The Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights organized a series of public hearings to engage residents of the U.S. state of Arkansas and assess IDEA compliance and implementation.
Problems and Purpose
Growing scholarship has indicated the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) has failed to provide equitable educational opportunities for students with disabilities on a national scale [1]. To determine the state of IDEA implementation and compliance specifically in schools in the U.S. state of Arkansas, the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adopted a proposal to assess the achievement of students with disabilities in comparison to students without disabilities and establish whether students with disabilities are receiving the services they are entitled to under U.S. federal law [2].
Background History and Context
To gain comprehensive knowledge of civil rights violations at the state level, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) created Advisory Committees in each state, U.S. territory, and the District of Columbia [3]. Established following the Civil Rights Act of 1957 [4], these Committees use their expertise, state-specific knowledge, and the input of other local citizens to assess possible civil rights violations and provide recommendations to the Commission [5]. The Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights(the Arkansas Advisory Committee or the Committee) has a long history of assessing for discrimination and promoting policy changes in Arkansas [5]. Precedents include holding hearings on Arkansas Delta race relations in 1990 [6], as well as collecting information from citizens regarding the on-the-ground enforcement of civil rights laws in 1998, the latter of which led the Committee to recommend the establishment of a state civil rights agency [7]. This particular case focuses on the Committee’s assessment of IDEA compliance and discrimination in Arkansas schools.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted at the federal level in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities have a suitable, no-cost education that includes access to special education services and early intervention [8]. IDEA further requires that the state must be proactive in identifying children with disabilities, develop an individualized education program for each child with the consultation of parents, and carry out the education of these children within an environment with as few restrictions as possible [8]. The Arkansas Advisory Committee’s inquiry into IDEA implementation and compliance within the Arkansas education system was stimulated by the increasing national prominence of compliance issues. This can be seen in a 2019 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) report that found that students with disabilities, particularly students of color, were being negatively impacted by school policies, producing disparities in education based on disability [1]. In response to this phenomenon, the Arkansas Advisory Committee announced its plans to launch a civil rights investigation concerning the topic in June 2021 [9].
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The primary organizer of this study was the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the USCCR. This Committee operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it an entity of the federal government [10]. With this, any expenses of the Committee are funded through the USCCR and its Regional Programs Coordination Unit, which are funded by the U.S. Congress [10]. The Committee currently consists of eleven citizens, who serve four-year terms without compensation [11]. These individuals come from a wide range of professions, owing to the USCCR’s desire for Committees to include citizens with diverse experiences, knowledge, and perspectives [11]. Committee members are Arkansas residents interested in civil rights, who must apply for membership and be approved by the USCCR through a majority vote [11]. The Arkansas Advisory Committee includes the positions of Chair, Vice Chair, and Editorial Officer, which are voted on by the Committee. For the IDEA study, the Committee met virtually four times during the 2023 fiscal year to discuss the report [12]. Depending on who was in attendance, meetings were run by the Chair or Vice Chair, and majority rule voting was utilized for group decision-making regarding the report [12].
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participants included various members of the public. The Arkansas Advisory Committee used purposive sampling to collect testimony regarding IDEA compliance and implementation [2]. Drawing on their expertise in civil rights, Committee members invited individuals knowledgeable about the issue to give testimony.These individuals include those directly affected by IDEA or those with expertise in the area, as in the participation of school district employees, Arkansas Department of Education employees, disability rights advocates, parents of students with disabilities, and students with disabilities, among others.
These meetings were open to the public, which was communicated through announcements on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights website [13]. Members of the public were able to make comments or ask questions during these meetings, but most of the data came from key stakeholders in IDEA compliance and implementation. No incentives were offered to participants.
Methods and Tools Used
The method used in this case was a combination of an advisory committee and public hearings. Advisory committees are committees of experts, typically appointed to advise on specific issues, while public hearings are events where members of the public are invited to provide commentary on a particular issue [14] [15]. These methods are determined by the Advisory Committee Management Officer, who is responsible for establishing Committee procedures, management controls, and administrative guidelines [16]. The Arkansas Advisory Committee, composed of civil rights experts, organized a series of virtual public hearings to gain feedback on the implementation of IDEA from Arkansans. Historically, Committee meetings have been accessible to the public only by phone, but a video viewing option was added during the pandemic [17]. While the meetings largely consisted of testimony from individuals who were invited based on their proximity to the issue, meetings were open to the public, with a period of questions and comments set aside at the end of every meeting [18]. Written testimony from key informants was also collected [19].
