ED 224 161

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE.FROM

PUB TYPE

JOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTOR&

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT.RESUME

EA 015 254

Education for the Handicapped: What It theAppropriate Federal Role?Stanford Univ., Calif. Inst. for Research onEducational Finance and GoVernance.NatiOnal Inst.'"of Educatidn (ED), Washington, DC.8117p.; Baund with: IFG PolicY Perspectives (Win 1981),-"Tuition Tax' Credits for Schools: A Federal Priorityfor the 1980's?" Not available in, paper copy due tosmall print and colored paper of originaldocument.Publications, Institute for Research on EducationalFinance and Governance, School-of Education;CERAS,Building, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.Legal/Legislative/Regulatdry Mat -ials (0901Viewpoints (120) Collecte orks - Serials (022)IFG Policy Notes; v2 nl W. 1981

MF01 Plus Postage. PC of Available from EDRS.Civil Rights Legislat on; Compliance (Legal);*Disabilities; Eleme tary Secondary Education;.Expenditures; FederAL Legislation; Government Role;Hearings; *Mainstr4ming; Special Education; *TaxCredits; *Tuition*Education for Al Handicapped Children Act

This series of hort articles discusses two 'separateeducational policy issues: the ederal role in education for thehandicapped and tuition tax credits. Concerning the first issue,' the

*document discusses the background of P.L. 94-142 and its first 5years, concluding that, although accomplishments'are impressive,there are still dilficulties ih implementing the reform. It is .

suggested that the law has meantsimprovement in spbstandard districtsbut has sometimes had depressing effects in.progressive districts.general brief articles on education of the handicapped then follow,focusing on the issues confronting policy makers in the eighties, thefairness of "fair heaiingi," the costs of equity, problems with andprospects for implementation of the mandated_reform, and the historyof special.education. Concerning the second isSue, tuition taxaredits, the document brieflyAiscusses whether they.will be afederal priority.for the ei94 es..The autifor outlines how tuitiontax credits work, recent legiative activity, issues andimplications, their costs, an' their effects on the costs of publicschooling: He asks if tuitionVtax creditspwill benefit one incomegroup more than another, will4be equitable among ethnic groups, and'will be legal and beneficial 'tto the public". (Author/JM)

,t

**************************** ****************************************** Reproductions supplied by.EDRS are the best that can be made *

.*. from thekoriginal "document. *._

*****************t****************************************ft*************0.

1

EDUCATION FOR THE HANDICAPPEDWhat Ig The Appropriate Federal Role?

Speaking out in the discussion session Zif arecent special education conference, ahandicapped person depicted well theimportance of education for the handicapped. "Whether it has to be mandatedby federal ur state professionals or bureaucrats, our only hope is in education. Wecan't get it in hospitals, in the streets, incorrectional institutions. If vvy have tu putit in that law, it's about time we did it, andif the only way is the federal government,,then I applaud."

The law in question is P.L. 94-142, theEducation For All Handicapped ChildrenAct of 1975. These comments reflect threeaa.sumptions underlymg federal supportof education for the handicapped. First,handicapped children in ,the past havebeen denied access tu educational oppor-tunities that should rightfully be theirsThis, right was confirmed and its denialjudged illegal by the courts in several keycases.

Second, equal opportunity for handi-'capped children is closely intertwinedwith the provision of an appropriate edu-ca tion desighe'd to meet certain minimalguarantees as it addresses their learningneeds. This has led to the development ofextensive research and policy definingappropriate identificalion procedures,programs, services, and costs for edu-cating handicapped children. More thanan issue of right, it is a question of boweducation can wbrk positively as a meansof alleviating the problems of disadvan-taged individuals. In this respect, specialeducatiOn shares many features with bf-lingual . education and other categorical)programs.

if: Third, federal initiaiive in requiring pro-grams and services has been crucial toguaranteeing equity to the handicapped.Not only has the federal government de-fined such equjty Asa national mandate,:but it has thelped tb legitimize comprehen-sive reform by leading a conserted drive to

lk achieve new standards., of. access AdrrT4 opportunity. , ;

714

This is not to say that there hav e been noproblems attending the. federal role inguaranteeing equal educational opportun-it) for handicapped children. On crucial'matters of policy and program the ex-panded federal tole kas tu some extentsupplanted state and local decisionmaking autho 'ty . At the same time, manywho operate jrograms at the local ley elcomplain that e time and resource demands of responding to federal regulations are so great as to be self-defeating.

These problems have been exacerbated. by inconsistencies in the federal role. Al

though the federal government has .created responsibilities fur Itself M data collegion, policy dev elopment, technicalassistance, and enforcement of regulanuns, itbility tu heip local communities'

carry out the letter of the law is hamperedby limited funding and by' shortages ofpersonnel:

Another limitation at the federal levelhas to do with priorities. P.L. 94-142established and requiredimany areas offederal oversight, some of major import-ance and some of minor importance. Fed-eral agencies face the problem of balancingthe need to monitor important areas care-

. fully with the requirement to monitor allareas adequatelywithout resources todo either properly.

There is also a serious lack of cobrdina-non among federal agenOes playing a rolein education for the handicapped, to suchan extent that local 'administrators havtsometimes recteived conflicting interpretations of regulations, or have successfully

,

: '4

t

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTgUTE OF EDUCATION

LOULAIIONAI. lif.SUURCLS INFORMATIONCENTER IF RICI

X This dei pipt Pase

bor reproduced asret en:ed train

en

th person

n

Of on.lamlehOr,Oripindltriti itMinor i hanges have born made to improvereprodut ton'Thohly

Points Ot wily,/ Of opirlurr4 slated ifi.this <fact,

mem do pot necessarily represent official ME

position Or pop( r

' i,

negotiated an issileand-agreed upon,anacceptablg course.of -action with,the Office1

, of Special Education only to _receive a 'notice of violation for that same actionfrom the Office of Civil Rig'W These dif-

___,ficulties will, it is hoped, be tackled under'the recentinteragency agreement betweenthe tWo agenaes, '

With all this as background, what is theaPpropriate federal role visla-vis specialeducation? TO ask 'suCh a question meanslieVitably no-raise a serieS of interdepen-dent quest-ion,s. How do state governingaulhorities fit into the picture? To whatextent Should educati\onal priorities be loc-_,

, ally determined and prograrifs locally con-trolled?What antfimity should Parents ex-ercise in the development of programs andservices. for handicapped children? Andhow do the posSible ansWers to all. thesequestions square with the needs of theliandicapped Themselvts?

.- Once again it is useful to took at:under-ly ing assuinptitinsin order tO construct aframe of reference in which issues and dif-ferences of opinion can be approached.sensibly. First, the federal responsibility is'to phitect the rights of handicapped chil-dren, its regulatiOns and enfoicement pro-cedures are directed, above all, to guar-anteeing compliance:A ith the mandate tkserve this particular group of citizens, and\nut so much to the capacity or preroga-tiVeS of state and local stmcturegr-of gov:..epance, administration, and sery ice clt-

, divery. -----:Second,' the state role' is to provide free

; public education for all children. Stateshave -the primary legal responsibiliV forpublic-education; in the past they havedone much to expand service for thehandicapped, as evidenced by the numer-ous_ state laws on' the boas for specialedu non at .the time P.L. 94-142 'wasen ted. , .

Thi rd, loca I communities furnis ech.fCa

tional services; traditionally th econtrolled, withiii the lines estatalis ed bystate law, much of -the actual,o erationand content of public schOoling.

Fourth, the role of parents is to rotectthe inteksts of th'eir children, whic eydo by Means of adVocacy, litigation, anparticipation in programs .

Pitthand too often overlookedis trole of handicapped Children themselves,nol merely a's passive recipients of publicly;imanced services, but as active partici- .pants in the programs that have been con-structed tor them. They could potentiallybe a shaping tome in improving thei

de-ts , style, and social benefits of theS'ep grams. . , .

What has beenFive years of p.L..94-1,4

considerable experience.

S.

inplished?have geneated

. which to

brieflyVi ilham Hartman served' as consultingeditor for this Issue of Polwy Notes,.Hartman was research associate at,IFG,until December 1980, when he as-sumed,the position-of aSsociate profes-sor of education a t the University ofOregon. He and Peggy Hartman wrote,the first draft of the lead articleon thechanging federal role in special educa-hon7.-to. Much Policy Notes editorsRichard Navarro and Thomas Jameslent editOical assistance. This article in-corporates points from conference pre-'sen tations by Betsy Levin, generalcounsel for the U.S. Department ofEducation, Myron Atkin, dean of theSchool of Education, Stanford Univer-sity, Lisa Walker, congressional liaisonfor the Institute for Educational Leader-ship, and Terry Wood, assistant super-intendant for special education andspecial schools, Los Angeles CountySchool System. 4.

. The 1FG conference was a natiohalinvitational colloquium sponsored "byIFG in October 1980 to explore policyissues in special education. Much of thematenal in this neytsletter stems frumpapers presented tliere and discussionsheld at that time. The editonal, "WhereTo GO From Here", by Fredenck

- Weintraub, assistant director for inter-governMental relations at the Councilfor Exceptional Children, derived from

his.key note address at the conference,, William Hartnian and Jay Chambers,1FG associate director, w rote the paperon the "resource-cost model." Thenewsletter article was written by loan,O'Brien, a researchassistant at IFG.'

Christine Hassell, 4 graduate student .In education at the Unhersity ofCalifornia, Berkeley, w rote "LearningVs. The Law," an article about the bar-riers to implementation 'of P.L. 94-142,based on a paper by Jane Da% id, BayArea Research Group, and David-Greene, SRI International.

"How Fair Fair Heaings" grows outof research by Michael Kirst,, professorof education and business administra-'tAon, Stanford University, and KayBertken, a graduate student 'and for- .merly a research assistant at IFG, whorew rote their research material for the

. Policy Notes.On the htstorical antecedents of spe-

oat education, Porky Noto editorThomas James summarized a paperw ritten by Man, in Lazerson, professorof education at the Univ ersity of BritishColumbia. "ImplementatiOn of A Mandate," the article analy zing federallegislative 'action in the past decatle,comes from Kathy Hull, .1FG researchassistant, now with the St Louis CitySchool District as a staff evaluationspecialist. .11

ci education. A review of the Iry by ava i e the eMerging federal role in spe-te

U.'S. Department of Education task forceunderscored many of its Nccomplish-ments. Primary among theise ,were theelimination of state laws and practices thatexcluded , handicapped children fromschoolstinclusion of many more chil rds'in specialeducation programs, and the useof the least xestrictive environment cdr?cept. ..

.. The statisfics too are impress ve. TheSecond AnnuarReport tq Congress on the Im-plementation oi P.L. 94-142, published in1989 by the Department 'of Educatiop,docurnents.the numerical prbgress bdifigmade under' the law,. Since the' ,1976-77school.year there has been an increase ofnearly 328,000 handicapped children re-ceiving special education and related ser-,vices in the United States. The total shim-ber of such children had risen to 4.03 mil-lion-by the 1979-80 school year. Whon the'.first comprehensive count was taken fouryears ago, 8.-2percent of public school en-rollments in the nation were in specialeducation ,programs. By fast year thefigure' had risen to 9.5 percent. Twenty.

a

states are now serving more than 10 perdcent of their public school population in'programs for the handicapped The fivestates reporting highest figures iange from12 to nearly 18 percent of the schobl-agepopulation. Between 1978 and 1980 vme43 states increased the number of chilhopreported in their' special education pro-grams.

On theeher hand as the Department.of Education task force notes, there are stilldifficulties in implementing the reform,For example:

In some 'parts of tye cotint'ry largenumbers, of handicapped children remainunidentified.

