Page images
PDF
EPUB

29

(2) the term "local educational agency" has the

meaning given it by section 602 (8) of such Act (20

1

2

3

U.S.C. 1402 (8)).

4

5

CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF REGULATIONS

SEC. 10. Section 431 (d) (1) of the General Education 6 Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232 (d) (1)) is amended by 7 adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Fail8 ure of the Congress to adopt such a concurrent resolution. 9 with respect to any such standard, rule, regulation, or re10 quirement prescribed under any such Act, shall not repre11 sent, with respect to such standard, rule, regulation, or re12 quirement, an approval or finding of consistency with the 13 Act from which it derives its authority for any purpose, nor 14 shall such failure to adopt a concurrent resolution be con15 strued as evidence of an approval or finding of consistency 16 necessary to establish a prima facie case, or an inference or 17 presumption, in any judicial proceeding.".

[blocks in formation]

19 SEC. 11. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 20 foregoing provisions of this Act shall take effect at the close

21 of June 30, 1975.

22 2

(b) The amendments made by sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and

23 8 shall take effect at the close of September 30, 1977.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair is very pleased to welcome the distinguished Commissioner of Education, Mr. Terrel Bell, this morning to speak for the administration.

Mr. Bell, glad to have you with us.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. T. H. BELL, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be with you this morning to discuss H.R. 7217, the "Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975." We very much appreciate the Subcommittee's rapid response to our request for a hearing on this bill before mark-up by the full Committee.

Let me begin my statement this morning by assuring you that we in HEW, like the Congress, are committed to the goal of making full equality of opportunity in the field of education available to all handicapped children.

As you know, the Federal effort in improving the capacity of State and local education agencies to provide educational services to the handicapped has increased rapidly in the past decade. Not only has the obligation level risen over ten times, but the scope of programs has broadened considerably. From a narrow program in 1964 centered primarily on the education of the deaf and blind, Office of Education efforts for education of the handicapped now support a broad measure of activities, including training for teachers and administrators; demonstration and dissemination of exemplary programs; identification and diagnosis of handicapped children; and direct aid to programs for the severely handicapped, deaf-blind, and children in State institutions.

In addition, the Office of Education is distributing, as required by Congress, $100 million in FY 1975 under the provisions of Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, as amended in 1974 by P.L. 93-380. This provision offers funds to States for the initiation, expansion and improvement of their own special education programs.

Historically, the responsibility for the education of children has rested with the States. Roughly 80 percent of the total funding for education for the handicapped is provided by non-Federal agencies. Further, a substantial body of litigation continues to clarify the State role in the financing and administration of education, including the education of the handicapped. Accordingly, it is clear to us that the ultimate responsibility for education rests with the States, not with the Federal government.

While the Federal role in financing the education of the Nation's children remains secondary, prohibiting discrimination against handicapped children in education is a specific Federal responsibility. Legislation passed by the Congress in the past two years gives the Executive Branch authority to enforce both the elimination of all discrimination against the handicapped in Federally assisted programs and activities (Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and specific requirements for approving State plans to provide special education (Sections 612 and 615 of the Education Amendments of 1974).

I want to emphasize that both the Department and the Office of Education are taking these responsibilities seriously. Regulations to insure State compliance with these statutes will be issued in the near future.

We have basic problems with several provisions of H. R. 7217 related to finance, administrative burden, Federal control, and quality of care for handicapped children.

Let me begin by listing our concerns for the care of children. This bill proposes to solve problems in the area of special education with remedies which have not yet been proven successful for all children. For example:

While individualized plans are being utilized in some States, there is no evaluation evidence to indicate that they are successful in overcoming the problems of communication between schools and the parents of handicapped children or in improving education.

The assumption that mainstreaming children always represents the most effective means of educating handicapped children has not yet been shown, and so care must be used in insisting that progress means more placements in regular education programs.

Second, we must question the proposed authorization levels and the allocation process contained in H.R. 7217.

of activities, including training for teachers and administrators, demonstration and dissemination of exemplary programs; identification and diagnosis of handicapped children; and direct aid to programs for the severely handicapped, deaf-blind, and children in State institutions.

In addition, the Office of Education is distributing, as required by Congress, $100 million in fiscal year 1975 under the provisions of part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, as amended in 1974 by Public Law 93-380. This provision offers funds to States for the initiation, expansion, and improvement of their own special education programs.

Historically, the responsibility for the education of children has rested with the States. Roughly 80 percent of the total funding for education for the handicapped is provided by non-Federal agencies. Further, a substantial body of litigation continues to clarify the State role in the financing and administration of education, including the education of the handicapped. Accordingly, it is clear to us that the ultimate responsibility for education rests with the States, not with the Federal Government.

While the Federal role in financing the education of the Nation's children remains secondary, prohibiting discrimination against handicapped children in education is a specific Federal responsibility. Legislation passed by the Congress in the past 2 years gives the executive branch authority to enforce both the elimination of all discrimination against the handicapped in federally assisted programs and activities-section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973and specific requirements for approving State plans to provide special education-sections 612 and 615 of the Education Amendments of 1974-now referred to as Public Law 93-830.

I want to emphasize that both the Department and the Office of Education are taking these responsibilities seriously. Regulations to insure State compliance with these statutes will be issued in the near future.

We have basic problems with several provisions of H.R. 7217 related to finance, administrative burden, Federal control, and quality of care for handicapped children.

