The Role of Special Education Interest Groups in National Policy ...

that provided testimony. Of those testifying, only the National School Boards Association was in support of the proposed regulations. In the end, the disability advocacy community’s efforts were successful, and the Department dropped the proposed regulations.

A final illustration of the political policy environment with multiple competing interests and access points is the 1997 reauthorization of the act, which extended over three years and two Congresses. The reauthorization received significant media coverage, and scholars have since studied the events in an effort to explain what shaped the unusual process (Egnor, 2003; Price-Ellingstad, 2001). The early stages of the process were characterized by partisanship and conflict among interest groups (Katz, 1996). But while the interest groups and policy makers had many issues of concern (e.g., shortage of special education personnel, rising special education costs), at the heart of the dispute was the discipline of students with disabilities. Groups representing educational administrators generally wanted more flexibility and authority in disciplining students with disabilities, whereas advocacy groups wanted to ensure the due process rights of those students. Some unconventional processes were implemented that eventually led to the passage of the 1997 amendments. For example, in the 104th Congress, the markup of the House bill was delayed while a broad coalition of interest groups reached a consensus on certain provisions in the bill (Katz, 1996). In the 105th Congress, a bipartisan, bicameral working group negotiated numerous provisions of the statute in a preconference style forum, with regular ad-hoc town hall meetings (Egnor, 2003; Price-Ellingstad, 2001). In the reauthorized statute, students with disabilities maintained due process rights guaranteed in earlier acts and had separate discipline standards from nondisabled peers.

This discussion has highlighted the multiple institutional access points and provided examples of instances when organizations have chosen to pursue their interests either in the courts, Congress, or a federal agency depending on the specific issue and their calculations about where they are most likely to be successful. A final observation regarding multiple access points relates to the due process provision in the act. Parents and school