United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions,
U.S. Senate
May 2003
SPECIAL
EDUCATION
Clearer Guidance
Would Enhance
Implementation of
Federal Disciplinary
Provisions
GAO-03-550
May 2003
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Clearer Guidance Would Enhance
Highlights of GAO-03-550, a report to the Implementation of Federal Disciplinary
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Provisions
U.S. Senate
In the 2000-01 school year, more In the districts and schools in the three states GAO studied, disciplined
than 91,000 special education special education students were primarily placed in in-school suspension
students were removed from their rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home, according to survey
educational settings for respondents. These short-term settings were used most frequently because
disciplinary reasons. Under the most of the special education students in these schools and districts were
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), schools are
removed from their regular educational settings for periods of 10 days or
required to provide educational less, according to respondents. Special education students who were
services to special education removed for longer than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools
students who are removed from or homebound placements. In addition to considering the length of the
their educational settings for more student’s removal when deciding where to place disciplined special
than 10 days in a school year. education students, school and district officials considered the cost and
availability of placement options and the nature of the student’s offense and
The Committee’s Ranking Minority corresponding disciplinary action.
Member asked GAO to determine
where disciplined special Schools and school district officials in the three states reported that they
education students are placed, the provided a range of services to disciplined special education students.
extent to which local school
districts continue educational
However, how the schools and school districts provided these services
services for these students, and varied significantly. For example, some school districts used self-paced
how the U.S. Department of instructional packages to provide educational services to disciplined special
Education provides support and education students. Other school districts, however, used tutoring by special
oversight for special education education instructional personnel to provide educational services for similar
disciplinary placements. To students. In addition to educational services, some disciplined special
address these objectives, GAO education students had access to other services such as counseling.
conducted a study, using surveys
and site-visits, of special education The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states and
disciplinary placements in three school districts for special education disciplinary placements by providing
states—Illinois, Maryland, and information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-assessments,
North Carolina.
improvement plans, and data and conducting on-site data collection visits in
selected states. However, according to some state and local officials, this
guidance has not been specific enough. In particular, the regulations do not
GAO recommends that the provide illustrative examples specifying whether the days of in-school
Secretary of Education issue suspension should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In
supplemental guidance to state and addition, Education’s IDEA oversight system may not detect possible
local education agencies to assist noncompliance because it relies on state monitoring efforts, including state
them in implementing IDEA's self-assessments and discipline data that have been shown to contain some
disciplinary provisions. inaccuracies. Education’s next generation of its oversight system has
recently been approved by the department and will be implemented in
calendar year 2003. This new oversight system includes a component to
validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-550.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at
(202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 5
Disciplined Students Were Primarily Placed in In-School
Suspension Rooms and Out-of-School Suspensions at Home 7
Schools and School Districts Provided a Range of Services to
Disciplined Special Education Students 9
Education’s Guidance and Oversight of Disciplinary Placements
Has Been Limited 12
Conclusions 17
Recommendation for Executive Action 18
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20
State Selection 20
Site Visits 21
Surveys 21
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 23
Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 27
GAO Contact 27
Staff Acknowledgments 27
Tables
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by
Short- and Long-Term Placement Type in Selected Schools
and Districts in Three States 11
Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits 21
Page i GAO-03-550 Special Education
Abbreviations
CIFMS Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System
CIMP Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IEP Individualized Education Program
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials.
Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page ii GAO-03-550 Special Education
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
May 20, 2003
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions
United States Senate
Dear Senator Kennedy:
In the 2000-01 school year, education officials removed more than
91,000 special education students, including students with serious
emotional disturbance and specific learning disabilities, from their current
school settings for disciplinary reasons. This was approximately
1.4 percent of all special education students who received public
educational services that year. Little is known, however, about where local
school districts and schools placed these disciplined special education
students or the extent to which these students continued to receive
services during their removal.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) enacted in
1990, special education students are entitled to specific rights and
services. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the removal of
special education students from their current educational settings for any
violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how long these
students could be removed without educational services. Specifically,
IDEA requires schools to provide educational services to special education
students who are removed from their current educational settings for
more than 10 cumulative days in a school year. Schools are required to
provide these students with the educational and related services outlined
in the student’s individualized education program (IEP).1 In 1999, the U.S.
Department of Education issued federal regulations that implemented the
new IDEA special education discipline requirements; states and local
school districts have also added their own disciplinary policies.
1
The term “individualized education program” refers to a written statement that is
developed for each student with a disability that specifies the goals and objectives for the
student, describes the services the student will receive, and specifies the extent to which
the student will participate in the regular education settings with nondisabled peers and/or
in the general curriculum adopted for all students.
Page 1 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Because little is known about the disciplinary placements of special
education students, you asked us to determine: (1) where special
education students are placed when they are removed from their
educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local
school districts in selected states continue educational services for special
education students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are
disciplined, and what types of services are provided; and (3) how
Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements
used for special education students.
