Education of the Handicapped

Federal involvement in the education of the handicapped increased significantly with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) in the 94th Congress. This legislation amended the provisions for State assistance under Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA, P.L. 91-230, title VI, as amended) to require that a "free appropriate public education" be available for all handicapped children age 3 through 21 by September 1980. P.L. 94-142 authorized increased Federal financial assistance along with new requirements for participating State agencies and local school districts. Current issues relating to Federal policy for the education of the handicapped include concerns about costs and responsibilities in educating the handicapped, about the level of Federal financial support, about the characteristics of handicapped children actually identified and served, about the implementation of P.L. 94-142 requirements by State and local school districts, and about Administration proposals to revise Part B regulations.

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 AUTHOR: 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 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 CRS- 1 ISSUE DEFINITION Federal involvement in the education of the handicapped increased 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 P.L. 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. Current issues 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 reauthorize, 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 handicapping conditions. 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. The 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. D.C. 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. The 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. CRS- 2 IB78040 UPDATE-11/14/83 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 assistance from 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 environment." 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 education legislation? -- 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 children, (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 (4) implementation of P.L. 94-142 requirements. Issue 1: Costs a n d Responsibility for Educating All Handicapped Children States and their local school districts have the primary responsibi$ity 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 million 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 Of P a r t B State g r a n t program in school year 1982-1983 t.0 be $23.6 billion. CRS- 3 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 (administered by the Department of Education) that have specific - authorizations f o r t h e education of the handicapped. T h e s e figures reflect the F Y 8 2 and FY83 appropriations. (Note: 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.) FY82 FY83 (in thousands of dollars) EDUCATION OF T H E HANDICAPPED ACT part A -- Removal of Architectural Barriers P a r t B -- State Grants -- Preschool Incentive Awards 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 handicapped children) VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT State Vocational part A Education Programs (section 1 1 0 handicapped priority) -- -------* Estimates. CRS- 4 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 handicapped children. 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 provided. 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 fcnding. 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 program areas. 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. (See the disposition 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. Issue 2: 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. CRS- 5 IB78040 ~~~~TE-11/14/ T h e Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA, P.L. 97-35) set authorization levels for the P a r t B program f o r FY82-FY84 well below the For 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 (other 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. 98-139, the 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 (H.J.Res. 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. 94-142. CRS- 6 Fiscal Year Children served -------a/ ED estimate. b / - Based o n P.L. c/ d/ e/ - Federal funding Funded % of . APPE authorized under P.L. 94-142 Actual funded % of of APPE 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 (H.R. 6863). 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. CRS- 7 Issue 3: IB78040 UPDATE-11/14/83 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 totals. P r e s u m a b l y , some of these unreported children have handicaps that remain undiagnosed. 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. The 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 students with 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). Learning-disabled 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. CRS- 8 Issue 4: Implementation of P.L. IB78040 UPDATE-11/14/83 94-142 Requirements 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 program requirements. Since enactment of this legislation, a number of concerns regarding the implementation of P.L. 94-142 have emerged. Among 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 child; -- State administrative accountability and potential problems with the d u e process procedures under P.L. 94-142; -- 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 responsibility 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 too prescriptive. 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 educational opportunities. - or Educating handicapped children with nonhandicapped, the "least 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. sf F u r t h e r m o r e , 'special classes, separate schooling, o r the removal handicapped children from the regular education setting is t o be provided CRS- 9 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 satisfactorily achieved. in be In the view of some State educators and organizations,. P.L. 9 4 - 1 4 2 is too or prescriptive i n instituting a "least restrictive environment, " "mainstreamingw approach. Such critics believe that the choice of method f o r providing 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 Classroom teacher. 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 trained 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 special education teachers. 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 handicapped child. 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. In 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 , the handicapped child. 