E D U C A T I O N OF T H E H A N D I C A P P E D
ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB78040
Charlotte Jones Fraas
Education and PuSiic Welfare Division
T H E LIBRARY OF C O N G R E S S
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM
DATE ORIGINATED 04/21/78
D A T E UPDATED 11/14/83
INFORMATION CALL 287-5700
Federal involvement in the education of the handicapped
significantly with the enactment of the Education f o r All Handicapped
Children Act of 1 9 7 5 (P.L. 94-142) i n the 94th Congress.
T h i s legislation
amended the provisions f o r State assistance under P a r t B of t h e Education of
the Handicapped Act (EHA, P.L. 91-230, title VI, a s amended) to require that
a "free appropriate public education" be available f o r a l l handicapped
9 4 - 1 4 2 authorized
children a g e 3 through 2 1 by September 1980.
increased Federal financial assistance along with n e w requirements f o r
participating State agencies and l o c a l school districts.
relating t o Federal policy f o r the education of the handicapped i n c l u d e
concerns a b o u t costs a n d responsibilities i n educating t h e handicapped, a b o u t
the l e v e l of Federal financial support, a b o u t the characteristics of
handicapped children actually identified and served, a b o u t t h e implementation
o f P.L. 94-142 requirements by State a n d local school districts, and a b o u t
Administration proposals to revise P a r t B regulations.
In a d d i t i o n , project grants authorized under the E H A , P a r t s C-F, expire a t
the end of FY83. The Senate passed legislation that would
expand, a n d amend these programs (S. 1341).
Similar legislation has been
reported by a House committee (H.R. 3435).
BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS
P a r t B of r h e Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), a s amended by P.L.
94-142, provides Federal financial assistance to States f o r t h e education of
3-through 21-year-old children having o n e o r more of nine physical or mental
disabilities ranging from learning disabilities t o severely a n d profoundly
T h e level of Federal a s s i s t a n c e i s based o n a n
annual c o u n t of handicapped children being served by appropriate educational
programs and i s intended t o pay a percentage of t h e excess c o s t s associated
with educating handicapped children.
Payments to S t a t e s a r e affected by the
authorized Federal reimbursement ceilings (40% of the national a v e r a g e per
pupil expenditure) and t h e annual congressional appropriation. Approximately
4 milllon handicapped children a r e currently participating I n S t a t e and l o c a l
special education programs that qualify for Federal assistance.
1983-1984 school year Federal contribution under P a r t B i s $1,018 million o r
about $252 per student.
T h e Federal contribution represents a b o u t 8% of the
excess costs of educating a handicapped student.
Current educational rights of handicapped
children were established
initially i n two major State-level l a w s u i t s , P A R C [ ~ e n n s y l v a n i a Association
for Retarded Citizens] v.
Commonwealth of P e n n s y l v a n i a , a n d Kills v.
Board of Education. Both of these suits addressed t h e exclusion of certain
handicapped children from a n y educational instruction a n d t h e lack of
appropriate educational programming f o r certain handicapped children.
basic rights of handicapped children to public education affirmed by the
rulings o n these cases h a v e since been modified
by S t a t e c o u r t decisions
regarding various &spects of a handicapped child's r i g h t tb a n educational
program designed to meet his o r her individual educational needs.
At the national l e v e l , two Federal laws a r e intended t o assure certain
rights for handicapped persons.
Section 5 0 4 of the Rehabilitation Act
prohibits any program or activity receiving Federal
discriminating a g a i n s t any persons because of a handicapping condition. P a r t
B of EHA, a s amended by P.L. 94-142, requires t h a t each S t a t e participating
in the State g r a n t program provide a "free appropriate public educationw t o
a l l handicapped
children 3-21 years of a g e in the "least restrictive
As States and l o c a l school districts have worked to comply with both their
own legislative a n d judicial mandates and the requirements of P.E. 94-142 a n d
Section 5 0 4 , a number of concerns have emerged:
What i s the estimated total cost of providing f r e e
appropriate public education for a l l handicapped
persons aged 3-21?
What i s t h e legislative intent of P.L. 94-142
and what have been its effects thus far?
What i s the level of additional S t a t e and local
r e v e n u e necessary t o provide full educational
services for all handicapped children and how w i l l
such additional revenues be raised?
What i s ~ t h eappropriate level of Federal funding
commitment for P.E. 94-142 and other special
what i s the best way t o implement the various
requirements of P.L. 94-142 and Section 5 0 4 of t h e
Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
What i s the best way t o educate a l l handicapped
children within each State i n order to achieve both
State a n d Federal education objectives?
(1) c o s t s a n d
These concerns a r e briefly examined under f o u r issues:
responsibility f o r educating a l l handicapped
(2) the l e v e l of
Federal f u n d i n g , ( 3 ) handicapped children identified and s e r v e d , a n d
implementation of P.L. 94-142 requirements.
Costs a n d Responsibility for Educating All Handicapped Children
States and their local school districts have the primary
f o r the education of handicapped children of elementary a n d secondary school
age. Federal involvement i n this a r e a i s primarily the r e s u l t - o f legislation
enacted over t h e past 1 5 years.
C u r r e n t l y , approximately 4
handicapped children participate in S t a t e a n d local special education
programs funded under P.L. 94-142.
A 1 9 8 2 study by t h e Ran& Corporation entitled " T h e C o s t of S p e c i a l
Education" estimates the total cost of educating handicapped children i n the
P a r t B State g r a n t program in school year 1982-1983 t.0 be $23.6 billion.
t h i s amount; S t a t e a n d local educational agencies w i l l have spent $12.7
billion i n excess c o s t s , i.e.,
those additional c o s t s associated with
educating a handicapped Child compared t o a non-handicapped child.
In a d d i t i o n , t h e Federal Government contributes over $ 1 billion i n special
education, support to States a n d l o c a l school districts f o r the education of
handicapped children. The following totals indicate t h e amount of Federal
f u n d s which a r e available for use during t h e 1982-83 a n d i 9 8 3 - 8 4 school years
under selected education programs
Education) that have specific - authorizations f o r t h e education of the
T h e s e figures reflect the F Y 8 2 and FY83 appropriations.
Most Federal education programs, including the P a r t B program, a r e either
advance- o r forward-funded, i.e., funds provided in a n appropriation a c t or a
continuing resolution for one year a r e primarly used t o provide education
spent or outlaid -- t h e following year.
services -- thus a r e actually
Therefore, the F Y 8 2 appropriation f o r P a r t B w a s obligated by ED f o r use i n
1982-1983; the F Y 8 3 appropriation will be obligated f o r use i n t h e current
school year 1983-1984.)