Because there were limited national data about where special education
students were placed when they were removed from their educational
settings for disciplinary reasons, we conducted an in-depth study of the
use of disciplinary placements for special education students in the middle
and high school grades in three states—Illinois, Maryland, and
North Carolina. We used national data on the number of students served
under IDEA and the extent to which these students were disciplined to
determine the states, school districts, and schools to be included in our
study. These states were selected because they differed in the number and
percent of special education students who were disciplined and the
number of disciplined special education students who were removed from
their educational settings on a short-term or long-term basis. We collected
data for school year 2001-02, the most current data available. In these
states, we surveyed a total of 36 district special education administrators
and 78 school principals from school districts representing a range of
demographic characteristics. We had response rates of 83 percent
(30 school districts) for our district special education administrators’
survey and 63 percent (49 schools) for our survey of school officials.2
Some respondents to the district and school surveys, however, did not
answer or provide complete information for all of the questions contained
in their respective surveys.
Therefore, for some issues, we report on a subset of the total responses.
Additionally, while we did not verify the reported data, the information
collected during the site visits to selected districts and schools was
consistent with information collected though the surveys. Our results are
2
School district special education directors, student service directors, and other staff, or a
combination of these district personnel responded to GAO’s survey of school district
special education directors. School principals, assistant principals, special education
coordinators, and other staff, or a combination of these school personnel responded to
GAO’s survey of middle and high school officials.
Page 2 GAO-03-550 Special Education
not generalizeable to the population of districts and schools in these
three states or nationally. We also reviewed agency documents to
determine the federal role in providing oversight and guidance for
disciplinary placements and examined agency databases for national data
regarding the discipline of special education students. In addition, we
interviewed federal officials, national education organizations’
representatives, and special education experts concerning disciplinary
placements for special education students. We conducted our work
between May 2002 and April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Appendix I explains our methodology in
more detail.
In the districts and schools in the three states selected for our study,
Results in Brief disciplined special education students who were removed from their
regular educational settings were primarily placed in two short-term
suspension settings: in-school suspension rooms or out-of-school
suspensions at home, according to survey respondents. The length of a
student’s removal was a key consideration in placement decisions.
Because most special education students were removed from their regular
educational settings for periods of 10 days or less, in-school suspension
rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home—short-term disciplinary
settings—were the most frequently used placement settings, according to
respondents. Special education students who were removed for longer
than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools or homebound
placements. Several other factors affected placement decisions, including
the cumulative number of days a student had been removed during the
school year, the cost and availability of placement options, and the nature
of the student’s offense and corresponding disciplinary action.
School and school district officials in the three states we studied reported
providing a variety of services in different settings to disciplined special
education students. However, the degree to which the service included
active instruction and the qualifications of the service provider varied
significantly. For example, some school districts used self-paced
instructional packages to provide educational services to disciplined
special education students. But, others used more active instruction, such
as tutoring by special education instructional personnel. A disciplined
special education student may also have access to other services such as
counseling, though the availability of these services varied from district to
district. School district officials reported that they generally did not
provide any services to assist returning special education students in
Page 3 GAO-03-550 Special Education
acclimating to their regular educational setting after a disciplinary
placement, and the provision of such services is not required by law.
The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states
and school districts for disciplinary placements of special education
students by providing information on federal requirements and reviewing
state self-assessments, improvement plans, and data, and conducting
on-site data collection visits in selected states. However, according to
some state and local education officials, this guidance was not specific
enough. In particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples
specifying whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as
days of removal under the 10-day rule. Some state and local education
officials also said that the information contained in the regulations was
difficult to access. In addition, Education’s oversight system, called the
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, may not detect possible
noncompliance because it relies on state monitoring efforts, including
state self-assessments and discipline data that contain some inaccuracies.
According to Education, some state monitoring systems were not effective
at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements and the
information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have
contained inaccurate information. States’ discipline data contain some
inaccuracies because of inconsistent data collection, entry, and
verification within and across school districts. Education’s next generation
oversight system, known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring System, has been recently approved by the department and
will be implemented during calendar year 2003, according to Education
officials. This new system was designed to focus the attention of the
department’s monitoring efforts on the states that need the most support
to improve their performance. In addition, Education plans to conduct site
visits to selected states to validate data used by the system to make federal
oversight decisions.
In this report we are recommending that the Secretary of Education issue
supplemental guidance on IDEA’s disciplinary provisions to state and local
education agencies to assist them in implementing the provisions,
particularly on determining whether a day of in-school suspension should
be counted as a day of removal under the 10-day rule. Education indicated
that it provided sufficient guidance and did not see the need for
supplemental guidance. However, some of the school and school district
officials we interviewed indicated that additional guidance on this topic is
needed.