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 place. 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 placement systems. P.L. 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 who 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 conflict. Serving children with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Because the 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 State grant formula until such t i m e a s Federal regulations were published that define6 and gave criteria f o r identifyi'ng learning disabilities. On Dec. 29, 1979, 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 servicesvr could include transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services a s speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical a n d occupational t h e r a p y , recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities, counseling services, medical services for 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 districts. 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 local 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 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 Children's Act. 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 of or enhanced equal educational opportunities for handicapped school-aged children. T h e three most recent evaluations of this program are discussed below. 1. - 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 children 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 program. 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. Education. - - - - - - - - .. , S - e . ~ 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. Further, 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. - 2. 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 school 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 should ultimately be responsible for providing other-than-educational services to handicapped children. Some S t a t e non-educational agencies have totally eliminated aid to handicapped students because they theorized that 94-142 f u n d s to educational agencies were receiving more than enough P.L. take responsibility f o r these services. 3. 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 educating handicapped children. 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 $7 billion nationally to educate handicapped children. This amount represented 2.7 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 2.48 a t the secondary level. 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 full-time 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 puFils. 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 special education to S t a t e a n d local educational agencies. 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 was $743 for instruction provided by regular education teachers in the regular classroom setting. In a d d i t i o n , related services cost a n average of $ 1 9 1 per child, assessment and identification $ 1 0 0 per together 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 request proposed reductions in 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 the Education of the Handicapped Act. For F Y 8 2 , t h e Administration requested a rescission of $ 2 5 6 m i i l i o n , or 2 8 % , for the education of the handicapped 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 per child. For F Y 8 3 , funding f o r the education of the handicapped was consolidation of the 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 Federal payment f o r about 4.5 million handicapped children currently participating in the programs proposed for consolidation from $ 2 4 6 to $180, and reducing the F e d e r a l share of the aggregate average per pupil expenditure for these programs from 10% to 7%. According 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 handicapped program (State-operated programs for the e d u c a t i o n . of the 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 the EHA into a special 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 Congress. k t the end of the 97th Congress, programs authorized under the Education 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: Education: F Y 8 2 and F Y 8 3 Funding Issues. j 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 program. In i t s statement accompanying the proposed regulations, ED argued that the changes would eliminate "excessive paperwork requirements and 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 general provisions. 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; the least 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 children 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 areas: parental consent prior to evaluation o r i n i t i a l placement, least restrictive environment, related services, timelines, attendance ofevaluation personnel a t IEP meetings and qualifications of personnel. In addition t o t h e announced withdrawal of certain proposed regulations, the Secretary extended the period for comment on modifications, occasioned by t h e 3 , 1982. Assistant Secretary of 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 of the -by ~ ~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 discretionary programs. For these expiring discretionary programs to receive funding in F Y 8 4 , their authorization of appropriations would have to be extended. 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. 414(a)2 (B). 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: Part (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 children with specific learning 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 programs. 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 students. New provisions would be included for: (1) inservice and preservice training of personnel w h o would work with handicapped students; (2) special training of personnel who would work with handicapped children 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 of the handicapped projects, and would authorize model demonstration projkcts f o r secondary education and transitional programs. Much of the language 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. 97-377, the 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, two supplemental appropriations bills added over $89 million i n FY83 S u d g e t authority f o r handicapped programs. 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 the EHA). T h i s is the f i r s t time since the program w a s enacted in 1975, 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. for Act the 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 billion (not including F Y 8 3 supplemental appropriations). 