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Public hearings were held virtually on June 4, 2021, August 6, 2021, November 5, 2021, December 10, 2021, and March 4, 2022 [2]. Citizens with knowledge of IDEA compliance and implementation were invited to give testimony as panelists at these hearings. At each meeting conducted by the Committee, the agenda included welcoming remarks, panel speaker presentations, committee dialogue, and public comment [20]. The testimony from the panelists took up most of each meeting, followed by the committee dialogue portion where Committee members asked panelists clarifying questions. Meeting participants from the public rarely gave comments during the meetings.
For example, during the November 5, 2021 public hearing, the Committee opened the session by describing the order of events and ground rules to be followed, and then proceeded to introduce the panelists for that meeting. Panelists included an attorney with the National Disability Rights Network, the Director of IDEA Data & Research at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, a professor of Special Education at the University of Arkansas, and a faculty member from the Clinton School of Public Service. Each panelist was allotted 10 minutes for their testimony, which included discussions of IDEA’s heavy monitoring requirements, its restrictive definition concerning which students qualify under the Act, and the intended impact of IDEA versus its disparate effects on the ground. After the testimony portion, Committee members asked questions concerning the information given, specifically focusing on how to reduce the achievement gaps between disabled and non-disabled students. The meeting adjourned after two members of the public gave comment [21].
The public hearing method allowed the Arkansas Advisory Committee to gain a comprehensive understanding of IDEA implementation and compliance in Arkansas schools, especially because of the diverse testimony given. Although the key informant testimony dominated the discussion of IDEA, the space for public comment and the public posting of meeting notices gave space for other members of the public to contribute. This process was carried out for the purpose of providing recommendations, which the Committee published in their report, “IDEA Compliance and Implementation in Arkansas Schools,” released on January 26, 2023 [2]. Within this report, the Committee states that the creation of the report involved the diverse input of its members, and therefore not every statement in the report reflects the perspective of individual Committee members [2].
The major factual findings of the report are that many students with disabilities are not identified and therefore do not receive the services provided under IDEA, many school districts lack enough resources to meet student needs, and those resources that do exist typically address only learning needs and not behavioral needs. The Committee also found that teachers are often not trained on the skillsets most relevant to disability education, leading to ineffective instruction, and many Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), or the education plans created for students with disabilities as required by IDEA, are poorly designed and thus negatively impact the academic success of students with disabilities [2]. The final findings of the report include that school district noncompliance forces parents and students to advocate for the provision of adequate supports, as well as that IDEA lacks protection against disparities in disciplinary and academic practices, leading disabled students of color and students of low socioeconomic status to receive discipline at a much higher rate than other students with disabilities [2]. The recommendations of the report are intended for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and they suggest that the USCCR should issue recommendations to the Governor of Arkansas, the Arkansas General Assembly, the Arkansas Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Arkansas Department of Education, and Disability Rights Arkansas [2]. Upon release, the report was posted on the USCCR website and thus is freely accessible to the public.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Following the finding that students with disabilities were not fully receiving services or meeting adequate achievement levels, four main recommendations were outlined by the Committee in their report. First, the Committee recommended that the USCCR should disseminate the report to the Arkansas Department of Education, all Arkansas school districts, Disability Rights Arkansas, and the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators. Second, the USCCR should issue several recommendations to the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas General Assembly, including passing legislation that would ensure students with disabilities receive extra time for intervention, support from highly qualified staff, and equitable instruction in core courses, and have access to an increased number of resources. Third, the USCCR should issue recommendations to the Arkansas Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, including suggestions to survey parents to evaluate special education services and to implement administrative reforms if legislation is unlikely to pass. Lastly, the USCCR should issue recommendations to the Arkansas Department of Education and Disability Rights Arkansas that encourage collaboration between the two agencies to ensure more effective IDEA implementation and compliance [2]. No information could be found regarding whether these recommendations led to tangible action.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Due to a lack of information, it is unknown whether the recommendations provided by the Committee prompted reform within the relevant agencies and organizations. Looking at the process itself, the author believes that the overall citizen participatory process was effective. By holding a variety of public meetings on a virtual platform, and by providing space at each meeting for public comment, the Committee was able to increase accessibility for members of the public. With this, the Committee was also able to ensure they received diverse and informative testimony regarding IDEA by inviting key informants to contribute to the discussion [22].