Page 4 GAO-03-550 Special Education
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of
Background children with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities, speech
and language impairments, mental retardation, and serious emotional
disturbance. The law mandates that a free appropriate public education be
made available for all eligible children with disabilities, ensures due
process rights, requires an IEP for each student, and requires the
placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.
In school year 2002, more than 6 million children aged 3 through
21 received education services under the act at a federal cost of
approximately $8 billion. In addition, state governments provided more
than $48 billion in additional funding to implement the act’s requirements.
Under IDEA and the 1999 implementing federal regulations on discipline,
schools must follow certain procedures to remove a student from his or
her educational setting for disciplinary purposes. Specifically, schools may
suspend a special education student for up to 10 school days in a given
school year without providing educational services.3 Under the
regulations, school personnel in consultation with the child’s special
education teacher are required to determine the educational services
needed to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general
curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving the goals set out
in the child’s IEP.4 In addition, schools may repeatedly suspend a special
education student on a short-term basis (not more than 10 days) even if
the suspensions cumulatively total more than 10 school days, so long as
educational services are provided to the student after the tenth suspension
day in a given school year. The regulations also allow schools to remove a
special education student for up to 45 days to an interim alternative
educational setting if the student commits a weapons or drug violation at
school or is determined by a hearing officer to be a danger to self or
others. Additionally, if school officials request an extension, a hearing
officer may extend this 45-day removal period.
3
Where a special education student’s misconduct is not a manifestation of the student’s
disability, the student is subject to the same disciplinary procedures applicable to children
without disabilities, including long-term suspensions (more than 10 days) and expulsions.
However, the school must still provide educational services that enable the child to
progress appropriately towards the student’s IEP goals.
4
It is important to note that for students removed for behavior that is not a manifestation of
their disability, the IEP team determines the extent to which services are necessary to
enable the child to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately
advance toward achieving the goals set out in the child’s IEP.
Page 5 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Because school districts are provided considerable leeway in determining
disciplinary placements, they choose many settings to function as
disciplinary placements including, for example, in-school suspension
rooms, alternative schools, out of school suspensions at home, and
homebound placements. The difference between homebound placements
and out-of-school suspensions at home is that homebound placements
were generally used for extended periods and involved service provisions,
while out-of-school suspensions at home were used for short periods of
under 10 days and generally did not include the provision of instructional
services. School personnel and the student’s IEP team5 are responsible for
making decisions regarding the appropriateness of disciplinary settings. A
hearing officer or court may also make the decisions.
In 2001, we studied how IDEA regulations affected the ability of schools to
maintain a safe learning environment and whether regular and special
education students are disciplined in a similar manner.6 We found that
IDEA regulations played only a limited role in affecting schools’ ability to
properly discipline students and that in cases of serious misconduct,
regular and special education students were disciplined in a similar
manner. Although the study briefly touched upon the role alternative
placements play in the disciplinary process for special education students,
a description of the characteristics of these settings and the extent of their
use fell outside of the study’s scope. Moreover, the study focused on
serious student misconduct (drugs, weapons, assault, rape, sexual assault,
and robbery) and did not focus on less serious offenses.
5
The term “individualized education program team” refers to the group of individuals,
including school administrators, regular and special education teachers, and parents, who
are responsible for developing, reviewing, or revising an individualized education program
for a student with a disability.
6
See U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Discipline: Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, GAO-01-210 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2001).
Page 6 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Disciplined special education students were primarily placed in one of two
Disciplined Students short-term disciplinary settings: in-school suspension rooms or out-of
Were Primarily Placed school suspension at home, according to survey respondents in three
selected states. The length of a student’s removal was a key consideration
in In-School in placement decisions. Because most disciplined special education
Suspension Rooms students were generally removed for short periods of time, these two
short-term disciplinary settings were the most frequently used. Students
and Out-of-School removed for longer periods (exceeding 10 days) were more likely to be
Suspensions at Home placed in settings with greater access to service providers, such as
alternative schools or homebound placements. Other factors affecting
placement decisions included the cumulative number of days a student
had been removed, the cost and availability of placement options and the
nature of the student offense. Our survey results indicated that the
placements of disciplined special education students were similar to those
of disciplined regular education students.
Of the 32 school officials who responded to our survey and could provide
student removal rate data, 31 reported that either in-school suspension
rooms or out-of-school suspensions at home were the most frequently
used placements for disciplined special education students.7 While district
special education administrators and school officials primarily used short-
term placements, such as in-school suspension rooms and out-of-school
suspensions at home, to discipline special education students, they also
reported placing special education students in longer-term disciplinary
placements such as alternative schools and homebound placements.8
According to survey respondents, about two-thirds of the districts and
one-quarter of the schools used these types of placements; they were used
much less frequently than short-term settings.