Many children face long waits beforethey can be educated and Placed inappropriate progranas.

A diSproportionate number of minor-ity children are still being misclassifiedandplaced in programs for the mentally're-tarded.

The civality of education in soMe non-,educational inStitUtions is substandard,

There are significant -.differencesamong states, and school districts in the

1

pes and qualities of related serv ices thatare provided.

Sonte school l'stricts .are usingcanned- individual education Programs

ilEPs) in in. huh two-thirds of the haqiLapped children receive.the same IEP.

Certain severely handicapped stu-dents need an extended Stiltipl year tvbenefit from their educational program,this creates a conflict. when state laws prohibit attemtance for more than-180days.

6 Handicapped children are not alWayplaced in the least restnctive environmentappropnate tv their educational needs.

These difficulties show the importanceot attending closely to the prachcal ob-stacles tv implementation. Because of itspreemdient role as enforcer of rights for,handicapped children and as legitiMizei ofLxpanded scrv ices on their behalf, the fed-eral government is inextncably inv oh ecian,the process of local implementation. The,nature of its role cannot help but be a deci-si e factor in the evolution of programs.

Many of the ihtergov emmental issues\art, not susceptible to easy or rapid resolu.-*hon. Effective enforcement, high Losts .fragmentationniuch' remains to betvorked out. By recognizing the problemsand beginning to,focus..federal resourceson coordinating etforts both vvi in theDepartnient of Educcition and wi other,federal and-state agencies; policy makerscan do Much to bring abdut continued im-

sprovement in programs for handicappedchildren. Mid by using the federal govern-ment's technical assistance efforts to builästate capaaty for program monitoring, .

they can bolster .the- Weral-state-local1-",irtnership in implementing the law.

Cqmp4ance to`commitment

A further stumbling broci, one thatclops up over and over again where fed-,eral involventent in local decision makingis Loncerqd, is the administrative burdentiftegulaportand reporting reqvirements.

5 TV many officials and pr:ictitioners itoftenseems that procedural isSits, such a's revi-sion of fornis, notificahon of clients, and .attendance of meetings, have driven out`the more important substantive, issues,such as developing curriculum, defininginstructional methodologies; and expl&-,mg available research on educating handi-capped students.

For school systems ,that were con-4.sidered substandard in the dense that theirprograms for the handicapped were mini-mal andwere denying equal access to edu-cation, the effects of the federal mandatehave been demonstrably positive. Many ofthe worst abuses have been eliminated aSprocedural requirements have led to anupgrading of' these programs. BUt on theother side -for sChool systems that were

1.

obv usly progressive in their stance to-ward handicapped.children, and that wereprovidmg equal access and working dili-gently on cumLulum .improvements, the,effect was often depressing. Coercioncould easily become a bamer to Lreativ ityand commitment in districts that w ere do-ing their best to provide equal educationalopportunity for handic.ipped children.

The individual eatafional programt (lEn is perhaps the best illustration of thispoint. Tfie IEP has 'focused attention onthe individual handicapped student. Forstudents w ho in the past were ignored orslotted into programs at the convenience,of schools, the change has,been beneficial.But in many localities, indiv idualization.w as already being done in a Lollaborativ emode among parents, teachers, other pro-fessional staff and the handicapped LH-dren themseh'es. The specificity of thefederal law about w hat the IEP must,con-tain and how it must be developed hasstifled these efforts. The paper account-ability created by, the IEP has lea educatorsto sr et minimum ,objectly es that can bereached easily instead of maximum onesthat,might serve as Incentives and aspira-,tions. Fear a the consequence of notmeeting the outcomes specified in an lEPhab caused educators to lower standards.This emphasis on piocess rather than sUb-

stance has,anany would say, detractedfrom special 'educatidn:'

Tw o related observations on the feileralrole are in order he're and can ben e as botha conclusion and a point of departure forfuture discussion. The first is to reiteratethat what is needed by 'districts from stateand federal agencies alike is useful techni-cal assIstaill.t., aimed not at forcing dis-triets into compliance with the law butrather at improv ing the ,quality of educa-non prov ided to handicapped children. Ifoften seems, fr,orp the standpoint of localofficials, that state wnsultant who usedto help districts with educational problemsarc now spending their time monitonng.

The second observation IS that there is aneed for stability, a period of continuityand at least relative program security inthe field of special !education. Both P.L.94-142 and its coiVanion civil rights sta-tute, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973, have Laused great changes. Inter-pretation of policies by federal and state\agencies has been inconsistent and at,times conflicting. What is needed is a time

.for consolidating the gams made, focusingon special education isSues rather than onadministrative procqures, rejuvenatingspecial education pt'JsOnnel, and buildingmore cooperativ e working relationshipswith other agencies and vy ith parent's,. III

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?tomments By Frederick Weintraub

_

The fw of not getting an education' hisdisappeared for ,most handicapped chil-dren today. For that, policy makers andeducators should .take great pride. TheEducation for All Handicapped Children

, Act of 1975 represents a major scicialachievement: But legislation must not :13the goal. Rather, it is one .step dicing theway t6ward the l'eal goal of providingquality education for all children...

.41/hat sues will confront policy makersconcerne with cation for handit,capped chil ren dig 1980s? P) answerthis question I Will review four themes thatwere important in the 1.970s and prthgethe iSSuesof the 1980s:(1) Policy determines the degree tO which

a minority, in this case, handicappedchildren, will participate' equitably in.society.

(2) Policy determines the degree to whichMinority children are subject to abusefrom the controlling majoritY.

(3) Policy affects how soclety will perceiveor behave toward a class or group ofhuman beings.

(4) Policy affeds hoW agroup or class Willperceive thepselvers.

First, policy determines the degree towhich handicapped 4111dt-enpate equitably in society. Thies a Fradi- 'tional civil rights theme, but a new notionin relation tohandicapped children. It'sur-faced as a result of two issues: exclusionand equality' of education. In the,Iate 1960s

Continued dn pagq 10,

-'

S.

-ROW FAIR- ,Aili. HEARINGS?ACaliforni4 St tidy'

A procedural reforr mandated by, TheEducation Lir All Handicapped ChildrenAct to protect handicapped children fromarbitrary administrative decisions may it-self be the source of Inkqualities in thedistribution of educational services io thehandicapped.

This possibility moved' Michael Kirstand Kay Bertken toinvestigate the hear-

, ings required to settle disputes betweenparents of handicapped chil&en and thepublic schools. How have the heanngsbeen used, to what effect,, and to whosebenefit? These are the questionsad.dressed in Kirst's and. Bertken's re-searFhpn special educationfair hearings inCalifornia.

The heanng provisions of the federallaw Include wily procedural protectionsassociated' with tnnunal tnals:School dis-tncts and parents have the nght to collectand prese nt evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses. Parties may expect awritten resoluhon of their dispute by an

, impartial tleasion maker who has knowl-edge qt the child's handicapping condi-tion. Ither party to a local hearing mayapp,gal an unfavorable decision to a sta te-level heanng and an' unfavorable state-level decision to the- courts, The law pro-vides for broad access to the'se hearings.Any disagreement related to the identifi-

/ cation of a child as handicapped or thediagnosis of a disability dr the provision of,aru, educational program and related Ar-mes can tngger a request for a hearing.

The provision of such extensive proce-.dural protechons was prompted by thehistorical abuses of handicapped studehtsIn the schools: exclusion of children frompublicly supported education, stigmatiza-tion of children with inapproPriate labels;and discrimination, especially againstininotity children, by inappropriately

.. identifying thgrn as handicappedand iso-lating themsegregated and inferior pro-. grams. The hearing provision of 'the law

guarantees fairness and caiefiil considera.:bon when decisions with such opotentialforharmare made,'With the help andi cooperation oiahe

California State Department of Education,Kirst and Bertken rgyiewed the case his-tories ancidecisions of 145,local level hear-ings as well aS the 5_0 state;level hearings

A and one court-ievel appeal generated fromthose local eases. All the hearings wereheld between July 1, 1978 and December,1979, the .first year ancl,a half of uniformheanng regulationSin die state. They con-stitute all the hearings of nine relatively

large urban and suurban districts, andthey account for nearly half of the totalnumber of such hearings held in Californiabifore 1980.

The researchers' findings are several.The hearings were itsed infrequenk, asutprising,result given the great numberof decisions madein the program determi-nations for each of California's 350,000

,special education students. Less than onetenth of one percent of the state's specialeducation enrollment pa'rticipated in thesefair hearings. Howeyer, in at least twoschool districts, managing hearings be-carne'a full-time job for at least,one specialeducation administrator. .

. Kirsi 'and Bertke&found that few of thet;eanngs were -cencerned with efforts tochange, or improve the special educationprogram or with abuses defined ,by law,

. The cqncern of 110 out of the 145 localheartCgs was whether public school dis-

..trictS should pay`for private school tuitionsfor porticular thildren. Parents in all ofthdse cases contended that Ole publicschools could not provide an "aripropriateeducation- and should 'pay the costs .ofprivate schooling Many of the childreninvolved were already enrolled in privateschools; many had been receiving publictui aim i.ipPort.,

The second set of issues most frequentlydebated in these hearings, according toKirst 'and Bertken, 'concerned related1).ser-vicesind vichalutoring, testing, coun-seling, vari us'oherapiesy, or transporta-tion service. In more than half of the 32hearings that addressed these issues,parents asked salool districts to pay forservk'es to be provided by particular private practitioners. - ,

Higher incouth-tan.kedparents werAmuch more likelyto pur,sue new services and a

variety ofreltited services tlignwere those intik low-incomee

Most of the cases reviewed by Kirst and'Bertken were parent requests for more fre-quent, more individualized or private ser-vices. SchppJtdstricts in these cases main-tained th t they were already offeringappropriat serVices. No parents, wantedtheir children excluded frorii special edu-cation. There were debates over the diag-

nosis of children's handicaps; several in-volved children who were not recognizedas handicapped by the school districts,butwhose parents wanted them identifiedand served.

Hearing determinations rdsulted in allo-cations of expensive seryices and over-'turned school district decisions in a major-ity of cases reviewed in this research Pri-vate `school tuition grants ranged from$3,000 to ocer$20,000 for residential place-ment. More than half of the parents whebad been- denied some portion of theclaims at local heari4s appealed.to state-level ,hearings, where more than half,thedecisions were overturned in the parents'fa ver.

Although their research showed the.bearings to be powerful tools for parentswho wanted to contest the determinationsof their school di'stricts; Kirst and Bertkenpoint out that there is an important dis-..

tinction between the cases of Parents whowere successful and those who were notA macority of the parents who participatedin hearings were trying to stop school dis-tricts ,from making changesin their ihil-dren'S programs, especially if lhe childrenwere being supported in a private schoolTh:ese parents won a large majority of theirclaims. On the other hand, parents whowere attempting to secure a new service ora neW private school placement lost moreof their cAses than they won Thehearingsseemed-lb b slfoiig suppoiterg fif thestatus quo.

Who were the parents wh6 were gettingextended or new services for their chil-dren?- Kirst and Bertken's findings con-

' firmed what they had learned from re-search about admyiistrative, heatings inother settings. Low-income and rnindityparents participated in hearings less &tenthan their numbers in the school districts*would suggest. Most of the low-incomeand minoEty parent's w-ho did participatewere represented at their hearings by anagency attorney or by a representative of a

:private special eduCation school. Few par-ticipated independently.

