FR Doc E7-13146
[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 36985-36999]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-50]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1820-ZA41
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year
Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces additional requirements and selection
criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15
States to participate in a pilot program, the Multi-Year Individualized
Education Program (IEP) Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program).
State proposals approved under this program will create opportunities
for participating local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve long-
term planning for children with disabilities through the development
and use of comprehensive multi-year IEPs. Additionally, the additional
requirements and selection criteria focus on an identified national
need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs while
preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic achievement.
The Assistant Secretary will use these additional requirements and
selection criteria for a single one-time only competition.
DATES: Effective Date: These additional requirements and selection
criteria are effective August 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4088, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7355 or by e-mail:
Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed
requirements and selection criteria for the Multi-Year IEP Program in
the Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75158) (December 2005
Notice).
[[Page 36986]]
The purpose of the Multi-Year IEP Program established under section
614(d)(5) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as
amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(Act), is to provide an opportunity for States (including Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia and the outlying areas) to allow parents and
LEAs the opportunity for long-term planning by offering the option of
developing a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed three years,
that is designed to coincide with the natural transition points for the
child. Under section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act, the term ``natural
transition points'' means those periods that are close in time to the
transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary
grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades,
from middle or junior high school grades to secondary school grades,
and from secondary school grades to post-secondary activities, but in
no case a period longer than three years (for the full text of section
614(d)(5) of the Act, go to: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/index.html).
Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program
As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the
following requirements that States must follow in developing and
implementing their Multi-Year IEP Program proposals:
1. A State applying for approval under this program must propose to
conduct demonstrations using a comprehensive multi-year IEP (not to
exceed three years) that coincides with natural transition points for
each participating child.
2. Except as specifically provided for under this program, all of
the Act's requirements regarding provision of a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) to children with disabilities (including requirements
related to the content, development, review, and revision of the IEP
under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural safeguards under section
615 of the Act) apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program.
3. A State submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program
must include the following material in its proposal:
(a) Assurances that if an LEA offers parents the option of a multi-
year IEP, development of the multi-year IEP is voluntary.
(b) Assurances that the LEA will obtain informed consent from
parents before a comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for their
child.
(c) A list of all required elements for a comprehensive multi-year
IEP, including:
(i) Measurable long-term goals not to exceed three years,
coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will
enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general
education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that
result from the child's disability.
(ii) Measurable annual goals for determining progress toward
meeting the long-term goals, coinciding with natural transition points
for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make
progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the
child's other needs that result from the child's disability.
(d) A description of the process for the review and revision of a
multi-year IEP, including:
(i) A review by the IEP team of the child's multi-year IEP at each
of the child's natural transition points.
(ii) In years other than a child's natural transition points, an
annual review of the child's IEP to determine the child's current
levels of progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being
achieved, and a requirement to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable
the child to continue to meet the measurable goals set forth in the
IEP.
(iii) If the IEP team determines, on the basis of a review, that
the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals described
in the multi-year IEP, a requirement that within 30 calendar days of
the IEP team's determination, the LEA shall ensure that the IEP team
carries out a more thorough review of the IEP in accordance with
section 614(d)(4) of the Act.
(iv) A requirement that, at the request of the parent, the IEP team
will conduct an immediate review of the child's multi-year IEP, rather
than at the child's next transition point or annual review.
Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria
While the Act establishes the foregoing requirements, it does not
provide for other requirements that are necessary for the
implementation of this program. Accordingly, in the December 2005
Notice, we proposed additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements to
address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria
that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program.
In the December 2005 Notice, we also proposed requirements with
which States would need to comply to allow the Department to evaluate
the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Under section
614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department is required to report to
Congress on the effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will conduct an evaluation of the
program using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the
following outcomes:
(i) Educational and functional results (including academic
achievement) for students with disabilities.
(ii) Time and resource expenditures by IEP team members and
teachers.
(iii) Quality of long-term education plans incorporated in IEPs.
(iv) Degree of collaboration among IEP members.
(v) Degree of parent satisfaction.
These outcomes will be compared for students whose parents consent
to their child's participation in a multi-year IEP and students who are
matched on type of disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/
ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and
to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, who do not
participate in the multi-year IEP. Specifics of the design will be
confirmed during discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup,
and the participating States during the first several months of the
study. Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this
evaluation. They will, at a minimum--
(i) Assist in developing the specifics of the evaluation plan;
(ii) Assure that districts participating in the multi-year IEP will
participate in the evaluation;
(iii) Supply data relevant to the outcomes being measured from
State data sources (e.g., student achievement and functional outcome
data, complaint numbers); and
(iv) Provide background information on relevant State policies and
practices, provide access to current student IEPs (consistent with the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (FERPA) and
the privacy requirements under the Act) during Year One of the
evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in interviews.
The December 2005 Notice described the rationale for the additional
requirements and selection criteria we were proposing. This notice of
final additional requirements and selection criteria contains several
changes from the December 2005 Notice. We fully explain these changes
in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section that follows.
[[Page 36987]]
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the December 2005
Notice, 31 parties submitted comments on the proposed additional
requirements and selection criteria. In addition, we received
approximately 1,200 comments that were identical in form and substance
and that summarized major recommendations submitted by one of the 31
commenters referenced in the preceding sentence; we do not respond to
these 1,200 comments separately.
An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the proposed
additional requirements and selection criteria follows.
We group issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes, and suggested changes the law does
not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority, or
comments that express concerns of a general nature about the Department
or other matters that are not directly relevant to the Multi-Year IEP
Program.
FAPE
Comment: Many commenters recommended revising the final additional
requirements and selection criteria to require States to identify
effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving adverse events, such
as the denial of FAPE.
Discussion: We agree that States participating in this program
should be required to report on and remedy any adverse consequences of
the Multi-Year IEP Program regarding the provision of appropriate
services or the denial of other rights protected under the Act and its
implementing regulations. Accordingly, we will add a new requirement
for States to describe in their proposals how they will collect and
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of any adverse
consequences of their projects, including information that children
with disabilities are not receiving appropriate services because of
their participation in the Multi-Year IEP Program, and information
obtained through their complaint and due process systems relating to
the Multi-Year IEP Program. The new requirement will also require
States to report on how the States responded to this information,
including the outcome of that response.
