Special education changes are coming

The Senate Education Committee heard a suite of bills last week that could change the way schools treat students receiving special education and other similar accommodations. The Feb. 7 agenda included public hearings on five bills:

• SB 819: Modifies abbreviated school day program requirements.

• SB 821: Directs the superintendent of each school district to ensure that a district report is prepared that summarizes access to instruction by district students.

• SB 290: Clarifies the education duties of the State Board of Education, the Oregon Department of Education, the superintendent of public instruction and district school boards.

• SB 291: Requires ODE to investigate allegations of noncompliance with laws related to discrimination, restraint and seclusion, and religious activity when the department receives a complaint of noncompliance or the department determines there is evidence of noncompliance.

• SB 289: Directs Department of Education to determine if school district or education service district is standard, nonstandard or conditionally standard.

During the hearing, witnesses told stories of serious mistreatment of students by school districts. The bills discussed, if enacted, would represent fundamental changes to special education and modified schedules in Oregon.

The bills would give the state increased oversight of district decisions, including a new complaint system. They would also increase penalties and possible licensure ramifications for administrators and school employees who do not follow the law. School districts would have less ability to use abbreviated days. And parents and students would have more say in the individualized education program process, including potentially adding a legal advocate to IEP hearings.

Legislative hearings this session have revealed harrowing stories in two areas of concern.

The first concern is the way that students on IEPs or other special education-style accommodations were treated in schools. It appears that during the COVID-19 pandemic, and possibly before, students with IEP accommodations in some districts were the victims of discrimination. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, the Oregon Department of Education conceded these findings as the result of a lawsuit. 

During the pandemic, staffing challenges often were blamed. Some school districts and education service districts had enough people to fully staff general education programs but not enough trained staff for special education programs. Some districts allocated the staff they had to give full schedules to general education populations and shortened schedules for special education populations. Although every individual allegation will turn on specific facts, full school days for general education populations and shortened school days for special education populations seems discriminatory.

It is important to acknowledge that, in many circumstances, district leadership were doing the best they could with what they had. It is also important to acknowledge the harm and disproportionate impact special education students and families experienced.

Beyond discrimination, the second concern the bills seek to address is the use of abbreviated schedules for student instructional days. Abbreviated days are regulated under Oregon law. Abbreviated schedules are a tool that can be used to bolster student learning by allowing students who struggle with a full day to spend less time in class than their peers. Abbreviated schedules must be established with the informed consent of parents and be in the best interests of student achievement. Informal conversations with school districts and ODE staff indicate there may be 700 to 900 students across Oregon at any time in the past year or so on an abbreviated schedule.

When used improperly, a shortened schedule can wreak havoc on student achievement and family home life. Testimony indicated that abbreviated day schedules disrupted the lives of parents and students through lost learning time, lost wages and lost jobs. Some students and families allege their districts wrongly used abbreviated schedules to remove challenging children from the school. Parents felt pressured by the district and did not understand that they had the option not to consent. Some students were seemingly put on abbreviated days not for their own learning, but rather as a tool of classroom control or discipline.

These two concerns put school districts in a difficult spot. It is hard to argue things are working properly when many students and families can come before a legislative committee and allege illegal mistreatment by their school districts. But outside legislative hearings, many administrators and families talk about how abbreviated schedules can be a useful tool for student achievement when these schedules are used collaboratively.

It seems likely that some of these bills will pass in some form, but there are many amendments to the bills in the works. Legislative leadership has shown great interest in the law responding to the harm done to students and preventing it from happening in the future.

The OSBA Legislative Services team is trying to ensure school districts’ ability to effectively implement any changes. The changes could be expensive, and it is important that these bills preserve schools’ ability to hire and promote qualified staff.

Legislative leadership is showing interest in the law responding to the harm done to students and helping to avoid it happening again. 

- Richard Donovan
Legislative Services specialist

*This article was updated Feb. 13.