(in thousands of dollars)
EDUCATION OF T H E HANDICAPPED ACT
part A -- Removal of Architectural
P a r t B -- State Grants
Parts C , D , E , F
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Title I , subpart 2 -- Programs
f o r Handicapped Children i n
S t a t e Supported Schools
PUBLIC L A W 81-874
Title I -- Financial Assistance f o r
Local ~ d u c a t i o n a lAgencies i n Areas
Affected by Federal Activities
(special section 3
entitlement rate f o r certain
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT
Education Programs (section
1 1 0 handicapped priority)
At the S t a t e and local level, a number of factors influence attempts to
cost-estimate and to implement a f u l l service educational program
for a l l
Among these factors are the following:
T h e actual number of handicapped children identified and
served within each State.
(See Issue 3: Handicapped
Children Identified and S e r v e d , for further discussion.)
T y p e of handicapping condition served. Since different
types of handicapping conditions require different a v e r a g e
levels of expenditure, the incidence of various
handicapping conditions among the children i n
each State will influence total costs.
T y p e of special education program.
Even under a least
restrictive environment approach a s required under
P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 , the exact type of handicapped program
provided by a State or local agency may vary significantly
i n terms of total cost per pupil.
Quantity and quality of special education services
How i n d i v i a u a l States a n d their l o c a l school districts f i n a n c e increased
costs i n t h e a r e a of special education i n the years ahead may depend largely
on financial decisions made within each State and on the l e v e l of Federal
Generalizations based o n past spending trends by States a n d
l o c a l i t i e s ~ m a y be an inadequate means of predicting f u t u r e expenditures f o r
Several unpredictable factors could influence spending
pricrities within a State or locality, i.e., changes i n State l a w which may
affect t h e direction and scope of a State's participation in a program; S t a t e
and local budget constraints which may redirect educational expenditures to
other a r e a s ; and the effect of Federal program funding cuts i n a r e a s other
than education which may have a n indirect impact on education budgets.
Issue 2: Federal Funding, for further discussion.) Whatever
of these financial considerations, however, the final responsibility f o r
meeting both the State and Federal mandates for special education rests with
the States and their local agencies.
In the e n d , i t i s the States a n d their
school districts that have the primary responsibility to provide f r e e public
education for a l l handicapped children.
L e v e l of Federal Funding
Under P.L. 94-142, the formula f o r the allocation of P a r t B f u n d s among
States i s the number of handicapped children 3-21 years of a g e i n the S t a t e
receiving a f r e e public education multiplied by a percentage o f the national
average per pupil expenditure (APPE).
T h e percentage of the APPE used in the
formula f o r calculating maximum authorized payments i n c r e a s e d , from 5% f o r
FY78 to 4 0 % for F Y 8 2 and succeeding fiscal years. A S t a t e must receive, each
fiscal y e a r , a t least the amount of funding it received under P a r t B in FY77.
Actual allocations to States each fiscal year a r e subject to appropriations
made available for P a r t B.
T h e Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA, P.L.
authorization levels for the P a r t B program f o r FY82-FY84 well below the
l e v e l s that would otherwise have been provided by the P a r t B formula.
example, the appropriation amount authorized by t h e f o r m u l a f o r F Y 8 3 would
have been about $ 4 billion (assumes 4 million children served times 4 0 % of
$ 2 , 5 0 0 (APPE)).
OBRA authorized appropriations for P a r t ' B programs
than evaluations a n d preschool incentive grants) of $969.9 million for F Y 8 2
and $1,017.9 million each year f o r FY83 and FY84.
S. 1 3 4 0 , the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1 9 8 3 , a s passed by the House
billion authorization for a l l
o n Sept. 1 3 , 1 9 8 3 , would provide a $1.5
Education of the Handicapped Act programs.
While the distribution of these
f u n d s between the P a r t B State grant program and discretionary
programs i s
not specified, t h i s authorization level would be likely t o provide a n
increase for the S t a t e grant program from i t s current authorization level.
Despite the OBRA authorization f o r P a r t B , however, P.L.
Department of Education's appropriations legislation f o r F Y 8 4 , provides
$1,043,875,000 f o r t h e State grant program.
Congress recently agreed to a n
additional $25 million for P a r t B i n F Y 8 4 under the resolution providing
further continuing appropria.tions for F Y 8 4
413), bringing total
F Y 8 4 appropriations f o r the State grant program to $1,068,875,000.
T h e level of Federal funding. When P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 was enacted, some believed
that providng a f r e e appropriate public education f o r a l l handicapped
children aged 3-21 implied a Federal commitment to fund the n e w P a r t B , State
g r a n t entitlement f o r m u l a annually'and fully i n the' years ahead. F o r each of
school years 1977-78 and 1978-79, t h e first 2 y e a r s after implementation of
P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 , total P a r t B appropriations were sufficient t o pay the full
authorization f o r the program.
Beginning i n school y e a r 1979-80 a n d
continuing through the current school year 1983-84, appropriations have been
insufficient to meet the level authorized by
the P a r t B f o r m u l a i n P.L.
94-142. The following table summarizes the estimated number of children
served and the r e l a t i v e levels of Federal support since t h e passage of P.L.
- Based o n P.L.
Funded % of .
under P.L. 94-142
97-161, Further Continuing Appropriations Resolution
for F Y 8 2 (H.J.Res. 409) signed into l a w , P.L. 97-161, providing
f u n d i n g through Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 f o r EHA programs a s well a s other
ED programs and P.L. 97-257, Supplemental Appropriations f o r F Y 8 2
Authorization separately limited to $969.9 million for F Y 8 2
a n d $1,017.9 million for F Y 8 3 and F Y 8 4 under the Omnibus Budget
ReconciPiation Act of l-9810
Based o n P.L. 97-377, Further Continuing Appropriations, F Y 8 3 ,
providing funding through Sept. 3 0 , 1983; a n d on P.L. 9 8 - 6 3 ,
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1983.
~ a s e do n P.L. 98-139, Departments of Labor, Health a n d
Human Services, and Education a n d Related Agencies
Appropriation A c t , 1 9 8 4 , and the conference agreement o n
H.J.Res. 4 1 3 , Further Continuing Appropriations, F Y 8 4 ,
providing funding through Sept. 3 0 , 1984.