In addition to the length of the student’s removal, school and district
administrators reported considering several other factors when making
placement decisions, including the cumulative number of days the student
7
Seventeen of the 49 respondents to the survey of middle and high school officials did not
provide removal rate data for disciplined special education students. The extent to which
districts officials were knowledgeable of schools’ use of in-school suspension settings
varied. As a result, we were unable to collect reliable information about the use of in-
school suspension rooms from district administrators.
8
Short-term disciplinary placements refers to those placements that are used to discipline
special education students for 10 days or less. Longer-term disciplinary placements refers
to those placements that are used to discipline special education students for more than
10 days.
Page 7 GAO-03-550 Special Education
had been removed during the school year, the cost and availability of
placement options, and the student’s offense. First, because federal law
provides that special education students may not be removed for more
than 10 days in a school year without the provision of services, schools
and districts considered the cumulative number of days a special
education student had previously been removed when making placement
decisions for special education students. If a special education student
was about to exceed or had already exceeded the 10-day limit, schools and
districts generally placed the student in settings with access to service
providers, such as alternative schools or homebound settings with
services.
Second, due to cost and administrative concerns, most schools and
districts in the states we visited only placed disciplined students in those
placements to which they had readily available access. Under special
circumstances, such as unique student needs or court orders, schools
would remove students to placements that they did not normally use such
as residential schools that may be located outside of the school district. If
a placement with greater access to service providers was not available or
was too costly, some school and district officials reported that they
reduced the length of the student’s removal or eliminated the removal all
together. In addition, the schools that we visited in our study sometimes
used the practice of “banking” removal days, or allowing them to be
“saved” and served later, to make sure that the total number of days a
student was removed did not exceed 10 for a given school year. According
to national education organization officials, “banking” removal days is not
an uncommon practice because it allows school officials to ensure that
disciplined students do not reach the 10-day limit early in the school year.
Finally, students’ offenses and required disciplinary actions were also
considerations in placing a disciplined student. The schools districts we
visited operated under a student conduct code that required specific
disciplinary action for various offenses. The student conduct code
therefore often dictated placement decisions. For example, a weapons or
drugs offense might require placement at an alternative school, whereas a
lesser infraction, such as being disruptive, might require an in-school
suspension.
Disciplinary placements of special education students were similar to
those of other students, based on our survey results. In addition, schools
and districts generally used the same criteria in determining where to
place students. However, administrators reported considering cumulative
days that a student had been removed when placing special education
Page 8 GAO-03-550 Special Education
students but not when making placement decisions for regular education
students.
In the 2001-2002 school year, schools and school district officials in the
Schools and School three states that we studied reported providing a range of services to
Districts Provided a disciplined special education students. However, how schools and school
districts provided educational and other services varied significantly.
Range of Services to School district officials reported that they generally did not provide any
Disciplined Special services to assist returning special education students in acclimating to
their regular educational setting after a disciplinary placement, and the
Education Students provision of such services is not required by law.
Schools and School The educational services provided to students in disciplinary settings
Districts Provided varied considerably by the degree to which the service included active
Educational Services, but instruction. For example, in one school, educational services for a
disciplined student consisted of an academic packet, which was generally
These Services Varied the material the student would miss when he or she was away from the
Significantly regular educational setting. When presented with a packet, it was up to the
student to work through and complete the packet. In another district,
educational services in disciplinary settings included active instruction,
such as tutoring by special education instructional personnel. However,
the amount of time spent giving the disciplined student this instruction
varied considerably. For example, in one district, a special education
student in a disciplinary setting received 6 hours of active instruction per
day, while in other schools they received no instruction. Further,
according to the district officials we surveyed, the qualifications of
instructional staff varied widely across placements and disciplinary
settings. For example, the survey respondents in our study reported that
educators at alternative schools were more likely to be certified, while
instructional staff in in-school suspension rooms and homebound
placements ranged in qualifications from fully certified to uncertified.
Page 9 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Services Other Than Special education students in disciplinary placements may have access to
Educational Services Were other services in addition to educational services, although the availability
Sometimes Available, of these services varied. The type of service provided usually depended on
the needs of the student as defined in the student’s IEP as well as the
though Their Availability availability of services9 within the school district. In addition to
Varied by Placement educational services, other services could be made available during
disciplinary placements to meet the requirements of the IEP, according to
survey results. These services could include: counseling and other related
services.
Counseling by a guidance counselor was also commonly made available to
disciplined students. Related services such as speech pathology and
occupational therapy were less available. The availability of services and
providers was in large part determined by where a student was placed
while being disciplined. For example, students placed in alternative
schools generally had access to most services and providers, whereas
disciplined students placed in out-of-school suspensions at home rarely
had access to services other than educational services. See table 1 for
services and providers by placement type.