In -.addition to the low ',participationrates, KirSt and Bertken found that low-,income parents pursued a limited range ofissues' in their hearin0. Nearly all of themwere trying to maintain public supporeoftheir children's private school placements .While the school districts were nying 'to'r'efum them td public prograins. Higherincome-ranked parents were much morelikely to pursue new services and a varietyof 'related seviices than were these in theloW-income grbui;.

SUrprisingly, Kirsi and BertIten foundthat once parents participated in the hear-ings, favorable 'hearing decisions werenegatively related to income rankingLow-income parents won a higher, pro-

,

1.

portion &If their cases, in all categories ofissues, than did mi4le or high incomeranked parents. Altomey s did nut seem topros ide any advantage in this collection utlocal heanngs: At the state level appeals,parents accompanied by atturnq's didbetter than those nut represented.

Anothersobserv a lion about the hea ringsas that many otthem represented battles

between the public and priv ate sectorser who should provide the services and

ho sliould pay . In many cases the deci-sions 'turned on procedural complianceissues rather than evaluations uf the rela-tive merit of the txt., proposed programalternatives In many, cases, missed dead-

J

lines or the school districts' failure to obrtain required signatureyesulted tuition

-graqts to private schools,Th.!! researchers attribute the nature ,of

these hearings to the ygue prov isions of,the federal hivv , that handicapped childrenhave the right to ah educition "appro.-pliate tu their unique rieeds.', There are noevplicit limits un the schoolS' obligation tyany individual chifd..$"ycne_ parenb haveseized this is an Upportunity to plea furadditional sell ices for their children.. None of the cases reviewed in this re-search involved efforts to make generalchanges in public schciol Programs. It ispossible, Kirst and Bertken point out, that

. .

, .

groups seeking such refarms were usingother .avenues fur their purposescivilrights actions or direct court suits, for ex-ample. The major impact of the specialeducation fair hearings has come .0 the,time and expense of running the heanngsand ,in the allocation of expensive tuitionpay Tents tu indiv idual children.

While their findings art compatible withOthe( available evidence about specialeducation hearings, kirst and Bertkenacknow ledge that their study is limited intime and location. They are hoping that .

their data will provide useful baseline in- 4formation .for future studies in Californiaand comparative studies elsewhere.

ESTIMATING THE, COSTS OF EQUITYThe "Resource-Cost Model" r-

Os er the pasf15 years states and. the federal government established numerousprograms to meet the needs of certaingroups of ?chool children, such as the dis-ads antaged; non-English speakers, aridthe handieappedbut no common, equit-able funding system e\ Olved. Concurrentw ith the development of these programhas been a movement to eliminate differ-ences in ,local spending un education. Inparticular, yolky, make& have given spe-cial attention recently to, Ways in which,state aid can take into decount local pricedifferences in .education al resources.

Jay Chambers,-associate director of IFG,and William Hartman, associate Professorof education at the University of Onitaa,has c created a -resource-cost model- thatprovides a &minion funding system fur,the de eloprnent of any educational pro-gram and \siniultaneously accounts furlocal v a riation, in student needs and re-source pnces. Hartman has used themodel to estimate the 1980-81 natidnal expenditures on special education.

The resource-cosi model has three purposes. It pros ides a systematic method ofestimating thZ.. costs uf special education,compensatory education, vocational edu-cation, bilingual education, elementaryeducation, and secondary education pro-gram's. It s'upplies an equitable sy sten offunding educational service in.\ localscheol .distncts. And it fuptcsTes educa-tional policy makers with a tonceptualframe% orkOn which to Vase their deci-.sions regarding dducational programs fordi ffering groups of shade nts.

How ;does itwork?

Cost estimates are based on studentcharacteristics bnd the* pattern of pro-grams t9 be used. The procedures 'requirespecification of the student population,..

the instructional programs and services tube used, the resources that comprise eachprogram, the price of- each resource, thedistribution of students across variousprograms and services, arid the student-'personnel ratios uf programs. CostS arecalculated un program-unit basis.satherthan on a per-student basis. This costingsystem more closely reserhbles that of thedistrict since the marginal cost of an addi-tional student is usually very small untilthe maximum class size is exceeded and anadditiorial program unit is needed:,

'The cost-based funding approach usedin the model assists school firiance reformto achieve its goal of equity in the distribu-tion of state aid to. local distncts. Addi-tional costrw hen sh;dents have specialprogrammatic needs are estimated aridactual resource pnc9 are used in the fund-ing calculations. Thus districts.vvith highercosts can Ve appropriately compensated.In addition, if the model is to be uSed,then policy makers must establish an ade-quate educational,prOdam for each groupof children.' Once adequate programs aredefined, aid may be systematically dis-.tributedaccurding,to the student needs of .

each district..

The resou cost model can used atall govemm.nt levet to make rojechonsinto the future asievellas to aluate cur-rent options. At the feder level it pro-vides a planning device for estimating theMagnitude of the costs of 1. riuus educa-tional prograins. }JoweseK nationally.accaptable programmatic an rice vanables would need to be established for theuse in the model. At the local and stalelevels the'rnodel can be used for programplanning, estiniating program costs corn- ,

paring alternative programs', and cost-effectiveness studies.

The costs and effects of implementingchanges proposed by new legislation or

5,1 6

regulaetions may be examined. Cost trade-.offs both within and between programscan be evaluated and pnunties amongcompeting programs can be eitablistked torrAet budgetary requirements,. Thus the.model focuses anemic% un specific hreaswhere policy makers previously did nothave the information tu make rational de-cisions. With this model they may deter-mine both a program's Lust and itseffectson studentsiwithout the usual guess-work. -

National cost esti Orspedal educatid 'n1980-81

Estimatirfg the national costs of educat-ing, handicapped children is an uncertain .

process for several reasons. State defini-tions of the handicapped children to beserved are nut consiptent and theie are nonationally accepted standards for special 4

education programs and services. Thus ais difficult tu identify which instructional ,

programs and supportive services shouldbe examined, tu specify the Lonstituents ofeach program or,serv ice, and tudeterminethe proportion of,handicapped studentswho require each program or service:

In addition, the reported costsof spesial, education, par.ticularly average cost 13er

student figures, do nut provide sufficientinformahon for hahonal cost estiMation. fIn response tu the difficulties, WilliamIiartman used the respurce-cost model toestimate, the 1980-81 national costs of ,

education. He also used the model to,do a sensitivity analysis to ascertain which.variables-had the greatest impact on theprojected costs. The resulting estimatesand information should be of interest' to:educational policy makers.

If all handicapped school-aged children,receive an appropriate eduLation in 1980-81, the resultsof this stUdy predict.that the ,

/

national, cost will most likely be approxi-mately $9.0 billion. This estimate indicatesa considerable increase in special eticita--bon costs since 1976-77 ,when costs,we're .

estimated to be 4.5 billion. Low and high. alternative .estunates were,obtained be-

...cause ot the uncertainty, underlying thealueecit the 'variables,in'the, most likely .

estimate. The'low atternaqe estimate is$7.3 billion and the high estimate isbillion.

The ra-hge of estimates indicaled thatvariations in the assumptions about theingredients (e.g., definitions of "handi-capped") used in the model.affect the costestirriates.,A sensitiVity analysis was un-dertaken to identify the variables With thcem t impact upon costs.. The asslimed in-cidence rates of the handicapping condi:tioiis were the variables found to haVe the'.largest Impact., Thé_variables Ath the. '(*arid greateS.t impact were the numbersof shidents a'ssigned 'to instructional units(i.e., Studerit-teacher ratios.) Other vari-ables- that considerablY affected costs, inorder of cost impact, were personnel sal-anes and benefits, placement patterns ofstudents in instructional programs, andthe Use of?ides.

The estimates raise two policy ques--Lions. First, who will pay the potential in-srease of $4.5 billionlocal school dis-

,. triets, states,*.or federal agencies? Even ifP.L. 94142 is, funded to its authorizationleVel of $3.2 billion, there is still a potential

of $1,3 billion. .

°Setond, .will there be more programeontrol with 'an. increase in state or federalfunding? Ari increase in state iir.federalfunding may redae a local school dis-tnct's flexibility in implementing pro-grams that meet individual circumstancessmce programming decisions affect costs.

The sensitivity analyses provide muchuseffil information. 'For example, the anal-yses show that the chokes of incidencerates4or handicapping conditions are criti-cal sm8,they are major determinants inprojected costs. Incidence rated are pri-manly educated guesses. They are notbased on educational theory or 'research;they are defined differently from state tostate and are subject to, political, social,and historical influences. Thus, incidencerates should be viewed 'With caution. It isinteresting to note thatthe study revealedthat a one-percent increase n pcidencerates, holding all other variables stable-hithe most likely estimate, raised the pro-jected costs by $708 million, the number ofpupils by 470,000 and the required numberof teachers by 22,DP9. p. ,

The study emphasizes the need formore research into the related service.to6eincluded in special, edKation programs,Related seryices.are the- special develop-mental, corfective or supportive seryices

required by handicapped students. Moreinformation is needed on which relatedservices Should be included, the extent ofstudent need for these services, and thecosts of providing them. As the pressureson educational budgets grow, intergov-ernmental and hjteragenczy support in theprovision of relfted services for handicap-

,$

ped children will become increasinglyimportant.

The resource-cost model can be used inany educational setting where planningand cost estimates of educational pro-grams are needed It is a versatile planning

. tool and should provide valuable assis-tance to policy makers

IMPLEMENTATIONOF A MANDATEProblems & ProspectsParents and.educators in the United Stateshave sought educational services forhandicapped children for o:er a lilandredyears. Throughout giost of that time pro-gress was limited to gaining Sccessdren with particular handicaps in certainstates ifr localihes.

During the past decade, however, therehave been judicial and legislative victonesat the federal level. The range of frie ser-vices available fo handicapped childrenhas widened and the nuiber of childrenable to receive them has i treased nation-ally. While the results e encouraging,tull realization of tFte1ëJeral initiative hasnot yet been achieved due to the broad

.scope of mandated reforms and numerouspolicy queStions raised by them.

Reforms mandated

Between 1970 and 1975 congress passedpearly 50 pieces of legislation favoring thehandkapped. Two of these are especiallynoteworthy and exemplify the range of'reforms, legislated. The first i,s a singlesentence within Section 504 of the Voca-tional RehabilitationAct (1973): 'no other-wise qualified individual in the UnitedStates, shall solely by reason of his hand-icap,'be excluded from the participationin, be denied the benefits of, or be s'ilb-jected to discnmination tiItder ani prog-ram or any activity ,requiring federal assis-tance." .

For the many handicapped aildrenlegally excluded frofn federally fundedprograms because of learning and behavioral problems, this meant local distrfctswould be.required fo int,egrate these chil-dren into existing.progranns or else estab-

. lish pr'bgrams to serve therm,Two years later Congress enacted Public

Law 94-142, the Education for All j-landi-ca pped Children Act.. Amendi9g pre vionsspecial education leg)slation arid incorpor-ating proVisions of 'earlier laws and ,courtdecisions, P.L. 94-142 requires that:

. Active,Search and find campaigns beUndertaken to locate all handicapped children excluded fiom pdblk education'.

.

Free and appropnate education sery ices be available to all handicapped chil-dren ages 3-21 by '5epteinber 1, 1980.

Handicapped children be placed inthe least restnctive ,erfl,ironrnentmeets their unique needs.

Each handicapped child`be providedwith an individual educational program(IEP) that specifies the child's presentskills, educational, and related needs,short- and long-term educational gbals,and metfiods for adsessing student pro-.gress.

Parents be included in theassessmentteam that develoPs their child's IFP

Nondiscriminatory testing and evalu-atiori procedures he used in platement of.handicapped children in speciaheducationprograms.

