By Suzanne Peyton, Sharon, Massachusetts

On Monday the "Special Education Reform Bill" was filed, starting the final chapter in a carefully orchestrated media campaign.

Sadly, the assertions supporting this bill are not based on facts but innuendoes and distortions. The fact is, the Massachusetts programs as currently managed are MORE cost effective than the national averages, serving identical populations with better results. The changes as proposed will deliver fewer services to needy children, while costing more.

The proponents have said: "Abuse is rampant in the system."

I wish they could have been at a Parent Advisory Council Coalition meeting this weekend in Westwood. As parents discussed this bill, one mom from Milton expressed her fear, confusion, and frustration eloquently; "Who are these people the media always talks about who abuse the system? I do not know of one family in my town that is not struggling to keep their special needs child in their town and in their school. Who are these parents that Tommy Finneran says ‘we'll have to stare them right in the eye...and tell them the days of riding in the gilded Cadillac...is over?’ If there are really people out there who have abused the system, then they and their school system should be held accountable, but please, not at the expense of my child! That Globe reporter, Kate Zernike, must have found the one or two examples in the whole state!"

The reflections of this mother are mirrored by many of the parents across the 351 school districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have spoken to at least one family in 172 communities in this state and the story I hear is very consistent. We truly do not know "who these people are."

What parents of children with special needs and learning disabilities have in common is not an air of entitlement, but a daily struggle to have their children educated with their peers and siblings, and to remain an intrinsic part of their community.

The proponents have said: "These parents are looking for a free private school education."

Why would parents place one child in such a situation and not the other? What parent wants their children placed in a school outside of their town? Out-of-district placements are expensive, and are also disruptive for the child, siblings and the family.

The proponents suggest that all out of district placements for kids with special needs occur because of parental pressure. This is absolutely not true. One of the successes of the current system is the high number of children that remain within their own towns.

Since the inception of Maximum Feasible Benefit (MFB), the rate of regular classroom education for children with disabilities has increased by more than 90 percent. The Commonwealth now ranks fourth in the nation for retaining students with special needs in inclusive, regular education classrooms.

Ninety-six percent (96%) of the Commonwealth’s children with special needs are in public school settings. This indicates that the Massachusetts standard of "maximum feasible benefit" promotes inclusion, and reduces costs.

Our neighbors in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island have residential out of district placements that are two to three times higher than Massachusetts. This data leads me to believe that other states that adhere to the federal standard do not practice inclusion as well, and consequently, must educate more children in out of district placements.

All of these states use the federal standard of special education proposed in the "BILL"-- Clearly, the Massachusetts system as run right now works better.

If parents are so successful in pressuring school systems, why does the data from the Department of Education show that schools prevail in hearing decisions 60% to 70% of the time?

If we abandon MFB now, does that mean it is now okay to reduce our educational expectations of children with special needs? If this MFB standard is repealed, schools could deny access to mainstream programs based on lowered and limited expectations for these children. Some school systems will be pressured to produce significant cost savings by drastically reducing services. Low-income children will be the most vulnerable since it will be difficult for their parents to obtain legal representation to challenge harmful reductions in services.

The public perception is that special education has created an unfair system where some students with special needs get more than other students have. The truth is in some instances, that is absolutely correct. It can cost more to provide a child with disabilities equal access to education. It costs money to buy Braille materials, build wheelchair ramps, provide sign language interpreters, etc. But these expenditures do not give some children more rights than others. It does give them equal access to the same educational opportunities more easily accessed by their non-disabled peers. Suggesting that the current law provides more rights for children with disabilities exploits the understandable frustration of parents who see inadequate resources devoted to public education. We as parents of typical children too, feel this frustration on both sides of the educational coin.

What is out of control is the allocation of funds, and the Commonwealth’s dismal record of supporting public education.

Out of the entire country, the Massachusetts government ranks 46th in the amount of funds allocated to public education.

Massachusetts hardly does any better with special education: Here, we are only outspent by a factor of three.

In Massachusetts, the state pays 17% of special education costs, and local towns (via property tax) pay 76%. Nationally, other states on average provide 3 times more funds for these same services. States provide 53% of funding and communities contribute 40%. Federal programs make up the difference.

Once you compare these funding differences, you can see why Massachusetts’ school districts are in crisis. This state does not support its education funding the way the rest of the country does.

Another popular distortion is that Massachusetts has a special education population of 17% whereas the rest of the nation has one of only 12%. But these numbers are not measuring the same groups.

Massachusetts’ percentage is based on a population of children from 3 to 22 years old. The national percentages are bases on a population of children from 5 to 18 years old. When you compare apples to apples, the Massachusetts special education population is smaller than the national average, 11% to 12%.

‘Free and appropriate education’ is a license for undereducation.

In the Rowley case, the courts denied interpreter services to a profoundly deaf child educated in the mainstream. Under the federal standard, the school did not have to provide an interpreter since the student, at that time, was barely passing from one grade to the next, indicating "adequate" progress. Schools in Massachusetts consistently pass children, even if they are failing. This may qualify for a "free and public education," but is this fair? And what is the long-term cost of spitting undereducated adults into the work force, where they have lower chances of earning a decent living?

The current bill eliminates second assessments and evaluations. Currently, second opinions are financially supported by schools. Like in the medical community, second opinions provide a more balanced objective assessment. Schools who deliver the special education services cannot be objective in assessments, especially if they know it will cost them more. School professionals cannot possibly know all there is to know about every special need or learning disability. Evaluations must be truly independent and objective. If parents do not agree with their schools, they should have the option for a second opinion. The current bill rejects even a sliding fee scale for parents to share the costs of independent evaluations. This sliding fee option would meet the criteria of reducing costs, while insuring that low-income parents can obtain these assessments. Some people or families in more affluent areas will still get that assessment and pay for it out of pocket. By not providing a sliding fee option, our legislators continue to widen the chasm between the "have and the have-nots". Children whose families are not affluent will not have the same educational opportunities that money can buy.

Reviewing the impact of MFB for a year’s study will not harm anyone: legislators, media, accountants, parents or children. Why then are the legislators so reluctant to recommend a one-year review if there will be no cost savings by repealing MFB? Without such a study, school systems will be expected to produce unrealistic cost savings.

And, our legislators are totally ignoring their own Task Force recommendations! I think that any parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, educator, advocate or voting citizen in this Commonwealth who is interested in education and children as a whole, must inform their legislators of their concerns regarding this important issue. Repealing the "maximum feasible benefit" will be harmful to children, and more expensive to all Massachusetts citizens. The current special education program works, far better than presented to date.

Any special education bill should focus on the needs of our children -- not the need for headlines or political influence, not on anyone's specific philosophy, or a desire to save money. Funds should be used to help children, not discriminate against them.

Parents, phone your legislators at the State House, 617-722-2000, and request that the special education bill be amended in three areas:

1) Do not repeal "maximum feasible benefit"; it is necessary to first study harm to children and cost effects.

2) Independent Evaluations are critical and should, at a minimum, include a sliding fee scale

3) Additional state funding for special education is required: the bill proposes inadequate funding.