Handicapped Children Identified and Served
When P.L. 94-142 w a s enacted in 1 9 7 5 , there were a n estimated 8 million
handicapped children between the a g e s of birth
through 2 1 i n the United
States. T h e most recent information available from the S t a t e s , however,
indicates that i n 1982-83 there were approximately 4 million handicapped
children between the a g e s of 3 through 2 1 being served by S t a t e and l o c a l
children? Some of
agencies. Where a r e the remaining 4 million handicapped
these children a r e n o t i n school especially those i n the birth-6 and 18-21
a g e ranges.
Some of these "missing*' . c h i l d r e n a r e i n various private
institutions and thus do not appear i n public school a n d State institution
P r e s u m a b l y , some of these unreported children have handicaps that
In a d d i t i o n , s o m e of the older children a r e already
enrolled i n higher education or vocational institutions a n d thus do not
appear i n t h e elementary and secondary education reports. P o s s i b l y , some o f
these handicapped children a r e in S t a t e hospitals o r other institutions that
provide n o educational services f o r s o m e reason.
And possibly, the 7.9 to 8
million estimated total of handicapped
children aged 3-21 i s inaccurate.
Both the S t a t e court decisions and the P.L. 94-142 mandate to educationally
a l l handicapped children aged 3-21 presumably has led t o increases i n
serve State and local totals of handicapped children receiving instruction.
number of handicapped children who a r e currently unserved a n d will eventually
be provided service i n each State i s a matter for conjecture.
Another i s s u e i s the disproportionate representation of
certain characteristics i n special education 'programs. Findings from various
recent s t u d i e s indicate that the ."typical1* child participating i n public
school special education programs i s young (about 6 7 % a r e 1 2 y e a r s of age o r
yocnger), male (twice a s many males a n d females receive special education)
a n 8 mildly handicapped (in school year 1980-81 a b o u t 13% of the children
serveC had severe handicaps, 36% had moderately
severe handicaps, and the
majority, 5 1 % , had mild handicaps).
children exceed t h e
number of children in any other category of handicapping condition.
In s i x
States, over half of the handicapped children counted a s receiving special
education services under P.L. 94-142 were learning-disabled.
R e c e n t studies
have also shown a disproportionate number of minority children participate i n
some Special education programs (41% of black students i n special education
i n 1978-79 were i n classes for the educable-mentally
retarded a s compared
with 17% of Hispanic students and 6 % of white students).
Males are three
times a s likely a s f e m a l e s to be f o u n d in programs f o r t h e seriously
emotionally disturbed and two and one-half times a s likely a s f e m a l e s to be
in learning disabled programs.
The disproportionate representation of certain groups of students i n
special education programs may r e s u l t from: variations within and a m o n g
States with regard to the type and severity of the handicap o f those children
identified a s learning disabled; t h e preference of tea.che-rs to identify a
child a s learning disabled over identifying a child a s mentally retarded; t h e
existence of racial bias i n the identification a n d a s s e s s m e n t of minority
children f o r special education; a n d sexual bias which niay result i n
misidentifying social maladjustment o r misbehavior a s emotional disturbance.
T.here has been no conclusive evidence which explains t h e n a t u r e , cause o r
scope of any o n e of these problems.
Studies have concluded t h a t there a r e
children i n school who need but a r e not receiving special education, but
their number i s unknown.
Implementation of P.L.
I n 1 9 7 5 , P.L. 94-142 substantially amended the Part B -- State grant
program authorized under the Education of the Handicapped Act by revising
both the State grant entitlement formula and the State a n d local agency
Since enactment of this legislation, a number of
concerns regarding the implementation of P.L.
94-142 have emerged.
such concerns' are:
apparent "prescriptiveness" 0 f . a number of
provisions under P.L. 94-142;
emphasis on educating handicapped children with
nonhandicapped children (the "least restrictive
environment" or lfmainstreamingwrequirement);
adequacy of teacher preparation for educating a l l
handicapped children i n a least restrictive setting;
development and significance of the individualized
education program (IEP) required for each handicapped
State administrative accountability and potential
problems with the d u e process procedures under
determination of the number of children with
"specific learning disabilities" entitled under the
part. B -- State grant program;
problems i n the provision of related services.
States and their local school districts a r e a l s o affected by Section 5 0 4
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Section 5 0 4 prohibits a n y program or
activity receiving Federal assistance from discriminating a g a i n s t any person
because of a handicapping condition.
Is P.L. 94-142 "too prescriptivew? In v i e w of the primary
of St.ateS and l o c a l school districts to provide educational opportunities f o r
a l l handicapped children under P.L. 94-142, o n e general concern i s whether
some of the Federal requirements -- such a s the due process provisions -- a r e
S o m e State a n d local educators believe the answer i s " y e s , " especially
when t h e - F e d e r a l requirements clash with differing State or l o c a l procedures.
Others respond that the answer i s "no" because precise Fe.dera1 requirements
a r e t h e only way to ensure that a l l handicapped children have a c c e s s to equal
children with nonhandicapped,
restrictive environment" requirement. P.L. 94-142 requires each State to
establish procedures that a s s u r e , to the maximum
extent a p p r o p r i a t e , that
handicapped children (including those in public o r private institutions or
other care facilities) be educated With Children who a r e not handicapped.
F u r t h e r m o r e , 'special classes, separate schooling, o r the
handicapped children from the regular education setting is t o be provided
Only when the nature o r severity of the handicap i s Such that education
regular c l a s s e s , with the use of supplementary a i d s and services, c a n n o t
In the view of some State educators and organizations,. P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 is too
prescriptive i n instituting
"mainstreamingw approach. Such critics believe that the choice of method f o r
educational services for the different types of handicapped
children should remain a State prerogative.
Some a l s o conclude that a
mainstreaming approach will n o t prove satisfactory without a significantly
increased funding commitment t o special education training f o r t h e regular
In addition, some educators fear t h a t mainstreaming might
be instituted without sufficient teacher preparation, thus leading to a
negative result for both handicapped a n d non-handicapped school children.
Adequate teacher preparation.
T h e necessity of adequately
ciassroom teachers continues t o be a key ingredient f o r successful education
of the handicapped child.
Many school districts continue to have difficulty
i n hiring sufficient numbers of adequately prepared
Among o t h e r s , the National Association o f State Boards of Education has
indicated that P.L. 94-142 does not adequately couple t h e " l e a s t restrictive
environment" approach with proper teacher training.
In a d d i t i o n , the
National Association has noted t h a t , while P.L. 94-142 places t o p priority o n
educating handicappe.d c h i l d r e n not y e t s e r v e d , these children often a r e the
most severely handicapped and t h e r e i s a n insufficient number o f trained
teachers for them.