9
We define services as being available when they are available to disciplined special
education students 50 percent or more of the time in a given disciplinary placement.
Page 10 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by Short- and Long-
Term Placement Type in Selected Schools and Districts in Three States
Services available in majority Providers available in
a b
Placement type of placements majority of placements
Short-term placements
In-school suspension Remediation/tutoring and Teacher.c
counseling.
Out-of-school Services other than educational
suspension at home rarely available in this setting.
Long-term placements
Alternative school Remediation/tutoring, counseling, Teacher, guidance
substance abuse counseling, counselor,
related services, and employment psychologist/psychiatrist,
transition services. related service provider,
and teacher’s aide.
Homebound placement Remediation/tutoring and related Teacher and related
services. service provider.
Nonpublic or private Remediation/tutoring, counseling, Teacher, academic
school placement related services, and employment specialist,
transition services. psychologist/psychiatrist,
related service provider,
teacher’s aide, one-to-
one crisis intervention
specialist, social worker,
and employment
transition specialist.
Residential program Remediation/tutoring, counseling, Teacher,
related services, and employment psychologist/psychiatrist,
transition services. related service provider,
teacher’s aide, social
worker, and employment
transition specialist.
Source: GAO school and district survey data in three selected states.
a
We define services as being available when they are available to disciplined special education
students 50 percent or more of the time in a given placement. For example, 38 of 49 respondents
indicated “in-school” suspensions were used, and 28 of that 49 reported that “related services” were
available in that type of placement.
b
We define providers available as being available to special education students 50 percent or more of
the time in a given placement.
c
Teacher includes certified regular education or special education teachers.
School Districts Generally School districts generally did not provide reintegration services for
Did Not Provide Services disciplined special education students returning from long-term
to Assist Students placements. Education’s regulations do not require the provision of
reintegration services for students with disabilities, and only about one-
Transferring from a third of school districts we surveyed indicated that they provided them.
Long-Term Disciplinary While such services are not required, national education organizations’
Placement
Page 11 GAO-03-550 Special Education
officials agreed that the provision of reintegration services helps students
make a successful transition back to their regular educational setting.
When reintegration services were provided, they varied greatly. For
example, in one school district, school officials allowed students to
transition slowly from their long-term disciplinary setting, gradually
increasing the amount of time per day that students spent in their regular
educational settings. However, in some instances, reintegration services
were limited. For example, in one district, officials said that reintegration
services consisted of receiving a folder of information about the students
experiences at the alternative school, and in other schools these services
consisted of a meeting, prior to the student’s return to the regular
educational setting, between the school administrators, the disciplined
student, and his or her parents.
Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school districts
Education’s Guidance for disciplinary placements of special education students by providing
and Oversight of information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-assessments,
improvement plans, and data, and conducting on-site data collection visits
Disciplinary in selected states. However, the guidance on certain aspects of disciplinary
Placements Has Been placements was limited. In addition, Education’s oversight system may not
detect possible noncompliance. The system relies on the results of state
Limited monitoring efforts that are not always reliable and discipline data that
contain some inaccuracies. Education’s next generation oversight system,
known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System,
has been recently approved by the department and will be implemented in
calendar year 2003, according to Education officials. This new system was
designed to focus the attention of the department’s monitoring efforts on
the states that need the most support to improve their performance. In
addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in selected states to
validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
Education Provided Under its responsibilities for IDEA implementation, Education provided
General Guidance on general guidance to state and local education officials on disciplinary
Special Education placement issues. However, according to some state and local education
officials, this guidance was not specific enough. For example, while the
Disciplinary Placements department provided assistance in the form of information and technical
assistance concerning the general implementation the act’s disciplinary
requirements, the assistance generally did not include enough details on
disciplinary placement questions, such as how to determine whether the
days of in-school suspension should be counted as days of removal under
Page 12 GAO-03-550 Special Education
the 10-day rule. Further, national education organization officials also
cited the limited federal guidance on in-school suspension.
According to some district officials, while Education’s regulations
describe IDEA’s 10-day rule, the guidance is limited because the
regulations do not provide illustrative examples concerning how the
10-day rule could be applied to a range of circumstances at the local level.
Under the 10-day rule, schools can discipline special education students
for up to 10 days in a school year without providing educational or other
services specified in their IEPs. However, some school and district
officials indicated that being provided with examples that illustrate how to
determine whether the days of in-school suspension should be counted as
days of removal under the 10-day rule would assist them in ensuring that
disciplined special education students are not without their IEP services
for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year.
