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

beginning to develop policies for students with disabilities. In addition, advocacy organizations were losing a few cases in federal courts and there was a fear that the Supreme Court would reject a constitutional basis for special education, should a case reach the highest court.⁹ The Supreme Court had already announced in a school finance case in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution did not establish a right to public education.¹⁰ Melnick (1994) observed that the advocacy community, which had pushed a right to education agenda through state policies and court cases, now began to appeal to Congress for federal legislation on education for students with disabilities. The timing was right—a policy window was open—as other important social policies had been passed in the early 1970s (Kingdon, 1995; Melnick, 1994; Scotch, 2001). These included the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Child Development Act of 1971, and section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal assistance.

The advocates found a champion for their cause in Congress. Senator Harrison Williams (D-NJ) had established a record on disability policies. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, he had been active in disability issues such as accessible public transportation. Senator Williams then rose to the chairmanship of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. Senator Williams, along with Senator Jennings Randolph (D-WV), introduced Senate bill 6, which offered incentives to states to expand education for children with disabilities. Tweedie (1983) reported that Senator Williams departed from the tradition of having older staff members draft a bill. At the time, legislation was typically drafted under the direction of the relevant subcommittee staff, with possible participation of other members of Congress who had a special interest in the legislation. But the S. 6 bill that Senator Williams introduced was written in collaboration with “an alternative policy network,” described as “a progressive cohort of personally and politically compatible legislative staff members and lobbyists” put together by Senator Williams (Tweedie, 1983, p. 58). Williams’ staff worked