According t o E D , some 6 0 , 0 0 0 a d d i t i o n a l teachers a r e
needed t o adequately staff special education programs.
P.L. 94-142 r e q u i r e s t h a t l o c a l
Individualized Education Program (9EP).
school ciistricts develop a n individualized education program
f o r each
This IEP i s to include a written statement of the present
levels of educational performance of the c h i l d , of a n n u a l and short term
instructional goals, and of particular services t o be provided and t h e extent
to which t h e child i s to participate in t h e regular school program.
a d d i t i o n , t h e IEP i s to i n c l u d e a projected
d a t e for the start a n d
anticipated duration of education services, a n d e v a l u a t i o n procedures to
determine whether instructional objectives a r e being achieved.
In each c a s e ,
t h e IEP i s t o be developed by the child's parents o r g u a r d i a n , t e a c h e r , arepresentative of the school district, a n d whenever a p p r o p r i a t e ,
One a r e a of continuing concern remains the estimated
c o s t of developing
the IEP. S o m e a r g u e that the IEP r e q u i r e m e n t should be deleted from P.L.
9 4 - 1 4 2 unless more Federal f u n d s a r e made available f o r i t s implementation.
Others respond that c o s t should be a f a c t o r only if S t a t e s insist o n putting
the IEP a t the t o p o f the placement and classification systems already i n
In f a c t , some argue that use of t h e IEP could ultimately require
fewer people, l e s s paperwork, a n d less professional time - than current
94-142 requires the State
State responsibility and d u e process.
educational agency (SEA) to be responsible for assuring that the Section 6 1 2
eligibility requirements f o r State participation in P a r t B a r e carried out.
T h e SEA i s a l s o required to s e e that a l l education programs f o r handicapped
children Within the S t a t e , including those administered by other S t a t e o r
local ag-encies, a r e under the general supervision of t h e SEA personnel
a r e responsible f o r handling educational programs for handicapped children.
Questions have been raised concerning both the wisdom
of such centralized
administration and possible
jurisdictional conflicts i n some States i n
attempting to carry i t out.
(See # 2 of the Evaluation section of this brief
for a further discussion of this issue.)
T h e Department of Education has
noted that the States have flexibility in meeting these requirements under
the Federal regulations.
P.L. 94-142 a l s o prescribes procedures for d u e process hearings to
safeguard the rights of handicapped children a n d their parents with respect
to provision of a f r e e appropriate public.education.
A number of States,
however, have established due process procedures of their o w n that coula
differ from the F e d e r a l requirements under P.L. 94-142. As a result, there
may be potential for difficulty in cases where State and Federal procedures
Serving children with Specific Learning Disabilities
Education f o r All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, n o w covers learning
disabled children i n i t s definition of "handicapped", i t i s a particularly
difficult problem to identify and try to serve those children under Part B -State grant program:
When P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 was passed, i t was determined that
categorizing children a s learning disabled was difficult and that including
learning disabled a m o n g handicapping conditions might lead to overlabeling.
Testimony from the Office o f Education indicated that the entire lower
quartile of any normal Class might be classified a s having learning
disabilities. Therefore, a 2% l i m i t was placed on the number of SLD children
who could be counted f o r allotment purposes under the P a r t B
formula until such t i m e a s Federal regulations were published
and gave criteria f o r identifyi'ng learning disabilities.
these Federal regulations became f i n a l , but controversy over the criteria
used for determining the existence o f a specific learning disability remains.
(See Issue 3 -- Handicapped Children Identified and Served -- a b o v e for a
more detailed discussion of this issue.)
Provision of Related Services
P.L. 94-142 requires each child's IEP to specify related services that a r e
necessary to a s s i s t t h e child i n benefiting from the special education
services. As defined under the legislation, required "related
could include transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other
supportive services a s speech pathology and
services, physical a n d occupational t h e r a p y , recreation, early identification
and assessment of disabilities, counseling services, medical
diagnostic or evaluative purposes, school health s e r v i c e s , social work
services in schools, a n d parent counseling and training.
In the f i r s t six years of program operations u n d e r . P.L.
94-142, t h e
provision of required related services has proven to be o n e of the most
difficult and costly problems
encountered by local school
Numerous problems h a v e arisen with regard to exactly what
" m i g n of related
services must be provided for each handicapped
child attending public o r
pri-vate schools a n d what agencies a r e responsible for paying the costs of
providing needed related services. As a result of these problems, many
school districts a r e cautious i n their related services commitments.
This i s
expecially true i n States where l o c a l o r State departments of health, mental
hygiene, etc., have withdrawn payments f o r related services o n c e a State or
local educational a g e n c y has assumed responsibility for the education of a
handicapped child w h o had previously n o t been under State o r
educational agency care. Recent ,studies h a v e concluded that s o m e children
a r e excluded from special education, and other children a r e not provided
adequate services because of fiscal limits on school districts' programs
related to the need f o r such services.
Evaluations of t h e State grant (Part B) program, although varied i n s c o p e
and direction, have basically focused upon the ability of State and l o c a l
educational agencies t o implement the new and extensive revisions made to
this program in 1 9 7 5 by P.L. 94-142 -- T h e Education of All Handicapped
Success of the program has therefore been measured more i n
terms of how State and local agencies have accommodated the Federal
legislative changes rather than how Federal program requirements have either
raised t h e academic achievement
opportunities for handicapped school-aged children. T h e three most recent
evaluations of this program are discussed below.
General Accounting Office:
Disparties Still Exist in Who Gets Special
130 p .
In this report, t h e . General Accounting
Office (GAO) analyzed 1 5 evaluation studies and two d a t a bases to determine
if the g o a l of providing special education to handicapped
children, a s
defined i n the F e d e r a l legislation, w a s being met.
T h i s study found t h a t
while m o r e children receive special education than ever before, access f o r
A child's home S t a t e , handicap,
some children remains a matter of chance.
race, s e x , school d i s t r i c t , teachers, and parents a l l can determine whether
and h o w well the child is served by special education.