Education officials suggested that state and local education officials who
need clarification of the 10-day rule refer to the disciplinary section of the
preamble to the regulations and the discussion of comments on the act’s
disciplinary requirements. The information that Education identified
concerning in-school suspension as it applies to the 10-day rule is not in
the federal regulations. Rather, the discussion of in-schools suspension
appears only in a 1999 Federal Register notice,10 a document that is less
accessible to the public than departmental regulations. As a result, some
school officials may have been unaware that the Federal Register notice
accompanying the IDEA discipline regulations contained criteria to be
used in determining whether days of in-school suspension should be
counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. In this notice,
Education provided general criteria for determining whether a day in in-
school suspension should be counted as a day of suspension, but it does
not provide details and examples to assist schools and districts in applying
the criteria.11 Our findings regarding the limited guidance available and
10
See 64 Fed. Reg. 12619 (1999).
11
According to Education’s criteria, an in-school suspension would not be considered a day
of suspension as long as the child is afforded the opportunity to continue to appropriately
progress in the general curriculum, continue to receive the services specified on his or her
IEP, and continue to participate with nondisabled children to the extent they would have in
their current placement.
Page 13 GAO-03-550 Special Education
accessible on in-school suspensions are consistent with the findings of the
2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education.12
Education’s Oversight Education’s oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance
System May Not Have the because it relies on state-submitted information that may not be reliable.
Necessary Information to Therefore, Education may be unable to identify the appropriate level of
oversight for particular states. According to Education officials,
Determine if Disciplinary Education’s next generation oversight system—known as the Continuous
Requirements Were Met Improvement and Focused Monitoring System—was recently approved by
the department and will be implemented during calendar year 2003. This
new system was designed to focus the attention of the department’s
monitoring efforts on the states that need the most support to improve
their performance. In addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in
selected states to validate data used by the system to make federal
oversight decisions.
Under IDEA, states have oversight responsibility for monitoring the
implementation of a broad set of requirements under the act, including
disciplinary placements. States have responsibility for monitoring districts’
implementation of IDEA requirements and preparing reports for
Education, documenting the results of their oversight efforts. States
generally fulfill this responsibility by engaging in activities such as
gathering discipline data and by requiring districts to complete reports
documenting compliance with requirements.
Education has responsibility for overseeing state compliance with IDEA
requirements. In 1998, Education implemented an oversight system known
as the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). The
oversight system relies on the administrative review of information
obtained primarily from two sources: (1) state monitoring efforts and
(2) state discipline data. Education uses information obtained from these
two sources to determine the appropriate amount of federal oversight that
a state will receive, such as whether or not a site visit to the state will be
conducted. If the information submitted indicates that the state is in
12
The President’s Commission found that Education’s regulations implementing IDEA are
unreasonably complex and burdensome for state and local agencies to comply with. For
more information on the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, see
A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, U.S.
Department of Education, President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
Page 14 GAO-03-550 Special Education
compliance with IDEA requirements or has proposed strategies to come
into compliance, Education officials continue to track IDEA
implementation but generally do not visit the state. However, if the
department’s administrative review determines that the state did not
effectively identify areas of noncompliance and other areas needing
improvement, Education officials will conduct one or more site visits to
the state to assess the situation and assist the state in developing
improvement strategies.
Under the CIMP oversight system, states are expected by Education to
undertake a number of monitoring activities to demonstrate their
compliance with IDEA requirements. It is the responsibility of each state
to work with a diverse group of stakeholders, including state and local
education officials, parents, and advocacy groups, to evaluate the state’s
effectiveness in achieving compliance with IDEA. This generally involves
conducting a self-assessment and developing an improvement plan to
correct any deficiencies. According to Education officials, states were
strongly encouraged to document state performance, as part of the self-
assessment process, by submitting an analysis of their monitoring findings
of the school districts. States were also encouraged to document
corrective actions taken by districts to address the findings and any
enforcement activities undertaken by the state to ensure correction.
Education used this information to document state performance and to
determine if states were meeting their general supervisory responsibilities.
According to Education, some state monitoring systems were not effective
at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements, and the
information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have
contained inaccurate information. During the period July 1, 1999 through
February 25, 2003, Education officials conducted federal IDEA monitoring
site visits to 12 states and the District of Columbia. In 6 of these locations,
Education officials noted that the state IDEA monitoring systems were not
effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance with federal
requirements. For example, in a site visit to one state, Education officials
found that despite the fact that psychological services are supposed to be
offered, five school districts that they visited were not providing them
unless they were required to by a due process hearing. However, the state
education officials had identified four of these five districts as compliant.
Further, Education’s 2001 Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress on the
Page 15 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act13 noted
that many states still do not have effective systems for identifying
noncompliance, or, when they do identify noncompliance with federal
requirements, they do not have effective follow-up or enforcement
strategies to ensure that public agencies correct the noncompliance.