Changes: The additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements have
been revised by adding a new paragraph 3(e) to require each State to
include in its proposal a description of how the State will collect and
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of adverse
consequences of the project and how the State responded to this
information, including the outcome of that response.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that multi-year IEPs should be
limited to students who are given assessments based on grade-level
achievement standards, and should not be offered to students given
assessments based on modified or alternate achievement standards.
Many commenters recommended that States not be allowed to restrict
any multi-year IEP to any specific disability category or group of
categories.
Several commenters recommended restricting multi-year IEPs for
students who are expected to achieve the same standards as their non-
disabled peers, as these students must have annual IEPs that are
directly tied to grade appropriate core curriculum content standards.
Several commenters recommended that clarification be given
regarding processes that a State may use for students given assessments
against modified or alternate achievement standards.
Discussion: Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act requires that
the IEPs for students who take alternate assessments based on alternate
achievement standards include benchmarks or short-term objectives. We
believe that Congress included this provision to ensure explicit short-
term planning for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities who participate in alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards. However, these students might also
benefit from longer-range planning as part of multi-year IEPs, provided
that such longer-range planning is complemented with shorter-term
planning. The Act does not require that an IEP include benchmarks or
short-term objectives for a student who takes an assessment based on
modified achievement standards, as proposed by the Department on
December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74624).
We do not agree with the commenters who suggested that multi-year
IEPs should be restricted for students who are expected to achieve the
same standards as their non-disabled peers, or for students assessed
based on alternate or modified achievement standards. These suggestions
would preclude the participation of all children with disabilities in
the program and would be inconsistent with the Act.
Clarification is available on the processes that a State may use
for students given assessments based on alternate achievement standards
(see Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most
Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Non-Regulatory Guidance (August,
2005); http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc). Because
the final regulations on assessments based on modified achievement
standards have not been finalized, we are unable to provide
clarification at this time regarding processes that a State may use for
students given assessments based on modified achievement standards.
We agree with the commenters who recommended that multi-year IEPs
be available to all students with disabilities, regardless of
disability category, except that the multi-year IEP for a student who
takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
must also include benchmarks or short-term objectives in addition to
meeting the other requirements of the multi-year IEP. Therefore, we
will add language to additional requirement 3 reflecting this change.
Changes: We have added paragraph 3(a) to the additional
requirements to require that States provide assurances that the multi-
year IEP for any child with a disability who takes an alternate
assessment based on alternate achievement standards includes a
description of benchmarks or short-term objectives in accordance with
section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act.
Comment: Two commenters stated that there is a potential conflict
between recently released proposed regulations permitting States to
develop modified achievement standards and assessments based on those
standards for certain children with disabilities (see the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 15,
2005 (70 FR 74623)). The commenters noted that section 200.1(e)(5) of
the proposed regulations would require that IEP teams review, on an
annual basis, decisions to assess students based on modified
achievement standards to ensure that those standards remain
appropriate. (70 FR 74623, 74635).
Discussion: The Department has not issued final regulations on
modified achievement standards. However, when those regulations are
finalized, if a State wanted to offer assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards to eligible children with disabilities,
the State would have to comply with the requirements specified in those
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated that nothing in the proposed
additional requirements or selection criteria would
[[Page 36988]]
require an IEP team to revisit and adjust a student's IEP when a
student is not progressing in accordance with his or her annual IEP
goals.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed
by the statutory requirements for this program. Under the Act, IEP
teams are required to conduct annual reviews of a child's level of
progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved
and to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue
to meet the measurable goals set forth in the IEP (see
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(BB) of the Act). Moreover, under
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(CC) of the Act, if the IEP team determines,
on the basis of an annual review, that a child is not making sufficient
progress toward the goals described in the multi-year IEP, the LEA must
ensure that, within 30 days of the IEP team's determination, the IEP
team carries out a more thorough review of the IEP. These statutory
requirements are restated in paragraph 3(d)(ii) and (iii) of the
Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program section of this
notice. Because the Act addresses the commenters' concerns, we do not
believe additional requirements or selection criteria are necessary.
Furthermore, all of the statutory requirements will be reflected in the
application package for this competition.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that States be required to
provide a detailed description of how they plan to provide training on
multi-year IEPs for administrators, teachers, related services
providers, education support professionals, and parents. The commenters
expressed concern that children with disabilities would be denied FAPE
absent sufficient training of parents and education personnel on
Federal and State requirements for multi-year IEPs.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is
essential that parents, teachers, administrators, related services
providers, and education support professionals understand the program
in order to ensure proper implementation.
Changes: We have revised the additional requirements by adding a
new paragraph 3(f) to require applying States to provide as part of
their proposals a description of the procedures they will employ to
ensure that diverse stakeholders understand the proposed elements of
the State's submission for the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Comment: One commenter recommended defining the term ``parent'' to
have the meaning of the term as defined in section 602(23) of the Act.
Discussion: We intend the term ``parent'' to have the meaning given
the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B
of the Act (34 CFR 300.30).
However, we agree that additional clarification is needed and will
add a note reflecting this change.
Changes: We have revised the final additional requirements and
selection criteria to include a note defining the term ``parent''
consistent with the definition of that term under section 300.30 of the
final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30).
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to provide additional
clarification on the meaning of the term ``natural transition points.''
Discussion: Section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act defines the term
``natural transition points'' as those periods that are close in time
to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to
elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high
school grades, from middle or junior high school grades to secondary
school grades, and from secondary school grades to post-secondary
activities, but in no case a period longer than three years. We believe
that this definition is clear and that no further clarification is
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerned that the Multi-Year
IEP Program would compromise the right of children with disabilities to
receive FAPE. The commenters recommended that the final requirements
and selection criteria specify that all of the Act's requirements
regarding the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities
(including requirements related to the content, development, review,
and revision of the IEP under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural
safeguards under section 615 of the Act) apply to participants in this
Multi-Year IEP Program.
Discussion: Public agencies participating in the Multi-Year IEP
Program may develop, under the terms of their State's approved
application, IEPs that may deviate in certain specified ways from the
normal requirements regarding IEP content, review and revision. That
said, nothing in this program authorizes participating public agencies
to deny appropriate services to children with disabilities or to limit
any other right they have under the Act and its implementing
regulations.
Changes: None.
National Evaluation
Comment: One commenter recommended that the national evaluation
study be completed as two separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs)--one
awarded to a group that will work in multiple States and sites to
investigate the outcomes variables in a more controlled, experimental
way, and one awarded to a separate group that will complete the study
evaluation.