T h e r e p o r t concludes
that while not a l l chileren have equal a c c e s s to special education, the
primary congressional objective that those most in need of services receive
them h a s largely been accomplished. Fewer and fewer of handicapped
that s c h o o l s k n o w a b o u t a r e denied a n education. One reason some children
have a better chance t h a n others to receive special education i s the type a n d
degree of handicapping
conditions which a r e included i n varying S t a t e
definitions of "handicap" for purposes of participation in the Federal
T h e report a l s o concluded that racial and ethnic minorities a r e
"over-represented" (in comparison with their proportion of the o v e r a l l youth
population) i n some disability categories:
blacks i n educable mentally
r e t a r d e d , American Indians in learning disabled and Asian Americans i n s p e e c h
impaired. Males o f a l l races a r e over-represented
in a l l categories,
particularly i n t h e learning disabled category.
- - - - - - - - .. , S
. ~ t e m b e r1981.
Other findings o f t h e GAO report a r e that some children a r e excluded from
.special education because not enough programs a r e a v a i l a b l e , a n d that t h e
resources of a school district affect a c c e s s to special education.
the r e p o r t concluded that local school districts have had t o l i m i t their
T h e r e p o r t a l s o . n o t e d that there i s
programs because of a shortage of funds.
inconsistency between eligibility
standards used to select children f o r
special education under P.L. 94-142 a n d S t a t e policies c u r r e n t l y , i n effect.
Education Turnkey S y s t e m s , Inc. P.L.
94-142 -- A Study of the
Implementation and I m p a c t a t the State L e v e l , Executive summary, F a l l , 1981.
1 0 p.
T h i s study f o u n d that the provision of "related services" a s mandated
under P.L. 94-142 (these a r e services supplemental to educational services
which h e l p a Child benefit from special education, such a s transportation,
developmental, corrective o r other support services) is becoming a relatively
"uncontrollable" expenditure for States a n d localities.
F o r example, the
study found that a f u l l quarter of one State's school transportation budget
is spent on handicapped children who make up only 3% of the total
population. T h e study also reports that
" t u r f w battles have developed
between State education agencies and other State agencies over which
ultimately be responsible for providing
Some S t a t e non-educational
agencies have totally
94-142 f u n d s to
educational agencies were receiving more than enough P.L.
take responsibility f o r these services.
Rand Corporation, The Cost of Special Education:
Summary of F i n d i n g s ,
November, 1 9 8 1 , 56 p
. This report concerned the cost of
The results of this s t u d y , which used
data from the
1977-1978 school y e a r , indicated
that it cost an additional
nationally to educate handicapped
times the average c o s t of educating nonhandicapped children.
T h e c o s t ratio
(handicapped compared to nonhandicapped children) varied by
a g e level from
1.98 a t the elementary level to
a t the
T h e cost
weighing factor varied by a g e l e v e l ranging f r o m 1.98 a t the elementary level
to 2.48 at the secondary level.
It varied by type of handicap from 1 - 3 7 for
speech impaired children to 5.86 f o r functionally blind children.
I t varied
by type of educational placement from
.55 f o r students working
under the auspices of the special education program, rather than attending
classes, up to 3.24 f o r students i n special day
schools f o r handicapped
The study concluded that a l l of the a b o v e factors must be Considered
i n determining the total cost of
to S t a t e a n d
The study a l s o identified the highest cost per handicapped c h i l d , o n the
a v e r a g e , which
$743 for instruction provided
teachers in the regular classroom setting.
In a d d i t i o n , related
cost a n average of $ 1 9 1 per child, assessment and
identification $ 1 0 0 per
child, and general district revel and school level administration
cost approximately $ 4 0 0 per child.
Activitv in the 9 7 t h Conaress. 2d Session
T h e Reagan Administration's F Y 8 3 budget
budget authority f o r education of the handicapped programs i n both
F Y 8 2 an&
F Y 8 3 , and a consolidation of a11 programs
currently .authorized under
Education of the Handicapped Act.
For F Y 8 2 , t h e Administration
rescission of $ 2 5 6 m i i l i o n , or 2 8 % , for the education
State grant program.
This would have resulted i n a reduction i n the average
Federal payment f o r about four million handicapped children from $ 2 1 8 to $ 1 6 8
For F Y 8 3 , funding f o r the education of
the handicapped was
proposed to be reduced by 1 9 % compared to F Y 8 2 and a
programs would take p l a c e , resulting in a reduction i n . the F Y 8 2 average
f o r about 4.5
participating in the programs proposed for consolidation from $ 2 4 6 to
and reducing the F e d e r a l share of the aggregate average per pupil expenditure
for these programs
from 10% to
to the F Y 8 3 d o c u m e n t s ,
legislation was planned to (1) consolidate P a r t B , State Grants and Preschool
Incentive Grants currently authorized under
the EHA, and
the chapter l
programs for the e d u c a t i o n . of
handicapped) authorized under the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act
of 1 9 8 1 , into a s i n g l e special education
g r a n t ; and
(2) consoliclate the
discretionary projects currently authorized under
purpose authority providing the Secretary of ED with t h e discretion to fund
any or a l l of the discretionary activities.
Budget authority f o r a l l of
these programs would have been reduced from the F Y 8 2 level of $1.2 billion to
$ 8 4 6 million for FY83 under the Administration's request.
No formal proposal
was submitted o n this consolidation by the Administration
in the 9 7 t h
k t the end of the 97th Congress, programs authorized under
of the Handicapped Act were funded a t $1,110,252,000 under a further
continuing appropriations resolution, P.L. 97-377 (H.J.Res. 631), through t h e
end of F Y 8 3 (Sept. 3 0 , 1983).
[For a m o r e detailed discussion of funding
issues f o r F Y 8 2 and F Y 9 3 , see IB82019:
F Y 8 2 and F Y 8 3 Funding
Proposed Regulations f o r the Part B Program
On Aug. 4 , 1 9 8 2 ED published proposed regulatory changes for t h e Part B
In i t s statement accompanying the proposed regulations, ED argued
that the changes would eliminate
regulatory detail that result i n expenditure of time and resources o n
administrative activities", while "maintaining the k e y procedural protections
and rights o f handicapped children a n d their parents."
In g e n e r a l , t h e
propossd regulations would have deleted most of the detailed requirements i n
the current regulations while they would have maintained
some of the more
These regulations would have made significant changes i n
the following areas:
definitions; related services; timeline requirements
f o r IEPs and due process hearings; the provision of a f r e e appropriate public
education; the procedural safeguards a n d due process protections;
restrictive environment. T h e proposed regulations would have added several
provisions i n areas that a r e not addressed in current regulations, such a s
disciplining handicapped children and authorizing l o c a l agencies to consider
h o w the handicapped child's behavior may disrupt non-handicapped
before placing a handicapped child i n a regular class.