In addition to relying on state monitoring systems, Education also relies
on state-collected discipline data as a source for its administrative review
of states’ compliance with IDEA requirements. However, the discipline
data used by the oversight system contain some inaccuracies, although
according to Education officials, its accuracy is improving. For example,
Education has taken steps to validate the accuracy of the data through the
regular application of data checks by its contractor and by providing
technical assistance to state special education data managers on the
collection of discipline data of the semiannual meeting at the Education
Information Advisory Committee of the Council of Chief State School
Officers. Some reasons for inaccuracies in the data included: unclear
definitions; inconsistent data collection, entry, and verification within and
across school districts; and poor response rates from schools and districts.
The 2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education also
identified data quality issues, including inconsistent reporting and data
formats.14 While Education officials acknowledged that the special
education discipline data contain some inaccuracies, they indicated that
states were taking measures to improve the accuracy of the data. In
addition, Education officials reported that they expect the accuracy of the
discipline data to improve as school officials become more familiar with
the data collection process. At this point, these data are the only discipline
data available, so Education still is relying on them, although the agency
recognizes their limitations.
Education is planning to implement the next generation of its CIMP
oversight system known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring System (CIFMS), which was approved in April 2003. According
to Education officials, the new system will implement an integrated, four-
13
See To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities:
Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, U.S. Department of Education (Mar. 2002).
14
For more information on the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, U.S.
Department of Education, President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
Page 16 GAO-03-550 Special Education
part accountability strategy, with an emphasis on targeting those states
most at risk for being out of compliance. This strategy includes
(1) verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of states’ monitoring,
assessment, and data collection systems; (2) focusing more oversight and
monitoring attention to states at high risk of compliance, financial, and/or
management failure; (3) supporting states in assessing their performance
and compliance and in planning, implementing, and evaluating
improvement strategies; and (4) focusing Education’s intervention on
states with low ranking performance on critical performance indicators.
This focused approach is aligned with the recommendations of the
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education and was
designed to focus the department’s monitoring efforts on the states that
need the most support to improve their performance.15 In addition,
because Education’s monitoring relies so heavily on state-reported data
regarding performance and compliance, Education has developed plans to
ensure the effectiveness of states’ data collection systems. To this end,
Education officials told us that Education staff would visit 20-30 states in
the next year to meet with state officials to verify the effectiveness of their
data collection and monitoring systems.
Each year, the federal government makes a considerable investment to
Conclusions ensure that a free appropriate public education is available for children
with disabilities. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the
removal of special education students from their current educational
settings for any violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how
long these students could be removed without educational services.
District and school officials in our survey reported that they are providing
a range of services in different settings to disciplined special education
students. However, they reported that additional guidance, especially
more specificity concerning whether the days of in-school suspension
should be counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule, would be
helpful. Education’s current guidance concerning how these provisions
should be implemented is broad, thus leaving local school and school
district officials flexibility in interpreting how these requirements should
be implemented. Because state and local school district officials may not
have the specific information that they need to comply with federal
15
For more information on the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, U.S.
Department of Education, President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
Page 17 GAO-03-550 Special Education
requirements, disciplined special education students may not receive
timely protections and services.
We recommend that the Secretary of Education issue supplemental
Recommendation for guidance to state and local education agencies on IDEA’s disciplinary
Executive Action provisions that includes examples to assist states and local education
agencies in implementing the provisions in the law related to disciplinary
placements. In particular, the guidance should include examples for
applying IDEA’s 10-day rule, including illustrations on how to determine
whether a day of in-school suspension should be counted as a day of
removal.
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
Agency Comments Education officials indicated that they provided sufficient guidance on
and Our Evaluation IDEA’s disciplinary provisions and did not see the need for supplemental
guidance. Education cited four existing documents that discuss IDEA
discipline issues. In addition, Education officials provided new
information in their comments on the draft that indicated that they plan to
validate state discipline data as part of their newly approved monitoring
system. Consequently, we modified the report to reflect Education’s
validation plans. Education officials also provided technical comments
that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. Education’s
comments are reproduced in appendix II.
We continue to believe that additional guidance is needed; however, we
modified the report to reflect that clarification of how to count in-school
days under IDEA’s 10-day rule was the primary area in which guidance
was needed. Education officials also noted that any guidance should be
provided after IDEA has been reauthorized. We concur with Education’s
proposal to issue any additional guidance after the reauthorization has
been completed.
Education included in its comments new information concerning the data
verification aspect of its IDEA monitoring systems and, as a result, we
withdrew a recommendation on data validation. We reviewed the
information provided—Office of Special Education Programs
Memorandum 03-05, dated April, 8, 2003—as well as technical comments
that described Education’s plans to implement a process to verify state
monitoring, assessment, and data as part of its focused monitoring system.
