N.J.s Progress In Special Ed

In a long-awaited report, federal regulators that once scorned New Jersey's special education system found the state has made some significant improvements in monitoring local districts and providing them needed assistance.

Yet in a new monitoring report issued for New Jersey's program, the U.S. Department of Education also found flaws still exist in both the state's and districts' programs, including an "ineffective" process for reviewing complaints and enforcing improvement orders.

Issued on Sept. 14 and released by the state this week, the 72-page report has been eagerly awaited as a follow-up to a federal finding in 1999 of "long-standing, serious noncompliance" in both district programs and the state's oversight.

The state has more than 200,000 students classified as disabled, from those with severe physical and emotional disorders to those with milder learning disabilities.

But regulators found an array of problems in the programs provided these children, including a high rate of students placed in separate classrooms and not among their non-disabled peers, as required by law. At that time, federal officials said the state was in jeopardy of losing federal funds unless improvements were made.

The state responded with a new monitoring and assistance program that has included an intensive review of every district over five years. So far, virtually every district reviewed has been ordered to make improvements, and two dozen have been placed on "high-risk" status.

Over the last year, federal officials have commended the new process. In July, they removed the "special conditions" on New Jersey's federal aid for special education.

The new report summarized much of the progress and praised the state on several other fronts, including its assistance to districts and involvement of parents and advocates in the process.

"It's a very positive report for us," said Barbara Gantwerk, New Jersey's special education director. "They have really identified the progress we've made, and given us credit for our gains. . . . It's the best report from them that we have ever received."

Yet as much as the state has improved, the shortcomings remain deep in several areas, the report and others said, with the list of "noncompliance" nearly as long as that of strengths.

They included the continued placement of disabled students in segregated settings, often for behavior problems that the schools themselves should be addressing. They cited a lack of adequate staffing in many districts, especially as they face a tighter labor market in the special education fields.

The report also said the state's process of reviewing and enforcing specific complaints against districts remained inconsistent. The concern is one that advocates have been citing for years, even as the review process has been strengthened.

"While the state may find corrective action is needed, the follow-up and enforcement is missing, lending itself only to repeated violations by a district," said Sheri-Rose Rubin, managing attorney for New Jersey Protection and Advocacy.

Enforcement remains a primary issue for advocates who say they have yet to see the local benefits to the state's stronger monitoring.

"I still see the state as being a little tentative because of, in some cases, political backlash from a district," said Debra Jennings, acting director of the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network. "Holding districts' feet to the fire? I'm still waiting for that to happen."

Jennings especially cited the state's own operations of Newark, Paterson and Jersey City schools, all three districts in which problems were cited but have yet to be corrected.

"These are some of the worst districts in the state in terms of compliance," she said. "If you can't force compliance in the state-operated districts, what does that mean for everyone else?"

Article continues below

---

advertisement

---

Author: The Cherry Hill Connection.com