Discussion: According to section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the
Department must report on the effectiveness of the program and provide
to Congress recommendations for broader implementation, if appropriate.
A maximum of 15 States can participate in this program. Including only
select States in the evaluation would undermine the rigor of the
evaluation, as well as limit the generalizability of the findings.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on an internal review of the description of the
national evaluation in the Background for Additional Requirements and
Selection Criteria section of this notice, we have determined that it
is appropriate to clarify for applicants and other stakeholders that
academic measures are among those student outcomes to be assessed as
part of the national evaluation.
Changes: In the Background for Additional Requirements and
Selection Criteria section of this notice, we have added the phrase
``including academic achievement'' to the outcomes to be measured by
the national evaluation. Paragraph (i) of the outcomes to be measured
now reads: ``Educational and functional results (including academic
achievement) for students with disabilities.''
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department commence
the national evaluation process as soon as the final evaluation design
has been completed, and that the evaluator begin collecting background
information from the States at this time.
Discussion: We do not agree with the commenters regarding the need
to establish a specific timeframe for evaluation activities to commence
or to begin collecting background information from States prior to
awards being made. The collection of background information cannot
begin until after awards are made to States, and we believe that it is
more appropriate to allow IES to confirm the specifics of the
[[Page 36989]]
evaluation design during its discussion with a technical workgroup and
the participating States during the first several months of the study.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters requested a definition of ``quasi-
experimental design'' and an explanation of how it compares with a
``rigorous research design.'' One commenter recommended that the
evaluation include a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation
methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-benefit analyses).
Discussion: A quasi-experimental research design is similar to
experimental research design but it lacks one key ingredient--random
assignment. In conducting the national evaluation, it may not be
possible for IES to match LEAs within States according to demographic
characteristics, programmatic features, and other factors in order to
apply an empirical research design that randomly assigns LEAs to
experimental and control groups. For example, some States may have only
one large urban school district, and a comparable control group within
the State cannot be established. Similarly, it may not be possible to
match participating States according to demographic characteristics in
order to establish experimental and control groups. For this reason,
IES will conduct the national evaluation using a rigorous quasi-
experimental design (i.e., the evaluation will not randomly assign
States or LEAs to ``experimental'' and ``control'' groups). In addition
to quantitative analysis, IES may choose to employ a variety of
qualitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-
benefit analyses). Specifics of the design will be confirmed during
discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the
participating States during the first several months of the study.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended deleting the requirement for
States to work with the national evaluator for four months to conduct
joint planning prior to implementing the program. The commenters
instead recommended that States establish their own schedule to
implement their proposals in an ``expeditious manner.''
Discussion: We believe that it is important to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. A successful evaluation of
the program requires States to work with the national evaluator. We
believe that the four-month timeline for States to conduct joint
planning with the national evaluator is essential to adequately plan
and lay the groundwork for data collection and implementation of the
program and the national evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States
that participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program must participate in the
national evaluation conducted by IES. The commenters also recommended
adding a new requirement that participating States conduct a State
evaluation of the project to ensure accountability to participating
children and families and that the State must provide more detailed
State specific data than would be required for the national evaluation.
Discussion: Paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements makes
clear that participating States must cooperate fully in the national
evaluation. Section 614(d)(5) of the Act does not require a State
evaluation component to the Multi-Year IEP Program and we believe that
it is not appropriate to require States to conduct a State evaluation.
However, nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and
selection criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct
a Statewide assessment of their project as part of their application,
if determined appropriate by the State.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that LEAs not be required to
participate in the national evaluation. One commenter noted that States
lack the authority to enforce the cooperation of school districts to
participate in the national evaluation.
Discussion: The State is responsible for ensuring that
participating LEAs cooperate in the national evaluation conducted by
IES. If a State is unable to provide an assurance that its
participating LEAs will cooperate in the national evaluation, then the
State will be deemed ineligible to participate in the Multi-Year IEP
Program. Similarly, an LEA that does not provide an assurance to the
applying State that it will fully cooperate with the national evaluator
is ineligible to participate in the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify the language in
paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional requirements regarding an evaluator
having access to the most recent IEP created before participating in
the Multi-Year IEP Program because this language implies that no
initially identified child (where the multi-year IEP would be the
child's first IEP) could participate in the pilot project.
Discussion: Initially identified children are eligible to
participate in this program. We agree that additional clarification is
needed because an initially identified child would not have a previous
IEP, and therefore having access to the most recent IEP would not be
applicable.
Changes: Paragraph 3(d)(i) has been revised to clarify that the
evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if
applicable) before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that IES report on the
extent to which program activities ensure satisfaction of family
members.
Discussion: We generally agree with the commenters that the
national evaluation should collect data on the satisfaction of family
members of children participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Section 614(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Act requires the Department to submit a
report to Congress and include in that report specific recommendations
for ``ensuring satisfaction of family members.'' In this context, the
Department interprets the term ``family members'' to mean ``parents''
and intends to collect data on parent satisfaction with the program.
While the perspectives of family members, including siblings,
grandparents, and other relatives, can be important in making
educational decisions for a child with a disability, we believe that
the parents of a child with a disability are in the best position to
represent the interests of their child. Moreover, while the Act
provides a definition of ``parent,'' it does not provide a definition
of ``family member.'' Parents may, at their discretion, convey the
interests and perspectives of other family members in the operation of
the project on behalf of their children. We have revised the Background
for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria of this notice to
clarify that IES will collect data on parent satisfaction with the
program. In addition, as part of our internal review of the notice, we
determined that it was appropriate to revise the Background for
Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria to clarify that IES will
collect data on teacher and administrator satisfaction. We have not
made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria
in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the list of parties
who will be involved in determining the specifics of the evaluation
design should be expanded to include representatives of national parent
[[Page 36990]]
organizations that represent a cross-section of disabilities, as
opposed to being limited to the evaluator, a technical workgroup and
the participating States.
Discussion: IES will identify and select individuals with the
necessary technical expertise to serve as members of the technical
workgroup, which will advise IES on the development of a rigorous
research design for conducting the national evaluation. These
individuals may include representatives of national parent
organizations. We decline at this time to add any other specific
parties to those involved in determining the specifics of the
evaluation design.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the evaluation process
include public meetings during which parents who participate in the
Multi-Year IEP Program may publicly state their opinions regarding the
operation of the program.