We acknowledge Education’s efforts in this regard and encourage the
Page 18 GAO-03-550 Special Education
department to continue to periodically validate the information that is
used by its IDEA monitoring systems.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until
30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on
GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202)
512-7215 or Harriet Ganson on (202) 512-7042 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Marnie S. Shaul
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
Page 19 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Methodology
The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions asked GAO to determine: (1) where special
education students are placed when they are removed from their
educational settings for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local
school districts in selected states continue educational services for special
education students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are
disciplined and what types of services are provided; and (3) how
Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements
used for special education students. In our review of disciplinary
placements, we focused on middle school and high school students and
their placements, but did not include information about disciplinary
placements for elementary school students. Elementary school
information was excluded because National Center for Education
Statistics data indicated that elementary schools experienced fewer
disciplinary problems than middle schools or high schools. Our study
collected information about disciplinary placements from the
2001-2002 school year, the most current full year data available.
To respond to this inquiry, we conducted an in-depth review of the use of
disciplinary placements for special education students at middle and high
schools in three states—Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These
states were selected because they represented different levels of
disciplinary activity, such as the number and percent of special education
students who were disciplined and the number of disciplined special
education students who were removed from their educational settings on
either a short-term (10 days or less) or long-term (more than 10 days)
basis. In these states, we surveyed a nonprobability sample of 36 district
special education administrators and 78 administrators from school
districts of varying characteristics. In addition, we reviewed U.S.
Department of Education documents to determine the federal role in
providing oversight and guidance for disciplinary placements and
examined Education databases for national data regarding the discipline
of special education students. We also interviewed federal officials,
national education organizations’ representatives, and special education
experts concerning disciplinary placements for special education students.
We selected three states in which to conduct our study of disciplinary
State Selection placements based on several criteria. To ensure sufficiency of data to
analyze, we identified 19 states that disciplined 1,000 or more special
education students during the 1999-2000 school year. These 19 states were
divided into three categories, (above average, below average, and average)
depending upon the percent of special education students disciplined per
Page 20 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
year, with the national average being 1.12 percent. We then chose
candidates from each category and spoke with state administrators to
determine the extent to which these states collected discipline data. On
the basis of these criteria, we selected Maryland (above average: 1.80
percent), Illinois (below average: 0.55 percent), and North Carolina
(average: 0.89 percent) for analysis.
In each state, we visited two school districts of varying characteristics.
Site Visits The districts were selected for variance in the number of special education
students served, their geographic location—urban, suburban, or
rural—and when possible, their overall rate of free and reduced school
lunches (with the objective of gathering information from schools and
districts serving a range of family incomes). During these visits, we met
with district administrators; high school, middle school, and alternative
school principals; administrators; and teachers when they were available.
We also toured disciplinary placements.
Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits
State Local school district City
Illinois City of Chicago School District 299 Chicago
Illinois Wesclin Community Unit School District 3 Trenton
Maryland Allegany County Public Schools Cumberland
Maryland Baltimore City Public School System Baltimore
North Carolina Guilford County Schools Greensboro
North Carolina Wake County Schools Raleigh
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s data.
Additionally, we visited state Departments of Education and spoke with
special education directors about their state’s policy and procedures for
disciplinary placements.
We distributed 2 survey questionnaires—one to selected school district
Surveys special education directors and one to middle and high school
administrators—in Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These surveys
focused on the use of disciplinary placements for special education
students during school year 2000–2001. The school district survey was sent
to 12 selected school district special education administrators in each
state for a total of 36 surveys. The surveyed districts were selected using
criteria similar to that used in determining the sites to be visited—variance
in the number of special education students served, their geographic
Page 21 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
location—urban, suburban, or rural—and when possible, their overall rate
of free and reduced school lunches. We received 30 responses to the
survey (83 percent). A second survey obtained information concerning
special education disciplinary placements from selected middle and high
school administrators. Using similar selection criteria to the school district
survey, we distributed surveys to 26 middle and high school administrators
in each state for a total of 78 school surveys. We surveyed one middle
school principal and one high school principal from schools located within
the 12 districts selected for the district survey. We also selected an
additional two principals from large, urban districts to address size and
diversity issues. We received 49 responses to the survey (63 percent). This
nonprobability sample review of schools and districts in three states does
not allow us to draw conclusions about all schools and districts covered
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorization.
Page 22 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Education
of Education
Page 23 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Education
Page 24 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Education
Page 25 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Education
Page 26 GAO-03-550 Special Education
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Arthur T. Merriam Jr., (617) 788-0541
GAO Contact
Tamara Fucile and James Kim made significant contributions to this
Staff report, in all aspects of the work throughout the assignment. In addition,
Acknowledgments Katherine Bittinger contributed to the initial design of the assignment,
Ronald La Due Lake assisted in the design of the school district and school
surveys; Lise Levie assisted in the management of the school survey;
George Quinn, Jr., conducted the data analysis for both surveys;
Behn Miller provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou assisted in the
message and report development.
(130155)
Page 27 GAO-03-550 Special Education
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
GAO’s Mission Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily
E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-05-20.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)