Due prOcess procedures be availableto fiarents Who question the placement Oftheir children

All student records be kept confi-dential.

Pricirity for placement be Given tohandicapped children not currently re-ceiving services and to those With severehandicaps.

'Plans to accomplish these goals be de-veloped by bothlocal and state educa-tional agencies "

To assist state and local edu6tionalagencies in accomplishing these gUals P L94-142 provides for an increase in federalfunding of, special educatiori. Congressestablished rising levels beginning in 'fiscalyear.1978 with five percent of the nationalav erage expenditure per pupil, Mandatingthat at least 50 percent of the funds. bechanneled 14 the local level In 1082 andthereafter the federal authorizitionreacht's ifs maximum of 40'percent, withlocal districts receiving 75 percent ofthese

. funds. .Policy issues unresolved&

Five yeaEs after passage cif PI" 94-.142and two yelrs since enactmeiifbegan. re-actions to the law and its eciiisequenceshave been mixed Most supporters of spe-

,,e

cial educationogree that mandating pro-cedural stepS and expanding federal aidrepresent great leaps forward. Parents andadvocacy groups concerned with the wet-.tare.of handicapped children are demand-ing more specialued programs, ,relatedservices, and voice in determining theappropriateness of placement andvices.

Those taced with implementing thelawand who simultaneously must deal.with many-constituencies and uttier pro-grarns-:see It fhom another perspective.Demands on local'and state resources foradditional services and staff to comPlywith the law are inilnense. Current federalappropnations fur special educationare at approximately one-third of their au-thorized levels andamount to only 12 per-.cent of the total cost spent on .these ser-vices in Amencan comInunities. Federalagencies mönitonng compliance are bysome reports undertramed and understaf-ted. These agencies often have conflictinginterpretations ot legislated mandates,makiag local compliance diffkuh at best.All t hose cora,erned with special educa-tion would agree that many significantpolicy issues require resolution before fullimplementation of the reforms can beachieved.

Most essential to answer promptly arethose questions dealing 'with proceduralcompliance. Although P.L. 94-142other special education legislation domandate, goals apd timelines tor reachingthern, smile of the goals' lack 'clarity. Inaddition, views tin compliance often differbetween parents of handicapped childrenand districts that rye thtm. These viewsmust be integrated \into a consensus so

,. that programs can be implementid effec-tively., .

At stalZe are i-tit: handicapped childrenthemselv es, w ho require specialized edu-cational programs but as yet don't receivethem. Estimates suggest that 1:0712: per-cent ot the school-aged-population requiresuch assistance,. but thost numbers of chil-dren have not been found. ll is possibleeither that handicapped children ijo notexist inthose proportions or that presentsearch-and-find campaigns to locate themhave been insufficient How 'can a local

edistrict.serve children who are not found?flow will it know when all of those chit-deryg.located?, What measur&'dn dis-trrqs.lake tpinsure that locating hanch-.

. capgeril Children' is an ongoing and effec-tive_prOcess? _ -, .

Of the children located, many, remain'without services'. An April 1980 report by a

-I coalition of educational advocacy groups. states that ,15,000,handicappe children

- , in New York City are on a wal ng list for, evaluation and. special education place-

. merit.." SImilar, situations, exist :in other'.

; , ',1- ,

_What constitutes an appro-priate education? Lack of con-

sensus leads to lack of corn-s pliance, which often leads to

lengthy and costly hearingsand litigation.

urban areas with large student popula-,nuns and limited staffs fur evalliating stu-dent needs. How can districts speed upthe evaluation process withoursa,.rificingquality ancl incurring excessive costs?Where will they find and how will theyfinarie the staff required to serv e thosechildren who danced help? .

In addition'to serving handjcapped chil-dren, distnctS mast make sure that theeducatnin received is appropriate to eachchild's needs: (What constitutes an appro-pnate education? Lack of consensus leadsto lack of compliance, which often leads tolengthy and costly hearings and litigation.To red rite this additional burden, districtsmust develop means for resolving the gapbetween what they can realistically offerand what special education adv ocates seeas the ideal.

Providing such services costs money.So does seeking and Tinding qualified stu-dents, increasing evaluative services,opening new classrooms,, furing supportstaff, .and offering new programs. If aninexhaustible supply of funds w ere avail-

1

able for such measures, implementation ofspecial education reforms would be easy,

,But this is not the case, for even if fullfunding of P.L. 94-142 were reached in1982, the federal authorization ceiling iscurrently fixed at $3.16 billion. While thismay appear to be a substantial sum, cur-rent cost estimates for 1980-81 special edu-cation instructional programs alone areapproximately $7 billion. Giyen decliningtax bases in large urban districts and taxlimitatioR measures such A California'sProposition 13, it is debatable whetherlocal and state govemnrients will continUeto pay such a large proportion offederallymandated special education programs.

If additipnal federal aid is not available,none but the wealthiest school districtswill be able to comply with current lawsHandicaPped children will remain un-served or underserve1, school personnelw ill be disheartened, and parents will re-turn to the,courts, a financial burden thekhools cannot afford:

If the pioRortion of federal aid for spe-cial' education is substantially increased,different problems might arise. For if in-creased federal aid conies at the exPense ofother interest groups, which also expect .additional funding, then fierce politicalbattles pitting education4,groups againstone another will ensue Eyen if federalappropriations increase equally, manyeducators fear that such funding may leadto increased federal contra of 'educationand a loss of state and local autonomy I

LEARNING: VS., THE LAWThIew tederaMata

Two researchers workingia' a nationwidev

study of local implement ion of P.L. 94142 say that full implementation of the lawwill not utcur -until certain important bar-

%nem are overcome. Their ppsition is basedun data collected_during 1978-79, the firstyear of a four-year study sponsoreil.by theUS-Department of Education.

, The major finding suggested by the datathus far, according to Jane David of INBa.y Area Research Group and DavidGreene of SRI International, is that theletter rather than the intent of 'the'laW isbeing met:

Implementation is heavily influencedby what was occurring at the local levelpriOr to thelaw. .

Program placeinent and services arebased on availability in the district rathetthan the needs oNhe child.

lnservide training and staff develop-nent are focuad on rules and legal,proce-,dures ,rather than on handic4pped chit-.dren aridTheir needs.

,

David,and Greene have identified threebarriers that help to explain these findingsscarce Tesources, limitations and uncer-tainties in the state-of- the;art of specialeducation, and organizational charaCteristics. Resources affect the-availability ofquality Staff and the provision of servicesand programs to the handicapped State-of the -art problems .arise from trying todefine what is meart by '"appropriate" or"need" in indiyidua cases when there areOften no ,guidelines or generally acceptedideas on-flow to idealry of serve partiCular9eeds of children.

The third barrier, org5niz4tional 'char-acteristics, ,refets to feature's- that are builtin to public school sYstems and that affect,their capacity to change tocalindividualsresponsible for carrying ,oidthe law findthemselves constantly balaticing demandsof superiors, 'students, parents, and othersthey serve. In order to manage these coin-peting demands they tlevelop strategies tocope -with the pressureS Placed upon,

them, These stratogies,affect the focus ofthe irnplenientation.process.

Organizational characteristics also referto individual roles' and responsiboth of which have been altered by P.L.94-142. The effects oh traditional relation-ships are becoming apparent among par-ents, school professionals; add pliblicagencies serving the handicapped. Whent raditionakroles and areas of responsibilityare maintained, they created barriers to'full implementatio n of the lav'ov.

The researchers offer two strategies forovercoming organizational barriers.boundary crossers and _one-to-oneitainers A boundary crosser }vorks inboth special and regular education, facil-itating communication and .ckordinatingactivities between the two groups. A one-to one trainer helps regular educatiOnteachers deal with the daily problems ofworking with special education studentsand the law.

Cominent and an.alysis

The bathers identified by David andGreene help to explain problems attend-ing the.implernentation of P.L. 94-142.However, strategies for overcoming thesebarriers may have only limited_results un-less one basic dilemma is addressed. theuse of legal procedures to acliiev e educa-.tional endS.

For instance, due process proceedingsmay be an appropriate response to theneed for protection of the nghts offiand-kapped t.hildren in placement deosiOhs.But there is no guarantee that the outcomeof these heanngs will enhance the learningenvironment of the child. Similarly, fiomthe perspective of those who are chargedwith implementing the law, involvementin fair hearings and other policy mandates

Learning-requirexperimentatmistakes. Th

s flexibility,n, making

legal mech-anisms dema 'dstrict ad-

herence to form, ptocedgre,rules. Oftentimes learning

and legal practice are at .

loggerheads..

,may limit the, opportunities for teacherand administrator discretion. Strong de- ;fensive strategies have arisen to protectone's position, often at the expense,of flex-ibility and learning. .

Imposing legal means to achiev e educa ,tijnal ends and mandating that educatorSfollow legal procedures to deliver their services may be inconsistent with these edu-7cators' training and expertise. The result isrule-bound rather than child-oriented im-

,plementation of the law. From this per-spective two of the most'significant bar-.'riers to full implementation of P.L. 94=142are the jgcompatibility betv,teen policymeans ain'o" ends, and the incompatibilitybetween the policy framework and its in!stitutional setting. .

If we view implementation as a processin which school personnel lea'rn to ada-pt

,

to new policiekand procedures, then thedilemma becomes'more apparentr Le4rn-ing requires 'flexibility, eXperimentation,,making mistake . The legal mechanismSdemand strict a., erence to form, proce-durerruslese Often imes lejrning and legalpractice are'at loggerheads .

The legal implications of dev iating fromrules are a source of fear and uncertainty tothose at the loc.al level who are working innew roles and areas of responsibility.Those implementing the law Will respond

,

with rigidity and conformity to legitimatetheir decisions. Under theserrinditions,even ,professionals who thrive on the free-dom. to make decisions according to theirown trained judgments will adhere torules rather than following.their own diso-cretion, It is here that we find the Mcom-patibility of the policy .Iir& its setting.Avoiding discretion impedegixofessionalservices and stiflesthe capac4to adapt tothe changing and individualized-needs ofstudents. .,

What directions do David and Greenesuggest for future policy? Local solutionsshould be encouraged, this translates into

. a need to emphasize absistahce rather than,monitoring. If procedural compliance canbe substantially achieved ,,w ithout real-.izing the intent of the law, heavy-handed,monitoring will. not Si Nftmkp i ,itly improveprictices regarding hand apped stu-dents.

Moreover, the design of technical assiS,tance strategies must aCknowledge fluconstraints within- w hich local districtsoperate. These, strategies. fikust, take ihtoaccount- the limits ono resources .and thetypes of organizational barriers that hin-der implementation., .

David and Greene Argue that assiStanceshould emphasiza the use.of people ratherthan matenals, and it should facilitatechange in existing roles. This suggests theimportance of disseminating strategieslike boundary crossers and one-to-onetraining in areas such as inservice classes,

,support to,regular teacherS in referral, par--.pot "-licipation in the indiv idualized education

program, and mainstreamed students. ..Training should nut only meet the imme-diate practical problems of,"w hat do I do'now 7 but also reduce thc anxieties asso-

, oated with ntiw and challefkingdemands.

r-1"11-1E OtHER SIDE OF BENEVOLENCE'Efficiency As A,Cure-A11?

Anyone interested in the historical antece-dents of programs fur handicapped children will find a rich resource in 'The Ori-gins of Special tducation, 1890-1940," arecent policy paper by Marvin Lazerson,prOfessor of educahon at ale University ofBritish Columbia. Lazerson traces ihe developrnent of public policy from the pro-gressive era after the turn ethe twentieth,century. It was then that the first coMpre-hensive rationale was developed for treat-ing handicapped Children as a special pop-ulation and for designing separate pro-grams to address their neFds.