Discussion: We do not believe that it is necessary to design the
evaluation process to include public meetings for parents because
parent participation in the national evaluation of the program is
assured under paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements. In
addition, parent participation in the development and implementation of
the program is assured under paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the additional
requirements. However, we believe a change is necessary to paragraph
3(d)(v) of the additional requirements because it is appropriate to
require all participating States to provide assistance to the evaluator
on the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed
consent for parents to participate in interviews and respond to
questionnaires and surveys.
Changes: Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been
amended by deleting the words ``If necessary to the final design of the
study,'' to ensure that the national evaluation of the program will
include the collection of data on the satisfaction of parents of
children participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(d)(v) of the
additional requirements should require the State to ensure that the
national evaluation includes surveys of parents of children with
disabilities from all 13 disability categories, and parents
representing varying minority and socioeconomic backgrounds.
One commenter noted that the individual nature of each IEP may not
be conducive for the use of the proposed treatment of comparing
students participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program with those who are
not. The commenter went on to state that the national evaluation should
not group students by disability category.
Discussion: We recognize that random assignment of students to
experimental and control groups is not possible due to the nature of
the Multi-Year IEP Program. However, we believe that it is critical to
compare the outcomes of students who participate in the program with
those who do not to determine if patterns in student outcomes are
demonstrated.
We decline to require the national evaluation to include surveys of
parents of children with disabilities from all 13 disability
categories. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during
discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the
participating States during the first several months of the study. IES
will conduct an evaluation of the program using a quasi-experimental
design that collects data on educational and functional results for
students with disabilities, time and resource expenditures by IEP team
members and teachers, quality of long-term education plans incorporated
in IEPs, degree of collaboration among IEP members, and degree of
parent satisfaction. These outcomes will be compared between students
whose parents consent to their child's participation in a multi-year
IEP and students who are matched on type of disability, age,
socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home,
prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of
special education, who do not participate in the multi-year IEP.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting all requirements
related to a State's participation in the national evaluation. The
commenters expressed concern that such participation would add
unnecessary costs and paperwork for States and local school districts
and could discourage many States from applying for the Multi-Year IEP
Program.
One commenter noted that the quasi-experimental research design
will be overly costly and burdensome to States and school districts,
particularly regarding data collection.
Discussion: Participating States will play a crucial supportive
role in this evaluation. They will assist in developing the specifics
of the evaluation plan; assure that districts participating in the
multi-year IEP will participate in the evaluation; supply data relevant
to the outcomes being measured from State data sources (e.g., student
achievement and functional outcome data, complaint numbers); and
provide background information on relevant State policies and
practices, provide access to current student IEPs during Year One of
the evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in
interviews. State participation in the national evaluation is critical
to assess the impact of the program. We believe that participation in
the national evaluation will not add unnecessary costs and paperwork or
be overly burdensome for States and local school districts. Moreover,
during the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive
an annual incentive payment (described in the Additional Requirements
section of this notice) that will offset the cost of participating in
the evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that the privacy rights of individuals
under the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act must be protected
in making individual student's IEPs accessible as part of the national
evaluation.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph
3(d)(i) of the additional requirements to clarify that States must
ensure, consistent with the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act,
that the evaluator will have access to students' most current IEPs. In
addition, we have revised the description of the role that States will
play in the national evaluation in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this notice to ensure that the privacy requirements of FERPA
and the Act are protected.
Changes: We have revised paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional
requirements by adding the words ``consistent with the privacy
requirements of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act'' to the sentence requiring States to ensure that the evaluator
will have access to students' IEPs.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department contract
with an independent agency to develop a research design that would
produce reliable information about the effectiveness of the Multi-Year
IEP Program and meet the requirements of the Department's ``What Works
Clearinghouse.''
Discussion: Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility
of IES through its independent contractor. The Department's ``What
Works Clearinghouse'' (WWC) collects, screens, and identifies existing
studies of effectiveness of educational interventions (programs,
products, practices, and policies). The evaluation will be based on a
strong quasi-
[[Page 36991]]
experimental design that will yield valid and reliable results
consistent with the WWC evidence standards for quasi-experimental
studies and will meet the needs of the Secretary for reporting to
Congress under section 426 of the Department of Education Organization
Act and section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department indicate
when the results of the national evaluation will be available and how
they will be disseminated.
Discussion: We believe that it is not appropriate to set a timeline
for disseminating the results of the national evaluation until the
specifics of the national evaluation are confirmed during discussion
with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States
during the first several months of the study. Consistent with section
614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Secretary will submit an annual report to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate regarding the effectiveness of the program and
any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is the
expectation of the Department that this annual report will be based, at
least in part, on the results of the national evaluation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the final additional
requirements and selection criteria require States to assist the
national evaluator in collecting data on the implementation of the
program from parents and family members of children participating in
the program, including by obtaining informed consent from parents to
participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that States should be
required to assist the national evaluator in collecting data from
parents. Therefore, a change will be made.
Changes: Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been
revised to clarify that participating State educational agencies (SEAs)
must provide assistance to the evaluator in the collection of data from
parents, including obtaining informed consent for parents to
participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.
Consent
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the final additional
requirements and selection criteria clarify that parents may revoke
their consent for their child to participate in the Multi-Year IEP
Program at any time.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it would be useful to
clarify that consent may be revoked at any time. Therefore, a change
will be made.
Changes: Paragraph 3(b)(ii) of the additional requirements
(paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements) has been
revised to clarify that parents may revoke their consent at any time
during the implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring that, before a
comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for a child, the LEA must
obtain informed written consent from the parent agreeing to allow the
development of a multi-year IEP for the child that would supercede the
regular IEP requirements, and that the notice that the LEA provides to
the parent must be in the native language of the parent.
Discussion: We intended the phrase ``informed consent'' in
paragraph 3(a) of the proposed additional requirements to mean written
consent that is both informed and provided by the parents voluntarily.
``Consent'' in this context has the same meaning as given the term in
34 CFR 300.9. For consent to be informed, parents must understand what
they are consenting to (i.e., that they are agreeing to a multi-year
IEP for their child in lieu of an IEP that meets the requirements of
section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act). To avoid any confusion or
misunderstanding, we agree to revise the final additional requirements
to state explicitly that LEAs must obtain voluntary informed written
consent from parents for a multi-year IEP for their child, and that,
before an LEA requests such consent, it must inform the parents in
writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is
not feasible to do so) of any differences between the requirements
relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs
under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating
to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the
State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal.