On Nov. 3 , 1 9 8 2 , Secretary Bell officially announced in t h e Federal
Register the withdrawal of certain sections of the proposed regulations a n d
the insertion of certain current regulatory sections i n their stead for s i x
parental consent prior to evaluation o r i n i t i a l placement, least
restrictive environment, related
ofevaluation personnel a t IEP meetings and qualifications of personnel.
addition t o t h e announced withdrawal of certain proposed
Secretary extended the period for comment on modifications, occasioned by t h e
3 , 1982.
withdrawals, from Nov. 4, 1 9 8 2 to Dec.
Education Madeleine Will recently announced that the Department has abandoned
i t s review of t h e regulations.
[ F o r further information see C R S White P a p e r ,
"Summary o f the Proposed Regulatory C h a n g e s to Selected provisions
~ ~Angela Evans a n d
Education of t h e Handicapped Act -- S t a t e Grant ~ r o g r a m ,
C R S White P a p e r , "Analysis of the Department of Education's Withdrawal of
Sections of Proposed Regulations under P.L.
94-142, the Education of All
Handicapped Children Act," by Angela Evans a n d Nancy L e e Jones:]
Activity i n the 9 8 t h Congress
Reauthorization o f the Discretionary Project Grants Authorized Under EHA
Authorization of appropriations expire Sept, 3 0 , 1 9 8 3 , f o r most of the EHA
For these expiring discretionary programs to receive
funding in F Y 8 4 , their authorization of appropriations would have to be
This could be done either by legislative amendments to the E H A , or
by a n automatic one-year extension of authorizations allowed f o r certain
education programs under the General Education Provisions A c t , G E P A , Section
T w o bills considered by the. 98th Congress, S.
1 3 4 1 and H,R.
3 4 3 5 , would amend a n d extend the discretionary programs of the Education sf
the Handicapped A c t , Parts C through F. Parts C through F of the Education
of the Handicapped Act include:
(C), Centers and Services to Meet
Special Needs of the Handicapped; P a r t (D), Training Personnel for Education
of the Handicapped; P a r t (E), Research i n the Education of the Handicapped;
and P a r t (F), Instructional Media f o r the Handicapped.
T h e instructional
media program i s t h e only activity that does not require reauthorization
because its authority i s indefinite.
On J u n e 2 7 , 1 9 8 3 , the Senate passed S. 1 3 4 1 , the Education of the
Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983. This bill would extend authorization of
appropriations f o r 3 years
(FY84-FY86) for most of the project grants
currently authorized under the EHA. P a r t G -- Special Programs f o r Children
part G has not
With Specific Learning Disabilities -- would be repealed.
been authorized since F Y 7 7 , since
disabilities have been included i n the Federal definition of handicapped, a n d
In general, S.
have participated fully in the P a r t B State grant program.
1 3 4 1 would retain current provisions tor most of the EHA discretionary grant
New provisions would be added to the preschool incentive grant and
early Childhood education programs to encourage Federal f u n d s to be used for
handicapped children from birth.
In a d d i t i o n , special emphasis would be
placed on evaluation studies which address the impact and effectiveness of
the EHA programs.
T h e bill also mandates two specific evaluation studies:
(1) a longitudinal study of the academic a n d social progress made b y
handicapped students both in school and after leaving o r graduating from
(2) a study of the a c t u a l per pupil
special education programs; and
expenditure of providing
education and related services to handicapped
New provisions would be included for:
preservice training of personnel w h o would work with handicapped students;
(2) special training of personnel who would work
who a r e underserved (due to either the nature of their handicapping condition
or their geographic location); (3) the establishment of parent training a n d
information programs; (4) the initiation of a new discretionary grant program
directed a t meeting specific needs of handicapped y o u t h by promoting
successful transition from secondary school to w o r k , postsecondary education,
o r vocational training; and (5) the expansion of postsecondary education
programs to include a l l disabilities.
H.R. 3435 was reported by the House Committee o n Education and Labor o n
T h i s bill would reauthorize t h e discretionary
Oct. 6 , 1983 (H.Rept. 98-410).
programs under the Education of t h e Handicapped Act f o r F Y 8 5 through FY67.
It would reestablish t h e National Advisory Committee on t h e Education of
Handicapped Children, would expand the evaluation
section of the Act to
require more specific State d a t a , would broaden responsibilities of the
regional resource centers, would
expand the early education
handicapped projects, and would authorize model
demonstration projkcts f o r
secondary education and transitional programs.
Much of the
contained i n H.R.
3435 i s similar to S. 1341.
Budget for Education of t h e Handicapped Programs
The FY83 funding level of $1,110,252,000 provided under P.L.
FY83 continuing resolution, for education of the handicapped programs w a s ' a n
increase of $41.7 million over F Y 8 2 funding for these programs a n d $264.6
million over the Administration's budget request for FY83.
During t h e first session of the 9 8 t h Congress,
appropriations bills added over $89 million
i n FY83 S u d g e t authority f o r
Congress passed the Emergency J o b s Appropriations A c t ,
1 9 8 3 , P.L. 9 8 - 8 , which included $ 4 0 million i n FY83 appropriations to fund
grants f o r the removai of architectural barriers (authorized under P a r t A of
T h i s is the f i r s t time since the program w a s enacted
under F.L. 94-142, that f u n d s have been provided for t h i s activity.
P.L. 98-63, Supplemental Appropriations, 1 9 8 3 , included $47.9 million
the State grant program under Part B of t h e Education of t h e Handicapped
and $1,250,000 for regional resource centers funded under P a r t C of
Education of the Handicapped Act.
As previously mentioned, for 2 years t h e Administration had proposed major
funding reductions a n d consolidations for Federal special education programs.
The F Y 8 4 budget request, however, would have maintained overall f u n d i n g for
programs authorized under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) a t the
FY83 funding level of $1.11
(not including F Y 8 3 supplemental
T h e F Y 8 4 request would have shifted f u n d s from certain EHA
discretionary programs, which a r e special projects funded directly by
Federal Government, , t o t h e EHA basic State g r a n t program, which
distributed t o States a n d through them t o l o c a l agencies t o help f i n a n c e
special education. T h e F Y 8 4 request would have increased
the S t a t e g r a n t
program to $ 9 9 8 million from the FY83 continuing resolution's level of $ 9 7 0
millicn, a n increase of 3%.
T h i s increase would have maintain the F e d e r a l
Government's share of the excess costs of educating handicapped
Administration sought overall reductions of 25% f o r f i v e of the t e n EHA
discretionary programs, i.e., deaf-blind c e n t e r s , early childhood e d u c a t i o n ,
innovation and development,. media and captioned films, a n d special education
personnel development. T h e other f i v e discretionary programs would have b e e n
maintained a t the F Y 8 3 funding level.