During the rtineteenth century, accord.ing toLazerson, the concern for eduCating

t

the handicapped had, been limiled to in-stitutionalizing dei-iarit children who wereseyn as threats to themselves and others,or whose parents were not able to care forthem. Generally, the "responsibility forhandicapped children was private andfamilial." But -with the prodigious expansion of public schooling through the Lentury, combined with the enfoicement ofcompulsory attendance laws after 1900,the issueofpublic responsibklity for handl-,capped children was "brought directlyinto the schools:: A new rationale beganto emerge, raecting the educational phi-losophy (of tw. progressive era,. instead ofviewing handicapped children as a Custo-

..

dial problem, to be solv ed by putting themin residential institutions or isolating themat home .with families, the progressiVes.discovered what they saw to be an educational problem of "maladapted': schools,

X,azerson demo'nstrates how, the solu-tions to this newly defined problem werefound in "the application of systematic ex-pertise and beneolence" in the form of"special schools for individnaliied in-sluiction, opportunity (Sasses, deVelop.mental classes, orthogenic dassesi Effi-ciency and mass educational opportunitybecame the panacea for what one educatorplied "backward and defectiveElwood P. Cubberley's fornnub fo the

clo

.

pUblic schools came to epitomize the concerns of. the special education moyentent.,:diagnosis, proper classification, curricu-lar adjustment, restatement uf OuLatlunaldirec ves, revision of teaching; methods,diffejeM1 instruchon, and propertrai- ing tind habit formation."

A -. enrollments', average daily., atten-dag4e, and school expenditures. climbeddrainahcally at the beginning of thetwentieth century, educators began ,tomate 4ome fateful Judgments about thenature of their. clientele. Lazerson' re-counts that "in a series of 'retardation' -studie§ early in the century," which iden.tified "C'aSes M which youth were-overagefor their grades, the dilemma of schoOlingseernato berho;w poorly large numbers ofyouth were doing in school." The best

. -,known retardation study (dun& in- 1909Mat ,raore than a third,of all 'children inelementary schools were more than twoyet behikid in schdOl for their age. On-the urface, "feeble-thindedness," as itwas ca led, was one Of the most seriousproblem facing the schools. The progres-sives' arg \ment for a different kind ofteaching to reach such children seemed,self-evident.

Lazerson e hasizes. that advocatesnded to assoa e retardaticin "with the

oreign born, trua ts, and the mentallydeficient," Quite s sly, "having foughtto bring 'all children in the schools, edu-ca'tors were ri w obligatti to make specialprovisions for em." obligationbrought to the su'4ace th fundamentaltension op4rlying the origi s of spechleducatiom

On the "one hand, it was Immo 'tarianand socially efficient to place ws nsi-ability for the handicapped in the si !le

moSt impprtant community histihon the public schoolrather tha'liking such youth in residential schoolsor leaving them' exclusively as a privaterespodsibitity of parents. On the olherhand, while speLial edmation piovidedplates far the physkally,handkapped, Itsimpetus Lame from the fear that.the 'morally and soually kmant, usually anmisrants and the poor, reprtsentedthreats. The two 4.omerns-4-humanitartan and.con trolling were always intension with one another, but becausethey were so often class-based, the lattertended k overwhelm the former, as thehumamtarian wmorns of speuiil educat6 became, secaidary to the desire to't,cresak all those theediadtwnalsystemfound disniphve.

The tension was acute in the conflictingdesire's "to enhance the lives o`f the hand.ic'apped and tnprotect 'normals from thehandicapped." Tbeiatter desire was oftenpredominant, as thisstatement by an edu-cator .in 1924 reveals, An the regular.

des tike feeble-minded and subnormalesent, as it were, an unassimilable

a ulatiOn,oi human clinkers, ballast,dri4% sod, or'derelicts which seriously re-tard e rate of progress of the entire classand h often, constitutes a positiveinitantt thg teacher and other pupils."

So th andicapped were brougW intoschoohz a segregated..,The social degeneracy of k ckward and defective chil-dren" thou. t to be "oversexed' and to

practice in encies or W orse w as giv en

SIJG 'OED READING

Other I ':publications onspecial e' 4cation include:

79-B4. EDUC TIONALOCOST DIF-TERENTFPiLS AND THE AL-LOCATEONDF SIATE AIDFOR ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY EDUCATIONChamberS, JaG. (A computa-tion ota cOst of education indexfor state rvenue-allocations).

.79-B11 1iF1E DEVELOPMENT OF A: cjOSTOFEbUCAT1ON

I DEX: SOMEEMPIRICALESTIMATES AND POLICYISSUESChambers, Jay G.

,79-B15 ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF. EDUCATING HANDI-

CAPPED CHILDREN: A 9E-SOURCE-COST MODEL .

APPROACHSUMMARyREPORT- .Hartman, William T.

80-B1 POLICY.EFFECT,S__OF SPE-CIAL EDUCATIONFUNDINGHa'rtman, William T. zA

credence by the scientific Authority of educational testing. Lélvis -.Orman, indefatig-

\able advdcate of the IQtgst, wrote that testesults should form the4iterion for separ

,a ing handicapped frOni normal children.R ferring to Indispfitable evidence"ba d on "extensive"ani careful investiga-tion ," Terman blamed., the meptally defi-dent "for at least one.fourth of the coat-i-fawn ts o state psrlitentiaries and rpform s hools, for:the4pajority of cases ofchronic nd sernichninic paupecism,'andfor muc of our alçoh3ilism. prostitution',,and vene al disease.1

It was, n wonder iè reformers soughtsegreptiori They took mental defects tobe heredit and spy test scores,as avcurate predictb of 'future development. Inthe years.wh pro mins were being ex-

.

panded, one group, the physically handi-capped, was in an anomalous situation be-cause, in Lazerson's iew, it "never car-ried the same political w eight ashe fear ofneglecting the mentally subnormal."

By 1930 special education had gone froit"virtually nonexistent to a subsystemwithin most large city school systems,",md the states contributed by e'nacting per-missive legislation. Lazersorr citesOakland, California, as an ,example, thatrev eats much about the grow th of specialeducation:

First, the use of intelligence tests wascrucial .to the exponsiuu of special educa-tion . . . Second: Me tests, special educa:tion, and ability-groupini Were part of abroader series of reforins designed to mak?the schools more flexible mid progressive. . . Third,"mafor justificatión, for the ,

special classes was to isolate the 'sub--normal' in order to free teachers to workwith normal children. Fourth, the prob-lem of poor school ...aggress was con-sidered primarily.an- imm)srant problem.Fifth, insofar as it was 'recorded, princi-pals and teachers were enthusiastic aboutability grouping in their schools Finally,Oakland's experiment with intelligencetests mid special c:lasses was heavily inf-luenced by Lewis Tennan and carried out*by hestudents.While cities across the country adopted

strategies similar to those carried out inOakland, the state of California took the,lead in legislating "what had conT to be, commonly accepted assumptionS about

the feeble-minded, their low intelligenCewas inherited and immultible; it causedcrime and immorality; it was, widespread.

; .and ',hidden until discovered by intelli-gence tegts; and it was increaSing and,threatened to overwhelm society unless'controlled through segregation and sterili-

, zation." In 1919 California passed a state-' Wide' law establishing classes for "'mis-

fits," and* within a few years the classeswere.a regular feature pf public schools.$uch classes wefe "largely occupied bychildren of the podr and foreign bprn,"accOrding to pierson. Mentally subnor-mal children from middle and upper. classFamilies were usually able to avoid attend-.ing these classes, for they were treated as"individAl deyianfs" who were not col-lectively a menace to society.

Most dsubts about the success'of specialeducation focused on the need to expandand improve programs. After investigat-ing the problems of the system in 100, aWhite House conference reported whatwas common wisdom of ikage:."extepdspecial education to Morelhandicappedchildren, make greater efforts, at earlydiagrVosis, treatment and training, coordi-nate services, modify the curriculum so

, that it conforms to abilities; increase, the

vocational training and oversee job placement and folksy up, establish t NationalCouncil for Handicapped children, andktate. advisory counuls, and engage inore active campaigns to publicize theneed and advantage of special education,"

Ev en So, special education declined inthe 1930s, though its,stigma continued tobe attavhed totmany children. Lazersonsay s the decline w as a gradual "disassuciation" by educators and by school systemsthat "s, irtually ceased to aduwwledge theexistence of special education by the1930s." ,

By that time, argues Lazerson,'''speciaredtication had had its.day. its humanita-rian, thrust had alw4s been secondary tothe fear generated:by the mentally subnor-mal. Once the current of fear had declined. . . once a structure had been established

,

to pIae and thus control' the deviants,s al education eerned to havelittle to.off r." It was, and always had been, 'ithesett' g for those the Schools could nut ordid rJt want to educate."

Af er World War II special edtkation,v'a ustified "for ,its potential etonumit.return , providing the handicapped withvocational training and jub placempt."The field became increasingly professionalized and technically j;.ecialized. Greatpopulation grow th and the "discovery oflearning disabilities in'the 1950s had a trmendbus impact, generating more clientsand widening,the constituency for specialeducation among white middle ,Jass par-" c_

ents. zerson notes that therCw as a'dramatit increase in the publk and poll-hcal ?resence of parents in the special edu-cation movement!' Thip meant that

"along w ith an expansion of places wouldcome agnativn fur better programs."

In subequent 0,ears the attacks on pru-,dram quallty were paralleled by apposi-tion to the racial biases of special educa-tion. These charges were made by welleducated and organized ethnic groupsthat had nut been around during theearlier transgressions against immigrants.The results were legal victunes and a newv.cdlition to ,ange the sy stem.

As white parents tondemned the lad( ofopa,.0 and ;lot quality of speual eduLatumfor their handapped children, ,nonwhitesattatked speual tthitation's distraninatory Inas toward tlit.ir thildren. Thebon was nut an easy one, but by the early1970s lt had laid tht basis for a new orien-tation toward Hu t.tintation of the hands-

,

capped.

COMMENTS

Continued from page 3 `."41

we disCovered education policies that ex-cluded sigmficank numbers (if handi-

,., capped children. In -most siates,af such a\c,tuld was considered . -unable to profit

from ari education." he or she did not haveto be served by our public school systems.justifiable exclusion" could be bAsed on a

wide .range of measures. IQ; ambtalatoryability, and contrpl of the sphincter yverethree comnion ones.

For over a decade the courts as wellfederal and state legislation have almostcompletely eliminated the practice of justi-fiable exclusionand with some-surpris-

e ipg outcomes. For example, when thePennsyhama courts declared schools re-sponsible for educating retarded, children,toilet ,trained or not, about 70 percent tifthose who had never gone to school be-cause of a lack of toilet tratnirtg weretr,amed in one summer. So a Change inpolicy aoes make a difference.

There remain some children; as we lookto the 1980s, for whom exclusion is still anissqe children who are. under the correc-tional systems of,our states and syho hap-

, .'pen to be handicapped, handicapped chit-. &en of migrant and other mobilefamilies,

*A

handicapped children on Ainerican Indianreservations, some, of whom have neyerseen the first day of schooling; and one ofthe worst problems of all, handicappedchildren who are wards of the cOurt. Sowhile we have made progress in the lastten years, there are children for whom tilepromise is not yet a'reality.

