ASAH’s COMMENTS ON PROPOSED
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY RULES (N.J.A.C. 6A: 23A)
AS THEY PERTAIN TO SPECIAL EDUCATION
For thirty-five years, ASAH has served New Jersey’s private special education schools and agencies,
ensuring the highest standards of service excellence for students with disabilities. We are a membership
association, with 135 schools and agencies serving more than 11,000 students with complex, multiple
disabilities for whom public programs are not appropriate.
With a focus on the needs of each student, ASAH works to foster partnerships between its members,
local school districts and local communities. These collaborations enhance the quality of education
programs, and help ensure that students with disabilities have the greatest chance of returning to local
school settings.
An important part of ASAH’s mission is to promote programs and policies that protect and enhance the
well being of students with disabilities and their families. It is with that goal in mind that ASAH offers
these comments on proposed rules for N.J.A.C. (6A:23A).
New code language reflects some improvements:
ASAH supports new language in Section 2.3 concerning the establishment or expansion of public
regional providers. We had previously opposed this section because it would encourage expansion and
development of special education services in public regional programs and as such, is in direct conflict
with the Department’s efforts to increase placements in local programs. We support the new focus on
expansion of administrative services, with the understanding that the term refers to the services
described at 2.3(b)(4) and (5).
We also support new language in Section 2.7, which describes the role of the Executive County
Superintendent in coordinating special education services. We applaud new language that limits referrals
to programs in local school districts, and eliminates a second referral process to regional programs. The
new language strikes a balance by promoting placement in the local special education programs - the
least restrictive setting – while ensuring a more level playing field among out of district, self-contained
providers.
ASAH still opposes several key provisions in the code:
We oppose rules at 2.7 (3)(i)-(iv) that require the IEP team to notify the ECS each time they are
considering an out-of-district placement. This provision is not required by CORE and is overly
prescriptive.
The ECS should be a referral source for the IEP team, but teams should not be forced to contact the
ECS. In addition, any referral database should include a full range of supports and services to foster inclass support for teachers and students. Such supports and services could come from any provider,
including local districts, approved clinics, approved private schools and public regional programs. The
referral database should be accessible by all members of the IEP team, including the parent.
We also strongly oppose language requiring local districts to write a letter of explanation to the ECS
each time they place a student in a program other than one identified by the ECS.
ASAH Comments on Proposed Fiscal Accountability Rules (N.J.A.C. 6A:23A)
page 1 of 2
Review of placement patterns should be based on aggregate data and trends, not on a student-by-student
basis. This level of direct oversight around individual student placements undermines the IDEAmandated IEP team decision-making process, and diminishes the professional role of psychologists,
teachers, social workers and others. And, since the ECS’s have considerable power over local spending,
IEP teams will be pressured to accept the referrals of the ECS, even if they do not believe the program
suggested by the ECS is appropriate.
And, we oppose the rule that allows the ECS to recommend that certain out-of-district students be
returned to district, or that certain class sizes are maximized. Issues around program (i.e. class size) and
placement, are required under federal law to be made individually by the IEP team. The ESC is not a
member of the IEP team and therefore, has no role in such decisions.
Language from the CORE bill NOT reflected in the rules:
First, the CORE bill requires that the ECS work with districts to develop in-district special education
programs and services, including providing training in inclusive education, positive behavior supports,
transition to adult life, and parent professional collaboration. This vital provision is not mentioned in the
rules but is central to building local capacity. The goal is not simply LRE, but rather, LRE in local
programs that are appropriate and which have the capacity to serve students effectively.
Second, CORE requires the ECS to report on a regular basis to the Commissioner on progress in
achieving the goal of increasing the number of special education students educated in appropriate
programs with non-disabled peers. This vital provision is also not mentioned in the rules and should be
added to underscore its importance.
Policy decisions should be based on data, not assumptions:
In closing, I would like to encourage leaders in our state to carefully consider the long term effect of
these rules, which are intended to reduce costs. It is noteworthy that the Department has never conducted
a study to examine the full cost to New Jersey taxpayers of special education services and programs
across settings, so any policy move is based on assumptions, not facts. ASAH has conducted such a
study, which looks at all costs associated with self-contained services. Our study demonstrates that when
all costs are considered, private special education programs are less costly to taxpayers than similar
public programs.
At a time when policy makers are looking to reduce costs while ensuring positive outcomes, we invite
you to read our report.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views with you.
Gerry Thiers
Executive Director of ASAH
ASAH Comments on Proposed Fiscal Accountability Rules (N.J.A.C. 6A:23A)
page 2 of 2