The First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for F Y 8 4
allowed increases f o r education programs above a n
House-passed version of the f i r s t budget resolution contained a specific
recommendation of $1.226
billion for EHA
Senate-passed a n d f i n a l versions of the f i r s t budget resolution did not
recommend F Y 8 4 funding levels f o r specific education programs.
98-139, making appropriations f o r the D e p a r t m e n t of Education
programs for F Y 8 4 , provides
for the education o f
handicapped account, a b o u t a $15 million
The most significant i n c r e a s e is the nearly $26 million
additional appropriations f o r the State g r a n t program; i n contrast to the
FY83 appropriation, there would be n o funding f o r
T h e following table summarizes FY83 a n d F Y 8 4
appropriations for the various handicapped programs:
P - L , 98-8;
F Y 8 4 approp.
(H.R. 3913 conf.
Education f o r the handicapped:
State grant program 1 , 0 1 7 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0
Special purpose funds:
adult and postsecondary programs
Media services and
a n d transiticnal
T o t a l , Education for
4 8 0 ,O Q Q
T h e House a n d Senate have agreed to a n additional $ 2 5 million
for the S t a t e grant program for F Y 8 4 in H.J.Res. 4 1 3 , m a k i n g
further continuing appropriations for F Y 8 4 , which i s expected
to be signed by the President shortly.
a more detailed discussion of F Y 8 4 funding for education
programs, see CRS Issue Brief 83024: Education:
FY83 and F Y 8 4
Funding Issues, by Angela Evans.]
P.L. 98-139, H.R. 3913
Departments of L a b o r , Health and Human Services, a n d Education a n d
Makes appropriations for the
Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1984.
fiscal year ending Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 4 , and f o r other purposes.
$ 1 , 2 1 4 , 4 4 5 , 0 0 0 for education of the handicapped programs.
Reported by House
Committee o n Appropriations Sept. 1 6 , 1 9 8 3 (H.Rept.
Sept. 22. Reported by Senate Committee o n Appropriations Sept.
Passed Senate Oct. 4 , 1983. Conference held.
Conference r e p o r t
(H.Rept. 98-422) agreed to by House and S e n a t e Oct. 2 0 , 1983.
l a w ~ c t .3 1 , 1983.
H.R. 3435 (Murphy et al.)
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1984.
discretionary programs under the Education of the Handicapped Act for F Y 8 5
through FY87. Reestablishes the National Advisory Committee o n the Education
of Handicapped Children. Expands evaluation
provisions requiring certain
specific State data.
Broadens responsibilities of regional r e s o u r c e Centers.
Expands early education of the handicapped projects.
demonstration projects for secondary education and transition programs.
Introduced J u n e 2 8 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred to t h e Committee on Education and Labor.
Reported Oct. 6, 1 9 8 3 ( ~ . ~ e p t 98-410).
S. 1 3 4 0 (Hatch)
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1983. As passed by the H o u s e , section
4 0 2 a u t h o r i z e s $1.5 billion to carry o u t programs under the Education o f the
Handicapped Act for FY84.
Introduced May 2 3 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred t o the Committee
on Labor a n C Human Resources.
Passed S e n a t e , a m e n d e d , July 2 6 , 1983. Passed
House, a m e n d e d , i n lieu of H.R. 3520 Sept. 1 3 , 1983.
Sept. 1 3 , 1983.
S. 1 3 4 1 (Weicker)
Education of t h e Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983.
discretionary programs under the Education of the Handicapped Act f o r F Y 8 4
Adds language to encourage the use of F e d e r a l funds f o r
handicapped children from birth.
addressing the impact and effectiveness of EHA programs.
authority for certain personnel
establishment of parent training and information programs.
demonstration projects for secondary education and transition programs.
Introduced May 2 3 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred to the Committee o n Labor a n d Human
Reported May 2 3 , 1 9 8 3
(no written report).
Passed S e n a t e ,
a m e n d e d , J u n e 2 7 , 1983. Written report issued by the C o m m i t t e e on Labor and
Human Resources ( S - R e p t . 98-191) July 2 1 , 1983.
REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS
Committee on Appropriations.
of L a b o r , Health, a n d Human Services, and Eclucation,
and Related Agencies Appropriations B i l l , 1984.
Sept. 1 6 , 1983. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
(98th C o n g r e s s , 1 s t session. House. Report no. 98-357)
Senate. Committee o n Education a n d ~ a b o r .
Education of the Handicpped Act Amendments of 1983.
July 2 i , 1983. Washington, U.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
(98th Congress, 1 s t session. Senate. Report no. 98-19)
OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
House amended and passed S. 1 3 4 0 , the Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1 9 8 3 , authorizing $1.5 billion for
programs under the Education of the Handicapped Act.
President signed into l a w H.R. 3069,
Supplemental Appropriations, 1 9 8 3 , which provides $99.5
million in FY83 appropriations for D e p a r t m e n t of
Education, including $47.9 million for P a r t B , EHA
(State Grant Program), and $9,250,000 f o r Regional
T h e House Committee on Education and Labor marked up
and ordered to be reported H.R. 3435, t h e Education
of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1984.
S.Rept. 98-191 was published o n S. 1 3 4 1 , t h e Education
of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1 9 8 3 (report
submitted after passage of S. 1 3 4 1 in t h e Senate).
Hearings held by the House Subcommittee o n Select
Education on H.R. 3 4 3 5 , the Education of t h e
Handicapped Act Amendments of 1984.
H.R. 3 4 3 5 , Education of t h e Handicapped A c t
Amendments of 1 9 8 4 , introduced by Rep. Murphy
and seven others.
S e n a t e amended and passed S. 1 3 4 1 , the Education of the
Handicapped Amendments of 1983.
House and Senate passed the conference a g r e e m e n t on
the First Concurrent Resolution on the B u d g e t , F Y 8 4 ,
H.Con.Res. 9 1 (H.Rept. 98-248) .
Education o f the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1 9 8 3 ,
S. 1 3 4 1 , reported by the Senate Committee o n Labor and
President signed H.R. 3913 into law (P.L. 98-139), which
provides appropriations of $ 1 , 2 1 4 , 4 4 5 , 0 0 0 f o r programs
under the Education of'the Handicapped Act f o r FY84.
