent discussion of this issue. 91. American Institutes for Research, p. 14.

78. See William T. Hartman, “Policy Effects of 92. Quoted in Worth.


Special Education Funding Formulas,” Journal of
Education Finance 6 (Fall 1980): 135–59; and Joetta 93. Four national assessments of special educa-
Sack, “Special Ed Designation Varies Widely across tion are currently in progress: the National Early
Country.” Education Week, June 24, 1998, p. 1. Intervention Longitudinal Study, the Pre-
Elementary Education Longitudinal Study, the
79. Frederick M. Hess, “Courting Backlash: The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal
Risks of Emphasizing Input Equity over School Study, and the National Longitudinal Transition
Performance,” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Study. All of these studies collect data on pro-
Law 6 (Fall 1998): 41. gram activities (nature, amount, location of ser-
vices, etc.); none of them reports academic results.
80. IDEA, sec. 1401(26). Simply eliminating this The Government Performance and Results Act
statutory definition may partially alleviate the requires federal agencies to evaluate their pro-
problem of overidentification by allowing the grams, but again, the data collected focus on pro-
Department of Education to develop reasonable gram activities, not educational progress. For
standards for diagnosis of SLD. more information about the lack of data on the
academic achievement of children with disabili-
81. Quoted in Richard Lee Colvin and Duke Helfand, ties, see American Youth Policy Forum and
“Special Education in State Is Failing on Many Center on Education Policy, p. 28.
Fronts,” Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1999.
94. E. A. Hanushek et al., “Does Special Education
82. J. Lerner, “Educational Intervention in Learning Raise Academic Achievement for Students with
Disabilities,” Journal of the American Academy of Children Disabilities?” National Bureau of Economic
and Adolescent Psychiatry 28 (1989): 326–31. Research, working paper no. 6690, Washington,
1998, Table A2. A later study by E. A. Hanushek,
83. C. Snow et al., Preventing Reading Difficulties in John Kain, and Steve Rivkin showed gains of 0.1
Young Children (Washington: National Academy standard deviations in math for one year of spe-
Press, 1998); and National Institute of Child cial education. See E. A. Hanushek, John Kain,
Health and Human Development, The Report of the and Steve Rivkin, “Inferring Program Effects for
National Reading Panel: An Evidence-Based Assessment Specialized Populations: Does Special Education
of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Raise Achievement for Students with
Implications for Reading Instruction (Bethesda, Md.: Disabilities?” University of Rochester, Rochester,
National Institute of Child Health and Human New York, photocopy.
Development, 2000).
95. Lyon et al., p. 272. See also S. W. Moody et al.,
84 G. Reid Lyon et al., “Rethinking Learning “Reading Instruction in the Resource Room: Set
Disabilities,” in Rethinking Special Education for a Up for Failure,” Exceptional Children 16 (2000):
New Century, pp. 259–87. 305–16; S. R. Vaughn et al., “Broken Promises:
Reading Instruction in the Resource Room,”
85. U.S. Department of Education, Twenty-Second Exceptional Children 64 (1998): 211–25; and R. L.
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Allington and A. McGill-Franzen, “School
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Washington: Response to Reading Failure: Instruction for
U.S. Department of Education, 2000), p. viii. Chapter One and Special Education Students
Grades Two, Four, and Eight,” Elementary School
86. American Institutes for Research, p. 10. Journal 89 (1998): 529–42.
87. Ibid., p. 11. 96. Kalman R. Hettleman, “Still Fighting the Last