To further increase effectiveness, the Committee could have expanded its publicity efforts regarding notices for meetings, which would have allowed them to attract more members of the public, and they could have surveyed participants following the report to ensure their findings and recommendations were truly in line with on-the-ground experience [22]. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), which provides recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency, increases its effectiveness in this way. The NEJAC holds “widely-publicized” annual meetings, attended by hundreds of members of the public with around fifty giving public comment each time. Following the annual meetings, members of the NEJAC, EPA, and the public are given another month to review the report, add further comments, and make any additional recommendations [23]. Thus, the Arkansas Advisory Committee can learn from the NEJAC’s example, possibly by taking actions to increase publicity surrounding the Committee’s activities and by providing a period of review after testimony is collected. Lastly, to ensure these recommendations had their intended effects, the Committee could have focused on increasing buy-in among relevant stakeholders [22].
See Also
References
[1] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2019). Beyond Suspensions: Examining School Discipline Policies and Connections to the School-to-Prison Pipeline for Students of Color with Disabilities. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/07-23-Beyond-Suspensions.pdf
[2] Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2023). IDEA Compliance and Implementation in Arkansas Schools. https://www.usccr.gov/files/2023-01/2023_idea-compliance-and-implementation-in-ar.pdf
[3] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (n.d.). States and Territories Currently Seeking Nominations and Applicants. https://www.usccr.gov/advisory-committees/applicants
[4] The Civil Rights of 1957, H.R. 6127—3, Sec. 105 (c) (1957). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title42/pdf/USCODE-2021-title42-chap20A-sec1975.pdf
[5] National Conference of State Advisory Committee Delegates. (1960). The National Conference and the Reports of the State Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1959. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.civil/uscdeo0001&collection=civil
[6] Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1990). Race Relations in the Arkansas Delta. https://www.usccr.gov/files/historical/1990/F-015.pdf
[7] Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2001). Who Is Enforcing Civil Rights in Arkansas: Is There a Need for a State Civil Rights Agency? https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/sac/ar0201/main.htm
[8] Lipkin, P. H., & Okamoto, J. (2015). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Children With Special Educational Needs. Pediatrics (Evanston), 136(6), e1650–e1662. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3409
[9] Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2021, June 22). Arkansas Advisory Committee Announces Study on IDEA Compliance and Implementation in Arkansas Schools, Calls for Public Comment. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. https://www.usccr.gov/news/2021/arkansas-advisory-committee-announces-study-idea-compliance-and-implementation-arkansas
[10] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2022). Charter for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Advisory Committees. https://gsa-geo.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#t0000000Gyj0/a/t0000002YpAz/e2r2BSBCq1BBmXO0s8xvezkbL7d92SjLnvA5QWAYZd8
[11] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (n.d.) FAQs. https://www.usccr.gov/about/faqs
[12] FACA Database. (n.d.) Arkansas Advisory Committee. https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/s/meeting-members-advisory-reports?recordId=a10t0000001gzlxAAA&tabset-29055=1
[13] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (n.d.) Arkansas. https://www.usccr.gov/states/arkansas
[14] Expert Advisory Panel. (n.d.) Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/5311
[15] Public Hearing. (n.d.) Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/162
[16] The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, U.S.C. 92-463 § 8 (1972). https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=86&page=773
[17] Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2021, January 15). Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/15/2021-00804/notice-of-public-meetings-of-the-arkansas-advisory-committee
[18] Arkansas Advisory Committee. (2021, June 4). Meeting Minutes. https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef58&id=L0FSL0lERUEgYW5kIEVkdWNhdGlvbi8yMDIxXzA2XzA0
[19] Arkansas Advisory Committee. (n.d.) Written Testimony. https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef58&id=L0FSL0lERUEgYW5kIEVkdWNhdGlvbi9Xcml0dGVuIFRlc3RpbW9ueQ%3D%3D
[20] Arkansas Advisory Committee. (2021, November 5). Meeting Agenda. https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef58&id=L0FSL0lERUEgYW5kIEVkdWNhdGlvbi8yMDIxXzExXzA1
[21] Arkansas Advisory Committee. (2021, November 5). Transcript. https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef58&id=L0FSL0lERUEgYW5kIEVkdWNhdGlvbi8yMDIxXzExXzA1
[22] Barnett, Karlie. “Citizen Assessment of IDEA Compliance and Implementation in Arkansas Schools Analysis.” Unpublished manuscript, last modified November 21, 2023. PDF file.
[23] Heierbacher, S., Scully, P. L., & Sartor, N. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (United States). In Participedia. Retrieved from https://participedia.net/organization/4856
External Links
Committee’s final IDEA report: https://www.usccr.gov/files/2023-01/2023_idea-compliance-and-implementation-in-ar.pdf
USCCR website: https://www.usccr.gov/
Notes
The original submission of this case entry was written by Karlie Barnett, a Master of Public Service candidate at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. The views expressed in the current version are those of the authors, editors, or cited sources, and are not necessarily those of the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.