Changes: Paragraph 3(b) of the additional requirements (paragraph
3(a) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to
clarify that States must include in their proposals assurances that,
before an LEA requests a parent's voluntary informed written consent to
the development of a multi-year IEP in lieu of an IEP that meets the
requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the LEA will inform
the parent in writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless
it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any differences between the
requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision
of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements
relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs
under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that informed written parental
consent must include a statement including the opinions of those in the
field that recommend against such consent. The commenters noted that
such a statement should give a description of how the multi-year IEP
differs from a regular IEP and encourage parents to seek advice from
advocacy agencies and resource centers before consenting to a multi-
year IEP.
Discussion: We believe it is unreasonable to expect States and
school districts to seek out and collect information from individuals
who oppose the development of multi-year IEPs for students with
disabilities and to include such information in notices that are
provided to parents. Parents are encouraged to consult with parent
resource centers and other resources in making educational decisions
for their child. The parent notification rights under section
615(c)(1)(D) of the Act requires that parents receive notification of
sources that parents may contact to obtain assistance in understanding
the provisions of the Act, including the provisions of the Multi-Year
IEP Program under section 614(d)(5) of the Act. Furthermore, paragraph
3(b)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(a)(i) of the
proposed additional requirements) requires the LEA to identify any
differences between the requirements relating to the content,
development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the
Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development,
review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP
Program proposal.
Changes: None.
Program Implementation
Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that
submits a proposal for the Multi-Year IEP Program must establish a
committee comprised of school district personnel, and at least three
parents (each representing a different disability group) to provide
input on the State's proposal. In addition, many commenters recommended
requiring that the State's
[[Page 36992]]
application: (a) Include a summary of the public input; (b) indicate
what input the State incorporated into its proposal and who or what
organization provided the suggestion; and (c) identify which
stakeholders agreed and which stakeholders disagreed with each Federal
statutory and regulatory requirement, and State requirement, that the
State proposed to waive under its proposed Multi-Year IEP Program.
Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of
mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including holding public
meetings at convenient times and places and inviting written public
comments. Similarly, two commenters observed that public input must be
transparent, and involve the greatest number of stakeholders,
particularly teachers, administrators, related services providers, and
parents.
Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(c) of the additional
requirements clarify that proposed State proposals must comply with the
public participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act.
Several commenters urged the Secretary to require that States
obtain input from representatives of parent training and information
centers and community parent resource centers (in addition to obtaining
input from school and district personnel, and parents). In addition,
one commenter recommended that the Secretary should require States to
(1) Obtain input from family members and advocates for children with
disabilities, (2) require the State to summarize input that it received
and the type of stakeholder who submitted the input, and (3) describe
how the State's proposal would improve educational and functional
results for children.
Discussion: Proposed State plans must conform with the public
participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act, which
require that before the adoption of any policies and procedures needed
to comply with the Act (including any amendments to such policies and
procedures), the State ensures that there are public hearings, adequate
notice of the hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the
general public, including individuals with disabilities and parents of
children with disabilities.
However, we believe that States should have some flexibility in
designing their process for obtaining public input, rather than
adopting the specific suggestions of the commenter. Accordingly, we
have revised paragraph 3 of the additional requirements (paragraphs
3(b) and 3(c) of the proposed additional requirements) to require
States to include in their proposals a description of how they involved
multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public comment in
developing their proposals consistent with section 612(a)(19) of the
Act. With this change, each State's application will be judged on the
extent to which the State involved multiple stakeholders and provided
an opportunity for public comment when developing its proposal.
Changes: We have revised and renumbered paragraph 3(c) of the
additional requirements to incorporate language from paragraph 3(b) of
the proposed additional requirements and to clarify that a State must
include in its proposal a description of how it will meet the public
participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act. More
specifically, paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements now
requires each State to include in its proposal how the State (a)
Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children, special
education and regular education teachers, related services providers,
and school and district administrators in the development of its
proposal; (b) provided an opportunity for public comment in developing
its proposal, including a summary of public comments received by the
State as well as a description of how the proposal addresses those
public comments; and (c) obtained input from school and district
personnel and parents in developing the list of required elements for
each multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review
and revision of each multi-year IEP.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that the design and
development activities of the proposed project be completed during the
course of the project period. The commenter noted that the proposed
additional requirements for the program require States to begin to
develop their model prior to the submission of the application, and
that the period of the project performance would be devoted to
implementation and evaluation of the program.
Discussion: Prior to submitting its application, a State must
involve multiple stakeholders and convene public meetings to gather
input on Federal and State requirements that the State proposes to
waive to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens
that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for
children with disabilities. The State must also provide a summary of
public comments and how public comments were addressed in the
application. Because a State must meet these minimum requirements for
its application to be deemed eligible for review, it follows that the
focus of the project period must be on the implementation and
evaluation of the program, rather than program design and development
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended increasing the annual
incentive payment provided to States to support program-related
activities, and recommended requiring that the national evaluator
provide funds to participating school districts based on the number of
participating students in the evaluation.
One commenter asked for clarification on whether the Department
will allocate additional dollars to school districts or if the State
would use its incentive payments to offset school district costs.
Discussion: Paragraph 4 of the proposed additional requirements
provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the
Multi-Year IEP Program would be awarded an annual incentive payment of
$10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation
activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with
the project officer and the evaluator. In addition, paragraph 4 of the
proposed additional requirements indicated that each participating
State would receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually
from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the
State, and that incentive payments may also be provided to
participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in
the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Because the total
available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards
made, we are unable to specify an exact amount over the initially
proposed incentive payment amounts. However, the Secretary agrees with
the commenters that more funds should be made available if possible
and, therefore, the final additional requirements have been revised to
clarify that participating States will receive at least $10,000 to
support program-related evaluation activities, and at least $15,000
annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation
activities in the State.
Changes: We have revised paragraph 4 of the final additional
requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to
participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be awarded an annual
incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related
evaluation activities, and not less than
[[Page 36993]]
$15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation
activities in the State, to offset the cost of participating districts,
or to do both. We also have added language to this paragraph to clarify
that the total available funds for each award will depend on the number
of awards made.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that States not be allowed to
authorize LEAs to begin using multi-year IEPs until the beginning of
the first school year after the specifics of the study design for the
national evaluation and the State's evaluation have been determined and
all the background information for the national evaluation has been
provided to IES.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed
because the evaluation design will be determined and all background
information will be collected prior to implementation of the Multi-Year
IEP Program. Accordingly, LEAs may not begin using multi-year IEPs
until the beginning of the first school year after the specifics of the
study design for the national evaluation and the State's evaluation
have been determined and all the background information for the
national evaluation has been provided to IES.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters recommended prohibiting an existing annual
IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before a child's next
scheduled annual IEP meeting, unless the child's parent submits a
written request to convene an IEP meeting on this issue at an earlier
date.