22
War,” Education Week, April 17, 2002, www.edweek. May 2, 2002.
org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=31hettleman.h21.
MSPAP data are available at www.mdk12.org/data/ 108. “Under the IDEA and its implementing reg-
index.html. CTBS data are available at http://msp. ulations, the federal government provides finan-
msde.state.md.us. cial assistance for the education of children with
disabilities to states that subject themselves to the
97. See J. K. Klingner et al., “Outcomes for Students IDEA’s requirements.” Thomas A. Mays et al.,
with and without Learning Disabilities in Inclusive “State Educational Agencies and Special
Classrooms,” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 13 Education: Obligations and Liabilities,” Boston
(1997): 153–61. See also N. Zigmond and J. M. Baker, University Public Interest Law Journal 10 (2000): 63.
“Concluding Comments: Current and Future
Practices in Inclusive Schooling,” Journal of Special 109. American Institutes for Research, p. 15.
Education 29 (1995): 245–50.
110. Ibid., p. 13.
98. See Lyon et al., pp. 274–75.
111. Seligman, pp. 780–81.
99. For example, see Hettleman, “Still Getting It
Wrong”; and Andrew P. Dunn, “What’s Wrong 112. Professor David L. Kirp remarks on the insti-
with Special Education?” Education Week, May 17, tutional rigidity of the public education estab-
2000, pp. 36, 39, www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory. lishment: “To one unfamiliar with the ways in
cfm?slug=36dunn. h19. See also Mark Kelman which schools operate, [such an] array of legal,
and Gillian Lester, Jumping the Queue: An Inquiry political and pedagogical criticism might signal
into the Legal Treatment of Students with Learning imminent and perhaps revolutionary change in
Disabilities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-sity schooling practice, precipitated by political crisis,
Press, 1997). voluntary school action, or judicial intervention.
Yet change, though devoutly to be wished, will
100. Descriptions of individual cases showing not occur so readily.” Quoted in Kotler, p. 365.
instances of ineffective special education programs
can be found in many of the published reports and 113. Kotler, p. 376.
evaluations. For example, see Worth; and Dunn.
114. Boeckman notes, “Scholars within the field
101. “Notwithstanding the procedural protec- of pedagogy do not agree what is the ‘best’ struc-
tions of the Act, scholars and parents are virtually ture for special education.” Boeckman, pp.
unanimous in criticizing the manner in which the 872–73. Kotler also remarks, “The dispute over
Act functions.” Kotler, p. 341. programming for autistic children serves to illus-
trate the institutional shortcomings of educa-
102. Rosenbaum, p. 160. tional agencies as decision makers.” Kotler, p. 367.

103. Institute for the Transformation of 115. See ibid., p. 372.


Learning, Florida A+ Opportunity Scholarship
Program and McKay Scholarships for Students with 116. Attorney Steven Marchese refers to the
Disabilities Program (Milwaukee: Marquette “financial and emotional cost of formal adjudica-
University, Institute for the Transformation of tion” of IDEA disputes. Steven Marchese,
Learning, Office of Research, December 2001), “Putting Square Pegs into Round Holes:
www.schoolchoiceinfo.org/img/pdf/Florida.pdf. Mediation and the Rights of Children with
Disabilities under the IDEA,” Rutgers Law Review
104. Susan Bowers, U.S. Department of Education, 53 (2001): 338.
Letter on Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,
n.d., www.edlaw.net/service/fla_voucher.html. 117. Of course, the incentives of individual par-
ents to have their children identified may be
105. The John M. McKay Scholarships for strengthened by a reform that offers a portable
Students with Disabilities Program, Fla. Stat., benefit. Nonetheless, choice-based reform should
secs. 229.05371(1), (2)(a). reduce overidentification overall because school
districts will no longer have any financial induce-
106. Ibid., sec. 229.05371(6)(a). Emphasis added. ment to use their bureaucracies to support incor-
rect diagnoses.
107. Rick Keller, Testimony before the Education
Reform Subcommittee of the House Committee 118. Worth.
on Education and the Workforce, Hearing on
Special Education Paperwork Burden and 119. Brian DeBose, “Council Seeks to Rein in Agencies’
Accountability System, 107th Cong., 2d sess., Spending,” Washington Times, March 5, 2002.

23
120. “Special Ed Run Amok,” editorial, Washington 127. The Directory for Exceptional Children,14th ed. (Boston:
Times, March 22, 2002. Porter Sargent, 2001–02), www.portersargent.com.

121. Justin Blum, “D.C. Seeks Investigation of 128. U.S. Department of Education, p. A-93.
Special-Ed Referrals,” Washington Post, March 7, Public school districts have placed more than
2002. 121,000 students in private facilities or provide
services to disabled children who are home or
122. Worth. hospital bound. At least 40,000 special education
students attend private schools at public expense.
123. Deborah Simmons, “School Choice; Why See Janet R. Beales and Thomas F. Bertonneau,
Vouchers and Charter Schools Are Needed,” “Do Private Schools Serve Difficult-to-Educate
Washington Times, March 22, 2002. Children?” Mackinac Center for Public Policy,
Midland, Mich., 1997.
124. Quoted in Vaishali Honawar, “Special-ed Charter
Schools Eyed,” Washington Times, March 10, 2002. 129. Ibid., p. A-93.

125. Worth. 130. Lewis M. Andrews, “More Choice for


Disabled Kids: Lessons from Abroad,” Policy
126. Simmons. Review, April and May 2001, pp. 39–50.

Published by the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis is a regular series evaluating government policies and offer-
ing proposals for reform. Nothing in Policy Analysis should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views
of the Cato Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before congress. Contact the
Cato Institute for reprint permission. Additional copies of Policy Analysis are $6.00 each ($3.00 each for five
or more). To order, or for a complete listing of available studies, write the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, call toll free 1-800-767-1241 (noon - 9 p.m. eastern time), fax (202) 842-
3490, or visit our website at www.cato.org.

24

Você também pode gostar