The second 'issue .conceming equalitydeals not only with getting handicappedchildren thrqu6 the schoolhouse door,but with gwing them.equality of educationonce they are there. We have a term ineducation called. "equal educational opprunity." At the turn of the Century and,

, particularly in tile 1960s, we realized thatsmite kids can't run the race as well asother kidstherefore they need assistanceto be able to participate in edufcation. Thi&compensatory need changed our mathemati6I formula° to "equal Access to differing 'resources for equal outcomes.,"

If we helieved in equal educationalopportunity in the 1960s, why did we still

r exclude kids the system did not believecould complete-the race as well as everyone else? Oey were the retarded kids,

If integrafion is the o , it-

will be crucial to knou how.:tfte existing structure will heable to cope with.the,educationof: a moreiliverse population.

.

emotionally, disturbed kids, and a vanetyof others. The confrontation ovei aZcessfor them ,was less on the grouncls cif the

Amendritent to the Constitution thanit was on differences of opifiions over educational theory. But if we look. atPennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,the courts's definitions of education recog;

nizes that all. luds are educable. For the. kids whose educational goal at the mo-

ment *may be learning to sit.up and feedtheinselves, that is a valued educationalobjective. And if all kids are equally valuedas learn,ers, then the formula, must changeto diffenng resources for diffeqg out-.comes.

Most educators value some learningmore than other learning. Can we con-ceive of a retarded child as the valedicto-rian? But w hat b the valedictorian? Is It theperson we celebrate as the best learner inschool or the person who best refiests ottrlearning values? If we say our soal is tocelebrate learning, we must be able to re-cognize it in all its forms.

The 1970s was a decade of progress ,and we needed It. But progress itself doesnot produce equality. We can all have dueprocess, we ..an hav e all the individualizededucation programs (IEPs) in the world,and still the, childre.n will not receive aquality education. Our goal should not bemore hearings, it should be that the chil-dren learn more. We need to.assure, from

. a policy perspective, that the process ofmeeting the immediate neeas of childr61does not constrain thperimentation, investment, and the quality of services.

We also need to make dearer di .finc-'fiunz,between questions of procedu e asrelated to service allocations and,ques 'onsof interference in the actual behavior ir theclassroom. P.L. P4-142 and the court c esde,lt with basic policy dedsiOns about heservice offered to handicapped childr n.IPPs never 'were intended to regulate t eday-to-day 'behavior of the classroom

-teacher. put what we have seen at:loss thecOuntrv tha rocess has n madeka vehicle fo conStraining the creativityleand professi nal judgement of the teacheron a day-to basfs. This serves neitherthe children's Interests nor the profession.

.1 would liketo raise one other point con-cerning equality What haPpened in the10-70s was not only a struggle it behalf ofhandicapped children to achieve equalstatus in education, but a similar struggleof a subsystem of the educational system,special education, to achiev e equality withregular education It was a striiggle forresources, and-special education ''has nowbecome a partner, from this standpoint.Anybody who has ever been involved inthe schools.knews that most of the battle;that go on are within the elements of edu-cation, not the external forces, P. L 94-142is a clasic *xample of the sugystemstruggle in educatidnand them s,trugglegoes on.

As we look at ihe 1980s in terms of;cbt'oot finanCe, we need to examine statefinancNg sy stems to determine the degreeto which they assist school districts tomeet the requirementsof P. L, 94-142. Spe-cial education policies impl that the costsof the system flow from spite, needs,rather tkan the traditional apProach wh'erethe sy steM determines the resources to beallocated Cost is related to the-Populationto be served and,the size of the district. It isalso related,to the nature of the serviceshow a district decides who is handicappedand what services will be provided. More-

at

over, costs reflect the decisions made in fithe lager educatiimal sy stem. And finally,,the costs are heavily influenced by factorsou tside of educa tion altogether..The controlling niajotity

The second of my four policy themes is'that policy determines the degree to whichminorities will be subject to abuse from thecontrolling majority. Some groups in our'society are more vulnerable than others.Handicapped children in our schools aremore vulnerable than their nonhandi-capped peers beCause professionals aremaking decisions about their lives thatmay have an enormous impact. Oftenthese children live or die, thrive or fail'utterly, depending on other people'sbehavior'

What w as. the purpose uf the proceduralprotection efforts in the 1970s? It was toprovide a couyervalling force so that thepeople making the decisions Would haveto consider:the implicatior'iS of their decistuns for the child. As I look at due process,now, much of what see should neverhave been allowed to occur We need bet-ter policy and better criteria to determinew hat issues require proceduralrotection.In the 1980s one of the issues is that ourassumptions about protedural safeguardsimply protection of the children, not the

pareritg dt the system.An issue of the 1970s that w;ill carry over

is nondiscnminatory, testing and evalua-tion The F;r01,1Wt is not to Seek a nondis-

criminii'tt*y test, but to stop discriminat-ing agai4t kids in the use of test infbirna-fion We keeii to get this issue out,0 polit-ics and the courts and into questions uftechnology and methodology.. The prob-lem is not pakof a discipline or a group ufpeople who want to hurichildren, but aproblem., iti w hish the.technology is4nutconsistent'with policy demands.t

Some kids can't ran the race as. well as the other kidstherefore

they need assistance to be able toparticipate in education.

Least restrictive environment is anotherproblemoften called "mainstreaming."But sometimes the rhetorical comttmen,texceeds what we really believe thatthis is a nation of diversity.. Handicappedpeople have finally reached a point of hai,ing rights, self-identity and self-resPiKt,What P.L 94-142 talks about is not putting.,children w here they don't belong. The lawsays that, to the maximum degree appro-priate, handicapped children should beeducated with nonhandkapped childrenand special classes and special sthoolsshould be provided when necessary.

The third .policy theme is that policyaffects' how society will behal.e toward aclass or group of individuals. There' hasbeen improvement in hoW our society per-ceives the handicapped individual, butwhaCabout diScrimination within specialeducation? A handicapped child -whocomes from a Ifarnily whose primarylanguage is not Enghshdbes he or shecease to have bilingual needs? Ogability isonly one aspect of people's li'ves.P.L. 94-142 has brought about airemen-dous change that will be felt not only in thenext generation of adults but among theirchildren and their children's children, stillit is not enough.

One of the Issues fur the 1980s will be tolook at social integration versus instruc-tional integration. In special education weare attehding well to the instructional in-tegratitin of the children, we are nofatte-nding well enough to human rela-tions. I would suggest that the big, chal-lenges are not going tobe whether hand-icappethchildren are in chemistry classes,but whether they are going to the prom.

My last point is that policy affects how agroup or class will perceive themselves.Perhaps if the 1970s produced any singularachievement, it was a change in, the wayhandicapped people perceive thgmselves.What did PARC achieve? What did the.MIlls case achieve? What did Section 504 orP.L. 94-142 achieve? They contributed tomaking handicapped people believe inthemselves as human beings, as peoplewith nghts, as people who have the dig-nity tu live in the 'world. This is the mostimportant achievement of the past decade.

We should note that even with our ef-forts at integration, the disabled have acUlture of their own which requires someunique curriculum. Every handicappedindividual who attends ourschools shouldbe taught about rights and how to exercisethose nghts, We need to prdvide hand-icapped children with more adult rolemodels. We b,-;se uur training assumptions .

un jobs that were available in the 1950sinstead of training, handicapped childrenfor the realities of the year 2000.

In the 1980s we will see hanchcapped-,student obganiza lions and ofher youthgroups forming in our schools.Some willbe militant xis they were in the 19b0s. Towhat degree will we be willing to fosterour chilcten's selfArortb?

Ourgreat goal is the quality of education.for our children. I think we can redirectourselves to sorne very neW and worthyachievements. Whether we deal withthem at the federal, state, or local levels isno rritter. The question ikthe mission.

1Fais a Research and 4re'veiopinent Center ofthe !stational Institute of Educatioii fundedunder Section 405 cif the General EdUcationProvisions Act, 1FG also insjudes a numterofprojedts and programs in the finande and gov-ernance-arca ;that are sponsored by the FordFoundation.The administration of 1FG is. Henry M, Levin,Director!. 'Jay C, Chambers, Associate Director:Sandra kirkpAtrick, Mslatant Director -Y'for bisiemination; and Bernadine Muristy,Achnlnistrative.Assistant.AFG is gbvemstia. Steering Committee whose 'members are -Myron 3. Atidn, Jay C. Chamtiers, Pavict

'Itirp, Henry `14: Levin, John , Meyee,Bernadine- 'Murra`y, Arturo l'aelieco; Joan'Talisdit,DavidTyack, Hans Weller and LindaCV..lis9iif .

The gp- *ippon-10ff lifludest Bea?,- -'13ehitea,Miies BryithtA Diana faselharth, Liz

kirdan,,,ftlehardislavarro; and'ciat,t4e4P.tilgq,e;;IFC:testarch",-a4ociatest'

Williatn. Hartman, . Collaboration Prolect,inSpecial'Education; Jody Encarnation,Potiticsof Eduotion, and. ponaid Jensen, Law Pro.gram.

POLICY NOTES is a clUarterly publication.of IFG. W welcomiyour connaients.ditionalinformation yegardingtEdf cnplesofpapers listed herein, _and ant3puncernents on,past and fWw 1EG publicationsqlediccon-tact Bout tetezorisalesBiyaat, '.

ThiS prodUcthas been prodUced with sir!),port from the National lnstitute'of Educailen,Departmeht of Education. Itie,contents of

_this publication did, not ,necessailly.reiiedl theviews or,policies of the Natitrtil In** 0S'Education- or ihe Depeitment"orEditteation;nor dots insnftorroitrade names, cornmerdat,'products, or .organliations endorse-- .

bythe .Pover,runentt- eprintarqgrallted with propergedit. "

Th editors are' Rkhard i\laVarro and:Thoinas James, ',.

11 "

I Recent IFG publieations are listed below.you wish information about these

publications, please contact Sandra L.Kirkpatrick, Assistant Director for Dis-semination, at IFG. In adelition to thesepublications, IFG has ov r the last year

,and a half, published 50 other reports.Abstracts of these reports are available aswell.

PubCode

EFFECTS OF TAX LIMITA-TIONNEASURES ON RE-CURRENT EDUCATIONACTIVITIESIN CALIFORNIA

Harold E. Geiogue

,80-Al2 RECURRENT EDUCATIONACTIVITIES AND FINANCEIN NEW YORK STATE

Norman D. Kurland

80-A13 EMPLOYER-SPONSOREDRECURRENT EDUCATION INTHE UNITED STATES: A.REPORT ON RECENT'QUIRIES INTO ITS )STRUCTURE

G.B. Smith

80-A14 AN INVENTORY OF POST-COMPULSORY EDUCATION

WET INK

AND TRAINING PROGRAMSIN THE U. S AND SOURCESOF SUPPORT

Alan P. Wagner

80-A19-

THE BENEFITS AND FI-NANCING OF AMERICANHIGHER EDUCATION.

IEORY, RESEARCH ANDPOLICY\

Douglas M. Windham80-.A15 COLLECTIVE ACTION

AMONG CALIFORNIA EDU-mg 80-B19 ON LEGAL AUTHORITY,k *ATIONAL INTEREST CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY AND

GROUPS: A LOGICAL , SCHOOLING IN THERESPONSE TO PROPOSI-TI 13

Michael W. Kirst

WRITINGS OF MAX WEBER

4Gero Lenhardt

.

