Education letter reo IDEA and House Juvenile Bill

      what do you think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP on 06/16/99 05:00
PM ---------------------------




Ronald E. Jones
06/16/99 04:18:15 PM
Record Type:    Record

To:      Barbara   Chow/OMB/EOP, Jonathan H. Schnur/OPD/EOP, Tanya E.
Martin/OPD/EOP,    Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP
cc:      Richard   E. Green/OMB/EOP, David Rowe/OMB/EOP
subject:           Education letter reo IDEA and House Juvenile Bill

Education asked to send the attached letter to the House objecting to a
proposed amendment to the House juvenile crime bill that is on the floor
now.  I understand that Education policy officals have discussed this with
Barbara Chow or were planning to discuss it bef~re it was sent.

The position taken is identical to the two letters cleared for the Senate
on the Ashcroft amendment to S. 254, the Senate counterpart.   However, b
ecause the Norwood amendment would apply to all weapons, not just to
firearms this draft refers to "weapons" throughout and a paragraph has
been added on page two relating to the IDEAD,s definition of "weapon".
There are also a few editorial changes.   (The changes from the Senate
letter, other than the obvious changes to the bill number and the sponsor
of the amendment, are shown below in red. )

Given that floor action has started and that the letter is basically a
restatement of a previous position, we initially cleared the letter
without recirculating it. However, Education has agreed to hold the
letter to give more time for a review.

If you have any comments on this letter please forward them to me, Richard
Green, and David Rowe.




Education letter follows:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to an amendment that
Representative Norwood has offered to H.R. 1501, the juvenile crime bill
that the House is now considering. This amendment would allow school
personnel to suspend or expel children with disabilities from their
schools for unlimited periods of time, without any educational services,
including behavioral intervention services, and without the impartial
hearing now required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), for carrying or possessing a weapon to, or at, a school function.

The Congress need not address the particular issue that is the subject of
the Norwood amendment, because it amended the IDEA just two years ago to
give school officials new tools to address the precise issue of children
with disabilities bringing weapons to school or otherwise threatening
teachers and other students.   For example, school officials may remove,
for up to 45 days, a child with a disability who takes a weapon to school,
and may request a hearing officer to similarly remove a child who is
substantially likely to injure himself or others, if the child's parents
object to a change in the child's placement.   Furthermore, the IDEA allows
hearing officers to keep these students out of the regular educational
environment beyond 45 days if they continue to pose a threat to the rest
of the student body.  Finally, the 1997 amendments to the IDEA help
prevent dangerous situations from arising, by encouraging schools to
address misbehavior before it becomes serious, through the provision of
behavioral interventions and other appropriate services.   I am convinced
that these new tools will be effective if given a chance to work.

I am firmly committed to ensuring that all our schools are safe and
disciplined environments where all our children, including children with
disabilities, can learn without fear of violence.  But we should not let
the tragic school shootings in Littleton, Colorado, and other communities
lead us to responses, such as the Norwood amendment, that will harm
children with disabilities, and that will not make our schools and
communities safer.

First, the Norwood amendment would deny vital educational services to
children with disabilities who are removed from school, including
behavioral interventions that are designed to prevent dangerous behavior
from recurring . . Continued provision of educational services, including
these behavioral interventions, offers the best chance fqr improving the
long-term prospects for these children. Discontinuing educational
services is the wrong decision in the short run and, in the long run, will
result in significant costs in terms of increased crime, dependency on
public assistance, unemployment, and alienation from society. We cannot
afford to throwaway a single child.

Second, the Norwood amendment would undo vital protections in the IDEA
that were included to protect children with disabilities from widespread
abuses of their civil rights.  Under this amendment, for example, the IDEA
would no longer require schools to determine, when suspending or expelling
a child with a disability, whether the behavior of the child in carrying
or possessing a weapon is related to the childD,s disability. Such a
determination, which can currently be made while the child has been
removed from school, is needed to ensure that children are not unjustly
denied educational services during their removal without considering the
effects of the child's disability on their behavior. The manifestation
determination required by the IDEA is an important tool schools use to
appropriately understand the relationship between a child's behavior and
their disability in order to best implement behavior intervention
strategies.

 [NEW PARAGRAPH; SEE NOTE AT END OF DOCUMENT]   Finally, the applicable
definition of "weapon" (current section 615 (k) (10) (D) of the IDEA) is very
broad and open to subjective application, covering anything, such as a
rock, a roll of coins, or a baseball bat for an after-school pick-up game,
that is "readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury",
whether or not it is designed as a weapon and without regard to the
studentD,s intention in bringing it to school. Thus, a school could


 -..
exploit the Norwood amendment to expel children with disabilities who are
difficult or expensive to serve, but who pose no danger to others at
school.

We should be making every effort to appropriately reach out to our
children and help prevent them from endangering themselves and others.   It
is equally important that we appropriately address the needs of children
who have gone astray, violated the rules, and put others at risk.  The
exclusion of children with disabilities from school -- without the
impartial due-process hearing and the continued services that the IDEA now
requires -- is the wrong response.

I urge you to vote against the Norwood amendment.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to
the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.

                                                    Yours sincerely,


                                                    Richard W. Riley


[Note to reviewers: Current section 615(k) (10) (D) of .the IDEA (20 U.S.C.
1415(k) (10) (D)), which would apply to the term "weapon" as used in the
Norwood amendment, says that "the term 'weapon' has the meaning given the
term 'dangerous weapon' under paragraph (2) of the first subsection (g) of
section 930 of title 18, United States Code".    [ThereD,s actually only one
subsection (g) of 18 USC 930 now, because the seco~d (g) was redesignated
as (h) by P.L. 104-294, sec. 603(u), on Oct. 11, 1996.1

18 USC 930(g), in turn, defines "dangerous weapon" as "a weapon, device,
instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used
for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury,
except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less
than 2 1/2 inches in length". 1