H.R. 1 7 1 8 , the Emergency Jobs Appropriations b i l l , signed
into l a w by the President, P.L. 98-8.
Department of Education issued a modification of
notice of proposed rulemaking, withdrawing certain
provisions i n specified a r e a s of the Aug. 4 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); specifying current
regulatory provisions which would be restored in
these specified a r e a s ; extending the comment
period to Dec. 3 , 1 9 8 2 ; a n d announcing the
intention to publish a s i n g l e revised NPRM for the
State grant program (P.L. 94-142) after a review
of the comments is made.
Department of Education issued notice o f proposed
rulemaking f o r regulations pertaining t o the P a r t B
program authorized under the Education of the
Senate Subcommittee o n t h e Handicapped held hearings
on proposed changes i n P a r t B regulations.
ED issued notice of proposed rulemaking f o r
regulations governing t h e P a r t B program.
Conference report on the First Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget -- Fiscal year 1 9 8 3 , S.Con.Res. 9 2
(S.Rept. 97-478) agreed t o in the Senate.
C o n f e r e ~ c ereport on the First Concurrent Resolution
o n the Budget -- F Y 8 3 , S.Con.Res. 9 2 (H.Rept. 97-614)
agreed to i n the House.
First Concurrent R e s o l u t i o n ~ o n the B u d g e t -- Fiscal
Year 1 9 8 3 , H.Con.Res. 3 5 2 passed the House amended
Further Continuing Appropriations Resolution
f o r F Y 8 2 (H.J.Res. 409) signed into l a w , P.L. 97-161,
providing funding through Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 for EHA
programs as well a s a l l other ED programs.
President Reagan submitted budget request for FY83
containing proposed reductions in F Y 8 2 a n d F Y 8 3 budget
authority f o r EHA programs a s well a s a proposed
special education consolidation affecting a l l programs
currently authorized under EHA.
Further Continuing Appropriations Resolution for' F Y 8 2
(H.J.Res. 370) signed i n t o l a w , P.L. 97-92, providing
temporary funding through Mar. 3 1 , 1 9 8 2 f o r EHA programs
a s well a s a l l other ED programs.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1 9 6 1 signed into
l a w , P.L: 97-35.
Supplemental Appropriations a n d Rescission Act, 1 9 8 1 ,
signed into l a w , P.L. 97-12.
Reagan Administration announced review of Education
of the Handicapped regulations a s part of the
Presidential Task ~ o r c eon Regulatory ~ e l i e f .
T h e House Subcommittee on Select Education held the
bast of 7 days of oversight hearings i n the 9 6 t h
C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n , o n the implementation
of P.L. 94-142.
Other hearing dates were May 9 ,
J u n e 6 , 21 and 2 2 , Sept. 2 2 , and Nov. 1 9 , 1980.
The Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped held the
l a s t of 5 days of oversight hearings on P.L. 94-142
i n t h e 96th C o n g r e s s , 2d session.
Other hearing dates
were Mar. 3 , July 2 9 and 3 1 , and Aug. 20.
F i n a l regulations issued for P a r t B , Education of the
Handicapped Act, a s a m e n d e d , State Assistance a n d
F i n a l regulations issued for S e c , 5 0 4 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act - Nondiscrimination o n the basis
S . ~ 6 ,Education i o r All Handicapped Children Act of 1 9 7 5 ,
signed into l a w a s P.L. 9 4 - U 2 .
AEDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Sducation Advocates Coalition.
Report by t h e Education Advocates
Coalition o n Federal compliance activities to implement the
Education f o r All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142).
Washington, Apr. 1 6 , 1980.
23 p. and appendices.
Education Turnkey S y s t e m s , Inc. P.L. 94-142:
a study of the
implementation and impact a t State level.
Falls Church, Virginia, 1981. 1 0 p.
Institute f o r Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
Estimating the cost of educating handicapped children:
a resource-cost model approach-summary report.
Meno P a r k , California, Stanford University, J u n e , 1979.
2 9 p.
National School Boards Association.
A survey of special
education c o s t s in local school districts.. Washington,
2 7 pages.
The cost of special education:
summary df findings.
Santo M o n i c a , California, November 1981.
5 6 p.
Stanford Research Institute International. Local implementation
of P.L. 97-142:
first year report of a longtitudinal study.
Meno P a r k , California. 1980. 1 3 9 p.
Department of Education.
Second annual report to Congress on
the implementation of P.L. 94-142:
T h e Education f o r a l l
Handicapped Children's Act.
2 1 9 p.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
O f f i c e of
Progress toward a f r e e appropriate public
edacation; a report to Congress o n the implementation of
Public L a w 94-142:
the Education f o r All Handicapped Children
Washington, January 1979.
General Accounting Office.
Disparities still e x i s t i n who
gets special education.
Washington, 1981. 1 2 9 p.
Federal direction needed for
educating handicapped children i n state schools.
6 5 p.
Unanswered questions o n educating handicapped children i n l o c a l
public schools. Washington.
1 2 2 p.
Library o f Congress.
Congressional Research Service.
Analysis of the proposed regulatory changes to major
provisions of the Education of t h e Handicapped Act -- state
grant program [by] Angela Evans.
Sept. 3 , 1982.
Analysis o f the Department of Education's withdrawal of
sections o f proposed regulations under P.L. 94-142, the
Education f o r All Handicapped Children Act [ b y ] A n g e l a
Evans a n d Nancy L e e Jones.
Oct. 4, 1982.
An a n a l y s i s of the Federal policy o f mainstreaming:
educating handicapped children with their nonhandicapped
peers [ b y ] Angela Giordano Evans.
Apr. 24, 1979.
Education f o r the handicapped:
legislation enacted in
the 9 5 t h Congress [ b y ] David .Osman. Apr. 2 3 , 1979.
Education of handicapped children i n State operated o r suported
program summary and i s s u e analysis [ b y ] David Osman.
Nov, 3 , 1980. 8 7 p.
C R S R e p o r t no. 80-193
Funding a n d State plan approval process a s practiced under
the Education of the Handicapped A c t , Part B , S t a t e grant
program f o r FY 1 9 7 8 through FY 1 9 8 0 [ b y ] Angela Giordano
Nov. 1 , 1979.
Impact of- budget changes o n major education programss, both enacted
and p r o p o s e d , during the 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s [ b y ] Educat-ion staff.
Feb. 2 3 , 1982.
Public L a w 94-142 -- Education f o r All Handicapped ChLldren
Act of 1975:
summary of provisions [ b y ] David Osman.
Apr. 1 6 , 1979.