& Stephen A Somers 80-B20 CENTRALIZATION ANDLEGALIZATION IN

80-A1f6 PORTUNITIES IN THEC MPARISON,,OF STATE'

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION:,LIMIT AND POSSIBILITIES

E UCATION POLICY SYS- Charles S. Benson, T MS

4 Fred S. Coombs 80-B21 AN ALTERNATIVE THE-ORETICAL APPROACH FOR

80-A17 SENIORITY RULES AND THE STUDY OF LITERACYEDUCATIONAL PRODUC- AND ITS ROLE IN DEVELOP-TIVITY: UNDERSTANDING MENTTHE EFFICIENCY CONSE- Myiiam WaiserQUENCES OP A 'MANDATEFOR EQUALITY 80-0 BIG CITY SCHOOL BANK-

Richard J. Mumane - RUPTCYJoseph M. Cronin

80-A18 SOME EFFECTS OF TAX SUB-STITUTION ON THE 8,C4 YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENTRINANCE OF PUBUC AND ITS EDUCATIONALEDUCATION

John S; AkinCONSEQUENCES

M. Levin& James a Wyckoff

tHenry

ST ANFO AD UNIVERSITYINSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON EDltATIONALFINANCE AND GOVERNANCECERAS BudthngStanford California ')4305(415) 40--N5-'

IN THIS ISSUE:1;'Trp:att I edeal0, here I.) I nom ley'f I.ur [air 1 learin,'1.,tunatiric Cost, of I ifIll111Impiemerl tathwearnuw, t the I tar. ,ire t

, , neHWi,tent

3

40

a

(,.

Non-Profit-OrgU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPalo Alto CalifPermit No 28

Policy Perspectives

Wittiter 1981

*/

114,STITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON.EDUCATIONAL FINANCE ANP'doVERNANCE

TUITION TAX CREDITS FOR SCHOOLSA Federal Priority For The 1980s?BY JAMES CATTERALL

Lducators are about to witness a debateunlike in other in recent years It con-cerns the proposed enactment ot federaltax relict for parents sending their childrento nonpublic schools The idea is to rectify

4 ttie claim ot these parents that they mustpax taxes untalrItt tor the pubItc, schoolsw hue pat mg direc tit tor their ow n chil-dren s education The torm ot tax rehjt in

- question, the federal tui tion, tax credit, is aresilient concept that w ill probabls receit cits most enthusiastic heanng to date in the97th C ongress

4Tax credits tor educational. expenses

'hate been trequentlt but' more quietltporsued in the retent past Legislation en-acted bt some states has generalls beenrelec ted bt state and federal courts, andhundreds ot proposais hat e bjen hied inthe L 5 Congress, tt here then, stillremain But- three recent developmentssugge t that the concept Is % en, much aliveOn the ederal agenda.

The first is a renew ed interest amongeducational researchers,' pnrchtioners,a nd, policy makers concerning the ramin-cations of choice in education, includingthe expansion ot publicly tinanced optionsto embrace nonpublic schools Recentstate proposals tur education touchers,particularlt in California and Michigan,are one indication ot this interest°

bewnd,. nonpublic schools are morehealthy and prosperous institutionhanw e w ould have predicted a decaip ago.This Is especially true m urban areas wherepublic school problems seem most con-'centra ted and visible. As a result, piublicofficials are increasingls mindful nowadat s ot the potentially greater role of the,prit ate sector in American education.

Third, the 1980 election, which hasbrought Repablican control to the L.5,Senate as well as to the Presidency and;Cabinet, has created leaders4ip posts forpast supporters ot tuition tax credits. In

'

7eneral, the consertaute tat ot the newCongress is.sure to generate st mpatht torthe concept

How tuition tax credits work

The idea is simple A parent pay s tuition toa nonpublic sch'ool, the got etnment inturn allows a credit against taxes owed bythe parent 'tor a portion ot the expenseSPecitic plans vary a's to W ha t amount can

sbe cre:,.ilted,($100 to $500 is cvnmon) andwhat portion ot actual expees can becredited (one-half s commt r ). Additionalfeatures must be specified. Is the credit arefund so that parents with httle or no taxliability can benefit? Whqt are the eligibil-itt c,ntena toj schools' What let els ofstooling or training are eligible'

Recent federal proposals hat,e included ,

prot ision tor tax credits apply info bothhigher and elementary and secondaryeducation, but the issues differ for severalreasons. The finance structures are funda-mentally, ditfjrent, the tederal got ern-ment ha's well established programs pro-% iding ;assistance directly to collegestudents, retigioA instruction appears tobe more imbedded in the programs of pa-rodual schools and more ,separate in leh-giously affiliated wIleges, and higher edu-cation is neither unit ersal nor free. fhebalance ot th'is discussion deals w ith tinnon tax credit_ foi elementary andsecondary scSoollIT.;

Recent legislative' activity

Since 1967, when the first of the recentproposals pagsed the 1.f.S Senate, thedrib ing torte behind tuition tax credits hasbeen changing conditions in botht publicand nonpublic schools, and an unsatisfymg search tor ways ot educating childrenwith less' money. The relative costs ofpublic and nonpublic education, at least in

crude compansons, suggest that the pn-s ate schools may be cheaper There is aresurgent, interest in nonpublic schools.marked by slight but steady tncreases inenrollments nationally since 1973, whilethe school age population has declined 1)yabodt tit o percent each'year

In the late 1960s the chief proponents oftuition tax credits were nonpublic schoolrepresentatites such as datesan superin-tendents w hose claim was Chat parochtalthools w ere under such great fiscal

strains that they taced 'massive tuition in-creasjs in order to survive, this in turn

ould drive aw at most of their pupilsfhe high point innonpublic school enroll-ment in the U $ occurred in 1968, andthese schools lost a tolirth of their pupilsduring the next fwe years Since 19;3,nonpublievnrollments hat e been remark-ably stable; eten m the face of annual declines in the t." S school-age populationSo the main early argument for tuition tax°Vas withered of its own accord

New irrgunients hat e arisen tn place ofthe uld The foremost as that nonpublic

' school parents pay for prit ate schoolingthrouh tuition and also for public schoolmg in which their children do not participate Should they be reimbursed for As"double" payment' A more general argument is the desire to promote competitionand quality among all encouraging choice Would more childrenempowered to leave schools tha4 do nmeet their expectations, and would theirschoolmasters thus be forced to performtheir jobs more effectively? Would schools'in this way be more responsit e to the cal-cational needs and preterences of pupilsand their families? Would there bc a bettermatch between ,pupil learning requirements and educational situations and thus 'an uerall improt emen tin the efficiency ofour educational efforts?

Finally, social Issues abound in the de

bate over tuition tax credits. For example,who should choose the nature of a child'set,lucationthe family or the educationprofessional? Should the power to choosebeNextended by the government's gener-osity to pupils and families who cannotafford nonpublic options? What are theboundaries between public education andother educational experiences? If volumes'of Congressional testimony and scholar1tproduchon offer any indication, pone ofthese questions is easily answered.

Out of this controversial environmentgrew an almost successful Congressionaltuition tax credit plan, the Packwood-Moynihan proposakin the 1978 Congress.The plan would haVe allowed the taxpayer

6 tö subtract as a credit from federal incometaxes, or to claim as a refund, an amountequal to one-half of tuition and fee ex-.penSes for education. Upon enactment the'credit would have been limited to $250 andrestricted to allow partiopatiOn by collegeundergraduates only. Two years atter en-actment the plan would expand tO includeelementary and secondary pupils, and thehmit would rise to $500. Thg proposal al-lowed credits for expenses at any schoolsthat would satisfy state compulsory at-tendanee laws. A subsequent Packwood-Moynihan proposal, Senate Bill 1095 in1479, offered credits of $250 per ele-mentary and secondary student and norefund. The 1978 , proposal eventuaypassed the full Senate, but only after thesacrifice of its provision for elementaryand secondary schools. The House simul-taAeously passed a mild version (its firste,yer in hundreds of proposed bills) that

. wOuld have provided for credits of one-fourth of tuition,expenses up to $100 fornonpublic schools, and up to $250 forpostsecondary education and training. Aconapromise on the two bills was tched.:uled to be included in the final tax bill ofthe 1978 session, 'but in the pressure to'adjourn before the elections of that yearthe entire tax crealt seCtion was deletedbecause of disagreements on formulas foraid to elementary and secondary educa-tiona sign of where the true political

-Conflicts are on this issue. '

Issues and implicationsIt is helptul to have a specific plan in mindwhen discussing tuition tax Credits. The,tollowing paragraphs suggest a hypotheti-cal plan similar to the Packwood-Moyniharrproposal and descnbe the van-cats issues involved. For purposes of anal-ysis, it is assumed that a credit of one-halfot expenses of up to $250 for tuition clndtees at nonpublic elementary and secon-dary schools would be allowed per pupilagainst federal income tax liability. Theretundability of-the credit will be a topic of

the subsequent an lysis. ,Any schoolsallowed to enroll pupils by the indiVidualstates would be eligible. 1

COSTSThe cost of a federal tuitiOn tax credit can

be examined both in the short and longrun. If the families ofiall five million non-public school pupils were to daub themaximum credit, the cost would be $1.25billion per year to the federal govemmentin the short run. nowever, it is not likelythat . all curren0y 'enrolled nonpublicschall pupils wilkjaim a full credit. Someschools do not charge $500 in tuition andfees, and their pupils will be able to claimsomething less than $250 (unless theschools raise charges to take advantage ofthe credit). Further, if the credit is not de-signed as a re4c1 credit that would per-mit taxpayers tott,eceive a tax retund whenthe allowable credit exceeds their tax liabil-ity, then some claimants will not get thefull credit. The Packwood-Moynihan pro-poSals would have provided for refunda-bility in 1978 and not in 1979.

In the case of minimum or no tax liabilitytor a portion of nonpublic school parents,and a nonretunding credit, the followingcalculations ma,y be applied to U.S.Census data that reveal nonpublic schoolpartropahon by family income.

-pen to increase the short-run cost esti-mate. The first is that the av ailability of thecredit might induce enrollment shifts frompublic ,schools to nonpublic schools. Ifthere are parents who await only a grant offunds to transfer their children into non-public schools, provision of a tax creditwill generate new nonpublic school enroll,.Ments. If nonpublic enrollments go up by20 percen,t, the costs of the tuition tax cre-dit prograni could be expected to do aboutthe same. An enrollment increase of thismagnitude would bnng the costs of theprogram to between $1.3 and $1 5 billion

A second possibility is that once thecredit is in operation therermay be increas-ing mssure from recipients to make itlarger New participants in nonpublicschools would become additions to the taxcredit constituency, so that after the ideaisestablished in principle through enact-nient, battles over the mere size of thecredit 'night be more easily won by pro-ponents.

Effects on public school costsPublic school authonties fear an out-

pounng of pupils if the go% ernment givesthem the money with w hich to leave. Pro-ponents of tax credits counter that if thepublic schools are worthwhile, why

Cost and Distribution of Tuitfon Tax Credit

Family Income % Nonpublic SchoolFamilies* in Eadl

Categonj '

EstimatedClaimedCredit

Cost to FederalGovernment($ millions)

$0-5000 3.2% $0 so$000-15000 16.4% 5125

,

a.$103

$15000 + 80.4 °/9 $250 $1005Total $1108

Current Population Reports, P-20 Senes #333, October 1978.

This calculation assumes that the lowestincome group of parents would get nocredit because they owe.no taxes. A low-to-medium income group,would receivean intermediate-sized Credit, becauspsome Of these taxpaydrs would have-sub-stantial tax liability from which to creditand others would not. The hIghest incomegroups are all assumed to hay e enough taxliability from whkh to take a $250 credit(*despite known exceptions):

Such a 'hypothetical plan for elementaryand secondary schools yields cost esti-mates in the $1.1 to $125 billion rangeannually for the federal gov ernment. Thiscould be compared to the roughly $7 bil-lion that the federal gov ernment presentlySpent's annually un elementary and set.-ondary education programs.