Discussion: In its application, a State may propose to prohibit an
existing IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before the
child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting. However, we do not see a
compelling reason to preclude States from proposing to allow
participating LEAs to convert an existing IEP into a multi-year IEP
that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(5) of the Act and the
requirements in this notice. It is important to note, however, that if
a participating school proposes to convert an existing IEP into a
multi-year IEP before the child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting, it
will need to obtain the informed written consent of the parent, and may
not implement a multi-year IEP for the child without that informed
written parental consent.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters agreed with the language in paragraph
3(d)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements that requires States
to provide a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and
have agreed to implement the Multi-Year IEP Program. These commenters
urged the Department to add a requirement that would prevent districts
or schools from participating in the program if they have a
demonstrated history of not complying with the Act or have experienced
a disproportionate number of complaints to the SEA or participated in a
disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes.
Discussion: We generally agree with the commenters. The State is
obligated to ensure that children with disabilities who participate in
the program continue to receive services in accordance with the Act and
implementing regulations, modified only to the extent consistent with
the State's approved application. States therefore should take into
consideration the compliance history of LEAs within the State as part
of their process for selecting LEAs to participate in the Multi-Year
IEP Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take
corrective action, if needed.
Changes: Paragraph 3(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph
3(d) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to
require the State to provide a description of how it will collect and
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence that children are
not receiving appropriate services because of the State's
implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program, and how the State
responded to this information, including the outcome of that response,
such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve
implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to
implement multi-year IEPs due to unresolved compliance problems.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final additional
requirements and selection criteria reference the language from the
report of the U.S. House of Representatives indicating that the usual
rules for annual IEPs must apply to multi-year IEPs.
Discussion: We believe that the Act is clear that except as
specifically provided for under section 614(d)(5) of the Act, all of
the Act's requirements regarding the provision of FAPE to children with
disabilities apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. We
reiterate this information in the Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year
IEP Program section of this notice. The provisions of section 614(d)(5)
of the Act, though, do contemplate that States could propose to apply
to multi-year IEPs some changes to the normally applicable rules for
annual IEPs, such as changes in the process of reviewing multi-year
IEPs in some years.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit
States from participating in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the
Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program),
which is the subject of a separate notice.
Many commenters recommended adding a requirement that any State
permitted to participate in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the
Paperwork Waiver Program may not implement both programs in the same
district or school.
Discussion: The Act allows States to apply for the Multi-Year IEP
Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program. However, we agree with the
commenters that a State that receives awards for the Multi-Year IEP
Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program should not be permitted to
execute both programs in the same school district. We believe that this
type of prohibition would allow for a more precise evaluation of each
program.
Changes: Paragraph 5 has been added to the final additional
requirements to clarify that States must describe how districts were
selected and provide an assurance that districts are voluntarily
participating along with a description of the circumstances under which
district participation may be terminated. States participating in this
program and the Paperwork Waiver Program may not select the same LEAs
to participate in both programs.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that we approve only those
Multi-Year IEP Program proposals that propose a project period of not
more than four years.
Discussion: We agree with this comment. A four-year period is
sufficient time to allow States to spend one year preparing to
implement multi-year IEPs and three years on the actual implementation,
which coincides with one full cycle of a multi-year IEP (i.e., three
years). In addition, a four-year project period is consistent with the
project period established under the Paperwork Waiver Program. (The
Department will invite applications for the Paperwork Waiver Program
through a separate competition.)
Changes: Paragraph 6 has been added to the final additional
requirements to specify that State proposals will be approved for a
project period not to exceed four years.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional
requirements for this program be revised to prohibit
[[Page 36994]]
applicants from using the Paperwork Waiver Program (authorized under
609(a) of the Act) as a vehicle for implementing multi-year IEPs that
do not comply with the terms of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Discussion: Sections 609 and 614(d)(5) of the Act do not preclude a
State from proposing to waive requirements related to the content,
development, review and revision of IEPs, nor does the Act preclude a
State from proposing to incorporate elements of the Multi-Year IEP
Program in its application for the Paperwork Waiver Program. We decline
to make the requested change because we believe that there are
sufficient protections in the requirements for the Paperwork Waiver
Program to protect a child's right to FAPE as well as to ensure that
civil rights and procedural safeguard requirements are not waived.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed
additional requirements and selection criteria for this program, we
determined that it was appropriate to revise Paragraph 1 of the
proposed additional requirements to provide that the Secretary may
disapprove a State's application to participate in the program if the
Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions
under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act relative to its
implementation of part B of the Act. The Act does not require the
Secretary to disapprove a State's application to participate in the
program under these conditions and we do not believe that it would be
appropriate to require the Secretary to deny approvals under these
conditions. Instead, we believe that it is important that the Secretary
have the authority to take into consideration the compliance history of
States as part of the process used for selecting States to participate
in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Accordingly, we have determined that the
Secretary should retain the discretion to deny or approve a State's
application if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets
the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act
relative to its implementation of part B of the Act.
Changes: Paragraph 1 of the additional requirements has been
revised by deleting the words ``will not grant'' and replacing them
with the words ``may deny'' such that the requirement reads as follows:
``The Secretary may deny a State approval to participate in this
program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the
conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act relative
to its implementation of part B of the Act.''
Comment: One commenter recommended revising paragraph 2 of the
additional requirements by deleting the words ``may terminate'' and
replacing them with the words ``shall terminate,'' so that there will
be no option to allow a State's Multi-Year IEP Program to continue
under the circumstances described in that paragraph.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter that there should be no
option to allow a State's Multi-Year IEP Program to continue under the
circumstances identified in paragraph 2 of the additional requirements.
The Act does not require the Secretary to terminate a State's
application to participate in the program under the circumstances
described in paragraph 2 of the proposed additional requirements.
However, we believe that it is important that the Secretary have the
authority to take into consideration the compliance history of States
as part of the process used for monitoring implementation of the
program and taking corrective action, if needed.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters asked for additional clarity regarding the
implementation of multi-year IEPs. Specifically, the commenters asked
for examples, or a clear description, of the process for the
development, review and revision of a comprehensive multi-year IEP.