Let me begin, if I may, by listing our concerns for the care of children. This bill proposes to solve problems in the area of special education with remedies which have not yet been proven successful for all children.

For example:

While individualized plans are being utilized in some States, there is no evaluation evidence to indicate that they are successful in overcoming the problems of communication between schools and the parents of handicapped children or in improving education.

The assumption that mainstreaming children always represents the most effective means of educating handicapped children has not yet been shown, and so care must be used in insisting that progress means more placements in regular education programs. Second, we must question the proposed authorization levels and the allocation process contained in H.R. 7217.

attention on ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children. Specifically, we will continue to provide States with a broad range of technical assistance and trained personnel; we will publish regulations to enforce strong Federal nondiscrimination statutes; and we will provide States with approximately $350 million in assistance through our existing programs in FY 1975.

Moreover, I would like to stress a simple fact which we all know, but which is an important element in this discussion. The amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act contained in P.L. 93-380 have been in effect for less than ten months. That law not only changed the Part B formula but also mandated sweeping and far reaching provisions on full opportunity, due process, confidentiality, and nondiscriminatory testing. It is important to note that the deadline for State plans for FY 1975 was March 17. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped is currently in the review process. More extensive plans for FY 1976 are not due until August 21. These plans must include procedures for child identification and maintenance of confidentiality, a detailed time table for accomplishing a goal of full educational opportunity, and a description of the kind and number of facilities, personnel, and services necessary to meet that goal. The Bureau is working closely with States to implement P.L. 93-380, but until the State plans which reflect these requirements have been analyzed, it is impossible to know whether States can effectively absorb additional Federal funds as proposed in this bill. We need time to assess the impact of the FY 1975 doubling of Part B monies on the States' education plans. We are concerned that this money not be used to supplant existing State expenditures in programs for the handicapped, and thus prefer a breathing period to evaluate the State response to this increase. The Congress and the Executive Branch have worked cooperatively in the last decade on behalf of handicapped children. We believe that enacting legislation such as H.R. 7217, with its profound and undesirable expansion of Federal responsibilities, is not warranted. We feel that more careful analysis of the current roles played by the various governmental agencies at all levels is necessary. In concert with Congress, we should analyze all the Federal programs and examine in depth the question of all services for the handicapped.

Accordingly, we would recommend to the House Committee on Education and Labor that it not report H.R. 7217.

We thank you once again for your rapid consent to our appearance here this morning, Mr. Chairman. At this point, we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. TERREL H. BELL, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD A. HASTINGS, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION (EDUCATION), DHEW; AND EDWIN W. MARTIN, JR., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF EDUCATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED (OE)

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be with you this morning to discuss H.R. 7217, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. We very much appreciate the subcommittee's rapid response to our request for a hearing on this bill before markup by the full committee.

Let me begin my statement this morning by assuring you that we in HEW, like the Congress, are committed to the goal of making full equality of opportunity in the field of education available to all handicapped children.

As you know, the Federal effort in improving the capacity of State and local education agencies to provide educational services to the handicapped has increased rapidly in the past decade. Not only has the obligation level risen over 10 times, but the scope of programs has broadened considerably. From a narrow program in 1964 centered primarily on the education of the deaf and blind, Office of Education efforts for education of the handicapped now support a broad measure

of activities, including training for teachers and administrators, demonstration and dissemination of exemplary programs; identification and diagnosis of handicapped children; and direct aid to programs for the severely handicapped, deaf-blind, and children in State institutions.

In addition, the Office of Education is distributing, as required by Congress, $100 million in fiscal year 1975 under the provisions of part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, as amended in 1974 by Public Law 93-380. This provision offers funds to States for the initiation, expansion, and improvement of their own special education programs.

Historically, the responsibility for the education of children has rested with the States. Roughly 80 percent of the total funding for education for the handicapped is provided by non-Federal agencies. Further, a substantial body of litigation continues to clarify the State role in the financing and administration of education, including the education of the handicapped. Accordingly, it is clear to us that the ultimate responsibility for education rests with the States, not with the Federal Government.

While the Federal role in financing the education of the Nation's children remains secondary, prohibiting discrimination against handicapped children in education is a specific Federal responsibility. Legislation passed by the Congress in the past 2 years gives the executive branch authority to enforce both the elimination of all discrimination against the handicapped in federally assisted programs and activities-section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973and specific requirements for approving State plans to provide special education-sections 612 and 615 of the Education Amendments of 1974-now referred to as Public Law 93-830.

I want to emphasize that both the Department and the Office of Education are taking these responsibilities seriously. Regulations to insure State compliance with these statutes will be issued in the near future.

We have basic problems with several provisions of H.R. 7217 related to finance, administrative burden, Federal control, and quality of care for handicapped children.

Let me begin, if I may, by listing our concerns for the care of children. This bill proposes to solve problems in the area of special education with remedies which have not yet been proven successful for all children.

For example:

While individualized plans are being utilized in some States, there is no evaluation evidence to indicate that they are successful in overcoming the problems of communication between schools and the parents of handicapped children or in improving education.

The assumption that mainstreaming children always represents the most effective means of educating handicapped children has not yet been shown, and so care must be used in insisting that progress means more placements in regular education programs. Second, we must question the proposed authorization levels and the allocation process contained in H. R. 7217.

« PreviousContinue »