In the longer run two things might hail

' 4

should children leave? At this point Thegloves hit the floor and the issues become,lost in Invective.

Proponents cite the fact that a parochialschool might charge ,$400-$500 in tuitionand fees while ,the neightibring publicschool typically spends at least $1500 Perpupil. Thus a shift, of pupils from thepublic to nonpuplic schools might result ina sizeable saving to society While there isev idence-that nonpublic schools generallyoperate at lower costs than public school ,straightforward subtraction )s notcient for a comparison, For instanc , p,rothial st.hools 'operate at true cos s 'thatsubstantially exceed the tuition fee. In addition to parish contnbutions for operations and regular fund raising events,many of the employees, including theteachers, are clerical Their direct support

w.

could be a part ot a cburch b,udget, and not:a school's, and many cleorical ernelolreeSwork at low cash salartes that .arev.ipple-merited by M-kind sery5ces, 0°, .

. My' mUch. would.a.public School saveby losing a puipil? Publk,s5bOhcosts areusually expressed as atcera'ge Apendituresper p.ipi1 in a district:4These averagesaccount for programs at upRer and lowergrade levels and fol.,' both special .needs

Isqpils such as'the HandicApRed leo areapensiv. to instruct ond also regularpupilswho are, lesS ,expefisive. °Theamounts of mority spenqin yarious

puprls in a public System differdramaticalh o

In general, nonpublic' s.chools do notprovide the pec-ial Rpgrarrtsofferedcornparaticely high coel,y puIlic schooldistricts Only about t '',''ercen,t of sect ,nan scnools provide Prograq fbr tehandicapped, .3.0 percent of all nonpschools provide vocatid4 Oucation, andabout 4.4 percent proyide gimpensatoryeducation If such progrts art-notener-ally offered, pupilsFequiring these ser-vices Will not be indus.echo chaive theirschools by a faZ credh. 5olit is plausible.toassume that inducedoehrollment shifts aremore likely for lower coSt pupils! Fa thisreason alone, an avogage'costconiparisonis probably not a justifiable-basis for/Anal-yzing the cost iMplicationsof enrollmentshifts.

Furthermore, hoz,v much 'of a school's, .,.costs can bl saved wtien Piapil leaves?Teachers have fewer papers to grade, thebus has an extra emfity seat, the play-ground swings wear out a little rnpreslowly, but in none of the'Se,areas are costsdirectly or immediaft recovered. If

enough pupils leave to warrvt laymg off ateacher Or selling ojf,a sChool or closing atransport route, larger'dollar,savings willmaterialize. It is wheniti-sle- district canmake reductions in its fixtd costs of opera-: -tion that substantal savings will beachieved by moving chrldren from publicto nonpublic schools. So, .01-Massive shiftwould ease the pilblic edtkation budgetsubstantially, but marging, shifts wouldleave public school budpts.abvt wherethey are and at the same time raise federalexpenditures by the arouiint ot all claimedcredits,

Equity among income groups

will certain incunte group4 reCeici?rnurt.:in tax credits than other's? ii the credit isavailable to everyone as a refundable cred-it, then all nonpubliL school pupils willgenerate a credit for their families. If this isthe.4.ase, the credits will be distnbuted ac-cording to this table based on U.S. Censusfigures.

.Freicent af Enrollment:by Income Class of Family, 1976*

EleMentanjPublicNonpublicSecon4aryPublicNonpublic

Bilozv5000

13.24.8,

9.73.2

$5000-9999

21.311.7

A

17.5. 10.2

Income Classes

$10000-$15000- $20000-14999 19999 24999

24.-2 14.4 9.826.1 20.9 11.4 .

22.8 16.1 12.517.3, 17.0 17.9

,

Over$250001

18.2

12.4'23.8

*Sotirce. Current Popidation Reports, P-20 Series No. 319, February 1978, Table IA.Rows do not sum to 100 percent due to incomplete reporting.

The largest income group for nonpublicschrl parents is $10,000-.14,999 for eleTmentary schools (reflecting-the predomi-nance of low-cog parochial schoolsamong those schools), and over $25,000,for nonpublic secondary schoOls (reflec(-Mg the greater importance of the indepen-ant, more expensive schools at thislevel). The table illuStrates that nonpublicschool enrollments are drawn from righerincome groups than public school enroll-mentS. As for who receives the tax creditsamong the beneficiaties, roughly half ofthe credits for elementarS, parents wouldgo' to parents above the 1976 median fam-ily income level of $15,00Q. About 58 per-cent of the credits`for secondary parentswould go to these higher income parents.

Public school authorities fearan outpouring of pupils if thegovernment gives them themoneywith which to leave.

This picture can be modified by thepossibility that the plan may not offer re-fundable credits to taxpayers who do notowe sufficient taxes. These are likely to bethe lowest inwme nonpublic schoolparenk the effect of nonrefundabilityWould i;e tO. shift .the distribution ofbenefits from tax credits toward the higherincome families. As ;in example, ie mightconsider the low er income single parentwho has three children at the local paro-chial school. Due tO customary tax deduc-tions and credits this parent may have nofederal tax liabthty and may not recene acredit. The more fortunate counterpartwith an ample income and three bols atAndoc er would claim a $750 tax credit.

Equity among ethnic groups

Recent cents data re eal the prnateschool attendance patterns for Americanfamilies in three categories of ethnic

1 6

identity. white, black Spanish-originfamilies differ in th equency with whichthey send their hildren to nonpublic'schools.

Elementary NonpublicAttendance`Rates (%)

White 12 6%Spanish 9 9%IWO. 4.u".ALL 11

Secondary NonpublicAttendance Rates (%)

WhiteSpanishBlackALL

PublicPrwate

Racial Compositidnof Enrollment:

9 ()%

2

8,0'i,

White Black Otherti2 5 15.7 1 8

.91 8 6.4 1 8

Sourtes Ciirrad Population Report., 1'-20Series, #333, Ockir 1978,#319, Fehruarv 1978

These tables indiCate that white familiesare generally overrepresented in nonpublic schools. American families send11.8 percent and 8 percent of their childrento nonpubli elementary and secondaryschools re pectively . Figures for whitefamilies e ceed these averages, while the

.figures fo &lacks and families of Spanishorigin show attendance rates that are below the national average.

Thus, a tax credit that goes to nonpublicschool families generally will go to morew hite families than if ,granted to the general school population. Spanish -originfamilies will receive credits in somewhat

smaller incidence than-their proportion inthe population. Black famM will receivethe smallest share.o.f.tax credits ;ince theysend the sfnaltest proportion of thpir chil-dren to nonpublic schools. '

Are tuition tax 'cFedits legal?

Tax ..redit plans Lause .the ginernmentto In%ulv e itself viith religious sdiculs andthe L.hur...h. This involvement may or maynut be, ih violation tits the establishmentclause of the Fust:Arnendmenis to the U.S.Constitution. Arguments range fromstatements of what the FourLiing Fathershad in mind by the establishment-clause todiscussion's of the particular effects of aplan under consideration.

Proponents of tax credits -argue that theprincipal beneficiaries re child and fam-ily. The so-called 'Child benefit" thedryauns at darifying church-state Issues wilhregard to government funding. Oppo-nents claim that a significant beneficiarywould be the religious schools or parishesthemselves, that the institutions wouldadvance particular religions at public ex-pense, and that the credits in any caseinvolve excessive government involve-ment in church affairs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acte8 onlyonce on tuition tax credits. In Committee forPublic Eduation v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756(1973), the court struck down a New YorkRogram that provided credits for ele-mentary and secondary school tuition.,The court applied- the newly established"Lemon test," following the precedent setby Lemon v.'kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),for church-state relations under the FirstAmendment. Under this principle, whichwould be applied to a Packwoo-d-Moynihan tyPe of plan, the law must besectilar in purpose, must neither enhancerior inhibit religion, and must not fosterexcessive government entanglement withreligion. The constitutional journey for atax credit proposal is best described as apassage between Scylla and oc!harybdisthe government must have some certainty

.4-

fainesCatterall is an education researcher andconjsultant affiliated with1FG.

4IP

Will the educational attain-ments of the affected pupil

populations be enhanced byfederal tuition 'tax credits?

that its funds are devoted to secular andlegitimate purposes, but in designing Lontrols to assure these ends it must alloidregulatory entanglement with tb_e...hurch.Fifteen years Title I expenence ,haveprobably 4_oipan d eduLators that federalevaluation and f eral mingling often gohand in hand.

,Tiw.Public Interest

To what degree are the public and so-cial purpose's of education achieved in thenation's nonpublic schools? Nonpublicschool supporters hold that their schoolsrepresent a vital stronghold for diversity inAmerican educatiomand for pluralism inthe values transmitted to children. But ifthe govenunent is to support nonpublicschools, the very reasons for having pub-licly funded schooling will lead to somehard questions. ,

If the ,government is going to help paythe tuitionhill, what controls over the qu-ality or character of schooling must follow?Must the schools bemonitored, regulatedand controlled to the point of guar-anteeing a set of standards? Would thisstifle the Mstitutions beyond recognition?Would it entangle state and church be-yond constitutional limits? Is the freedomof choice and exit enough to police theschools on matters of both public and 'un-vate interest?

Whether they have considered the topicin such terms or not, large portions of theU.S. population fiave probably alreadydecided these questions for themselves.The proponents of tuition tax credits be-lieve that the public is served by the non-public sector and that these schools 'per-form well where the public schools havefailed. But opponents suspect that theadvancement of religious beliefs or certainideologies runs Counter to the public mis-sion; they further believe that pupils whoattend schools th'at have parlayed minimalresources into adequate basic educatir

programs might be sh ortchanging them-selves in the development of skills, andappreciations thaa flow from participationin the comprehensive Curricula of manypublic schools.

Will the educational attainments of theaffected pi;p1papula dons be enhanced byfederal tuition tax creditA Buried amongall the issues is the unzlication that theprdposal is dawc.ted airy obliquely andpartially to the educational fortunes of 'hddren Although there can be no simple

- .prognosis, sewral conditional statementshelp 6,1 summarize the probable effects ofan implemented program.

If all pupils remain in their currentschools, dollars will flow from the U.S.Tredsury to nonpublic. school parents;little else will change.

If these dollars are taken from existingfederal education programs (a reasonablesupposition based on the fiscal plans of thenew administration), some effects fil-ter back to the public schools which e-pend on the federal government for aboutnine percent of their.funds.

The recipients of the tuition tax creditdollars will tend to be higher income, whi-ter Americans; the recipients of currentfederal dollars for schools tend to be lower

come and minority children.If nonpublic schools raise their tuition

charges in response to the plan, theymight improve their offerings to theirpupils, or their salaries, which are cur-rently far below public school salaries.

If public school pupils switch to non-public schools, the latter Might capitalizeon this increase in scale and offer a morediverse sei of services.

Such pupil shifts would exacerbatedeclining enrollments in public schoolsand probably initiate the flight of, regularpupils without special needs.

Finally, if public 'school professionalsrecognize tuition tax credits as a threat totheir welfare because of the potential lossof pupils to nonpublic schools, then theymight be impelled to conce-ve of actions

s; thig coulden4,, within

that would attract more pulead to educational improvthe public schodls.

As with Policy Notes, this article may be,reprmted with proper credit. Additionalcopies may be obtained by writing to, theeditor, Thomas' fames, institute forResearch on Educational ,Finance and Gov-ernance, CERAS Building, Stanford, CA94305.