Discussion: Only State applications that meet the requirements of
the Act and the additional requirements and selection criteria in this
notice will be eligible for approval. We offer the following example as
one possible approach that States might propose to follow to develop,
review and revise a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed three
years, that coincides with natural transition points for a child. The
following example should not be construed as a requirement:
(1) If the parent of a child with a disability provides informed
written consent, an IEP team develops for the child a comprehensive IEP
that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act and includes
longer-range measurable goals coinciding with natural transition points
for the child.
(2) The IEP team conducts a comprehensive review of the child's IEP
during natural transition points for the child, not to exceed three
years from the date the child's initial IEP was developed, consistent
with section 614(d)(4) of the Act.
(3) In the intervening years between the child's natural transition
points, the child's primary special education teacher or related
services provider (i.e., the educational professional who is primarily
responsible for overseeing implementation of the child's IEP) conducts
a streamlined annual review of the child's IEP to determine (a) The
child's current levels of progress, (b) whether the annual goals for
the child have been achieved, and (c) whether the child is on track for
meeting the longer-range transition goals. Based on these reviews, the
child's primary special education teacher or related services provider
amends the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue to meet
the measurable annual goals and natural transition point goals set out
in the child's IEP.
(4) The child's parent is regularly informed of the child's
progress and the extent to which the child is progressing toward
meeting the measurable annual goals in the IEP and is on track for
reaching the longer-range transition point goals set out in the IEP.
(5) If the primary special education teacher or related services
provider determines that the child has met the measurable annual goals
and is on track for meeting the longer-range transition goals, the
special education teacher or related services provider submits his or
her findings to all members of the IEP team, who have the opportunity
to either agree and sign the IEP, or call for a thorough review of the
child's IEP in accordance with section 614(d)(4) of the Act within 30
calendar days.
(6) If one or more members of the IEP determine that the child did
not make sufficient progress toward the annual goals or is not on track
for meeting the longer-range transition point goals described in the
multi-year IEP, then the IEP team carries out a comprehensive review of
the IEP within 30 calendar days.
(7) If requested by the parent, the IEP team conducts a
comprehensive review of the child's multi-year IEP rather than or
subsequent to a streamlined annual review.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States should indicate in
their applications whether they would need technical assistance from
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) or some other entity.
Discussion: States may choose to indicate in their applications
whether they will need technical assistance from OSEP in the
implementation of the program. States that are awarded authority to
develop multi-year IEPs for students with disabilities consistent
[[Page 36995]]
with the program requirements may contact OSEP for assistance. OSEP
funds a number of national technical assistance centers and regional
resource centers that can provide technical assistance to States in the
operation of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed
additional requirements and selection criteria, we determined that it
is appropriate to revise paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements
by moving the phrase ``if selected.'' The phrase ``if selected'' was
intended to clarify that the requirement only applies to States that
are selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. However, we
believe that the phrase might be misconstrued to mean that not all
States that participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be selected
to participate in the national evaluation. Accordingly, we have re-
worded this paragraph to read, ``Assurances that the State will
cooperate fully in a national evaluation of this program, if selected
to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program.''
Changes: We have revised paragraph 3(d) to clarify that assurances
of cooperation with the national evaluation are required from States
selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Selection Criteria
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further consideration of the proposed selection
criteria, the Department has made the decision to use selection
criteria already established in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of
this program. The proposed selection criteria included many of the
measures that would be evaluated as part of the national evaluation of
this program. We have determined that it would be inappropriate to
include these measures in the selection criteria. We believe that use
of the EDGAR selection criteria will enable the Department to
sufficiently evaluate State applications for this program.
Changes: Throughout the selection criteria, we have replaced or
modified proposed selection criteria to better align with language
taken from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have deleted or
modified proposed selection criteria 1(b), 1(c), 2(a), 2(b), 3(b) and
3(c) and added language from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR.
Comment: One commenter recommended eliminating proposed selection
criteria 1(a) (i.e., that the proposed project demonstrate the extent
to which it will develop or demonstrate promising new strategies that
build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies).
Discussion: We decline to make the requested change because we
believe that selection criterion 1(a) is an important criterion for
evaluating the innovativeness of each State application for the Multi-
Year IEP Program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended revising selection criterion
1(b) to emphasize that the potential for improved long-term planning as
a result of a State's Multi-Year IEP Program proposal be weighted in
light of other important outcomes of a well-written IEP. The commenters
recommended inserting a statement that the Secretary will consider the
extent to which the proposed project will result in improvements to the
IEP without compromising the provision of FAPE, the measurement of
progress toward the achievement of annual and long-term goals,
educational outcomes, and family satisfaction.
Discussion: Since publishing the December 2005 notice, we have
decided to use certain selection criteria from those found in EDGAR in
34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. Proposed selection
criterion 1(b), ``The likelihood that the proposed project will result
in improvements in the IEP process, especially long-term planning for
children with disabilities, without compromising the provision of FAPE,
satisfaction of parents, and educational outcomes for children with
disabilities'' has been deleted. Upon internal review of the proposed
selection criteria, we have determined that this criterion is
inappropriate because it would require panel reviewers to speculate on
the impact proposals would have on the variables to be measured by the
national evaluation (i.e., long-term planning for children with
disabilities, satisfaction of parents and educational outcomes for
children with disabilities). If the relationship between changes in
multi-year IEPs and outcome variables were known, then there would be
no need for the evaluation.
We have replaced proposed selection criterion 1(b) with the
following EDGAR criterion, which is from 34 CFR 75.210(b)(2)(iii):
``The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues or effective
strategies.'' This criterion will allow panel reviewers to evaluate the
proposal's significance relative to how articulately or persuasively
the State can connect current problems or issues with its multi-year
IEP proposal. This type of evaluation and subsequent scoring of an
application is commonly done in proposal review by standing panel
members.
Changes: Proposed selection criterion 1(b) has been deleted and
replaced with the selection criterion from section 75.210(b)(2)(iii) of
EDGAR.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that we consider the
importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be
attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and
student achievement. The commenters suggested that we include a
selection criterion to evaluate the extent to which the proposed
project will reduce the amount of non-instructional time spent by
teachers and related services personnel.