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 the Federal Government, , t o t h e EHA basic State g r a n t program, which is 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 children (compared to nonhandicapped children) at approximately 8%. The 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 (H.Con.Res. 91), allowed increases f o r education programs above a n FY83 base. The House-passed version of the f i r s t budget resolution contained a specific recommendation of $1.226 billion for EHA programs for FY84. The 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. P.L. 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 $1,214,445,000 for the education o f the handicapped account, a b o u t a $15 million (1%) increase over FY83 appropriations. The most significant i n c r e a s e is the nearly $26 million in 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 the removal of architectural barriers. T h e following table summarizes FY83 a n d F Y 8 4 appropriations for the various handicapped programs: Program FY83 approp. (P.L. 97-377; P - L , 98-8; P.L. 98-63) F Y 8 4 approp. (H.R. 3913 conf. agreement) Difference Education f o r the handicapped: State assistance: State grant program 1 , 0 1 7 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 Preschool incentive grants 25,000,000 Deaf-blind centers 15,360,000 Special purpose funds: Severely handicapped projects Early childhood education Regional vocational, adult and postsecondary programs innovation and development Media services and captioned films Regional resource centers Recruitment and information Special education personnel dev. Special studies Secondary Education a n d transiticnal services for handicapped youth barrier -.Architectural . removal T o t a l , Education for the handicapped 2,880,000 16r800r000 2,832,000 l2,000,000 l2,000,000 4,130,000 720,000 49,300,000 4 8 0 ,O Q Q --40,000,000 1,199,402,000 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.] o or LEGISLATION 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. Appropriates $ 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. 98-357). Passed House Sept. 22. Reported by Senate Committee o n Appropriations Sept. 28 (S.Rept. 98-247). 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. Signed into l a w ~ c t .3 1 , 1983. H.R. 3435 (Murphy et al.) Reauthorizes 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. Authorizes model 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. Conference scheduled Sept. 1 3 , 1983. S. 1 3 4 1 (Weicker) Education of t h e Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983. Reauthorizes discretionary programs under the Education of the Handicapped Act f o r F Y 8 4 through FY86. Adds language to encourage the use of F e d e r a l funds f o r handicapped children from birth. Mandates certain evaluation studies addressing the impact and effectiveness of EHA programs. Provides new authority for certain personnel training activities, and for the establishment of parent training and information programs. Authorizes mode1 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 Resources. 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. HEARINGS N/A REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Departments 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) U.S. Congress. 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 90/31/83 -- 09/13/83 -- 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. C7/30/83 -- 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 Resource Centers. 07/26/83 -- 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. 07/21/83 -- 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). 07/14/83 -- 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. 06/28/83 -- 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. 06/27/83 -- S e n a t e amended and passed S. 1 3 4 1 , the Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1983. 06/23/83 -- 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) . 05/18/83 -- 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. Human Resources. 03/24/83 -- 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. 11/04/82 -- 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. 08/04/62 -- 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 Handicapped Act. 08/10/82 -- Senate Subcommittee o n t h e Handicapped held hearings on proposed changes i n P a r t B regulations. 08/04/82 -- ED issued notice of proposed rulemaking f o r regulations governing t h e P a r t B program. 06/23/82 -- 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. 06/22/82 -- 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. 06/10/82 -- 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 (Latta amendment). 03/31/82 -- 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. 02/08/82 -- 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. 12/15/81 -- 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. 08/13/81 -- Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1 9 6 1 signed into l a w , P.L: 97-35. 06/05/81 -- Supplemental Appropriations a n d Rescission Act, 1 9 8 1 , signed into l a w , P.L. 97-12. 03/25/81 -- 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 . 11/20/80 -- 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. 09/10/80 -- 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. 08/23/77 -- 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 Incentive grants, 05/04/77 -- F i n a l regulations issued for S e c , 5 0 4 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act - Nondiscrimination o n the basis of handicap. Bi/29/75 -- 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. Executive summary, 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, May 1979. 2 7 pages. Rand Corporation. 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. U.S. 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. Washington, 1980. 2 1 9 p. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. O f f i c e of Education. 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 Act. Washington, January 1979. 215 p. (LRS79-3638) U.S. 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. 1978. 6 5 p. (LRS78-1825) ----- Washington, Unanswered questions o n educating handicapped children i n l o c a l public schools. Washington. 1981. 1 2 2 p. U.S. 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 schools: 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 Evans. 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.