Discussion: As described elsewhere in this notice, since publishing
the December 2005 notice, we have decided to adopt certain selection
criteria from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR for the review of
this program. We believe that including variables, such as non-
instructional time or student achievement in selection criteria, would
be inappropriate because these are the dependent variables to be
examined by the national evaluation. We do not believe it is
appropriate for panel reviewers to speculate on the impact specific
proposals would have on these variables.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that we delete the reference to
reducing the paperwork burden associated with IEPs in proposed
selection criterion 2(b) and to add language clarifying that
improvements in long-range planning not compromise the provision of
FAPE, the measurement of progress toward the achievement of annual and
long-term goals, educational outcomes and family satisfaction.
Discussion: Statutory and additional requirements for this program
only permit certain changes to the development, review and revision of
IEPs. Other than these changes, the requirements of the Act must be
met. The statutory and additional requirements also require LEAs to
complete annual reviews of children's progress and to protect parents'
rights to remove their child from the Multi-Year IEP Program.
Additionally, as noted previously, we have decided to adopt certain
selection criteria from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR for the
review of this program and the proposed 2(b) criterion referred to in
these comments has been deleted.
[[Page 36996]]
Changes: Following a decision to adopt certain selection criteria
from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR, criterion 2(b) was deleted.
Comment: One commenter recommended striking selection criterion
2(c) (i.e., that the Secretary consider the extent to which the
proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental
involvement) as it seemed vague and duplicative of selection criterion
3(c) (i.e., How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of
perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed
project, including those of parents, teachers, related services
providers, administrators, or others, as appropriate).
Discussion: We agree that proposed selection criterion 2(c) is
duplicative.
Changes: We have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c)
regarding the extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer
involvement, including parental involvement.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that we consider the quality
of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project
activities and results.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters. The design and procedures
for documenting proposed activities and results of the Multi-Year IEP
Program must be of high quality for evaluation purposes.
Changes: We have added a new selection criterion 2(c) (as noted
elsewhere, we have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c)) to enable
the Secretary to consider the quality of the proposed project design
and procedures for documenting project activities and results.
Comment: One commenter recommended revising selection criterion
3(b) to address resources devoted by the State to implement the project
in addition to resources devoted by the State to evaluate the project
activities.
Discussion: We do not believe that is necessary to require States
to submit a detailed description of the resources they plan to devote
to implement the project activities. We believe that the main cost
incurred will relate to planned training activities. States certainly
could include as part of their application a detailed description of
planned training activities to demonstrate how their project will
improve long-term planning and address the need to reduce the paperwork
burden associated with IEPs, while maintaining the provision of FAPE.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which the proposed project was designed to involve broad
parental input.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed
by selection criterion 3(c), which ensures that States seek a diversity
of perspectives, including parents, in the implementation of their
projects. Moreover, we believe that paragraphs 3(b)(ii), 3(c)(i),
3(c)(iii), and 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements ensure
involvement by parents in this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Secretary consider the
extent to which the State sufficiently describes how it will recruit
school districts to participate in the program.
Discussion: We believe that additional requirement 5 addresses the
commenter's concern. Additional requirement 5 requires that States must
describe how districts were selected and provide an assurance that
districts are voluntarily participating along with a description of the
circumstances under which district participation may be terminated.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate
to, and will successfully address, the needs of children with
disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to consider the extent to
which the design of a project is appropriate to, and will successfully
address, the needs of children with disabilities. As discussed
elsewhere, we have added new selection criterion 1(c) to highlight the
importance of improving teaching and student achievement. To place even
more emphasis within the selection criteria on this issue, we have also
added another selection criterion that would require consideration of
the extent to which the project's purpose will address the needs of the
target population.
Changes: We have added selection criterion 2(b) to place further
emphasis on how well the project will address the needs of the target
population as a basis for application review.
Comment: Many commenters recommended revising the selection
criteria to incorporate the statutory requirements laid out in section
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act regarding the content of proposals.
Discussion: As noted in paragraph 2 of the Statutory Requirements
for Multi-Year IEP Program section of this notice, all applicants are
required to meet the statutory requirements laid out in section
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act regarding the content of their
proposals. All States must meet the statutory requirements of section
614(d)(5) of the Act in order to be deemed eligible to participate in
the Multi-Year IEP Program. We do not believe it is necessary or
appropriate to repeat the statutory requirements of section
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) in the selection criteria section for this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended including the selection
criterion found in section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR, which requires the
Secretary to consider the extent to which the proposed activities
constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field.
Discussion: We decline to include the selection criterion from
section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR in the selection criteria for this
program because that selection criterion applies to professional
development grants and is not appropriate for the Multi-Year IEP
Program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are
integral to the design of the proposed project.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed
under the management plan selection criterion in paragraph 3(a) (i.e.,
that the Secretary consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring
feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed
project).
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that we consider the adequacy
of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the
operation of the proposed project, and that we also consider whether
such procedures ensured multiple methods for collecting data on parent
satisfaction from a broad representative sample throughout the State.
One commenter recommended amending the selection criteria to allow
States to modify and revise their original statutory, regulatory, and
administrative waiver requests during the course of the pilot project.
One commenter recommended requiring States to include an evaluation
of whether the pilot project has a mechanism for reporting adverse
events, such as denial of FAPE to a child with disability, and the
effectiveness of that mechanism.
[[Page 36997]]
Discussion: We believe that final selection criterion 3(c)
addresses the concerns of commenters regarding the involvement of
multiple stakeholders in the operation of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
In addition, the Secretary is committed to ensuring the objectivity and
integrity of the national evaluation conducted by IES. For this reason,
we do not support allowing States to pursue changes to waiver
activities proposed in their initial applications as this would
significantly interfere with the reliability of outcome data gathered
as part of the evaluation component for this program. Finally, with
respect to the comment regarding FAPE, we believe that the commenter's
concerns are addressed by paragraph 3(e) of the additional
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended including a new selection
criterion to require that the Secretary consider the extent to which
the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to conduct a State
evaluation of its project and the training of IEP Team members to
ensure proper implementation of the demonstration program.
Discussion: Section 614(d)(5) of the Act does not require a State
evaluation component to the Multi-Year IEP Program, rather, States are
required to cooperate with the national evaluation conducted by IES.
That said, nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and
selection criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct
a Statewide assessment component of their project as part of their
application, if determined appropriate by the State.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended revising the selection criteria
to require States to address their commitment to cooperate in the
national evaluation in their applications, and to clarify that States
are not required to document the extent to which they devoted
sufficient resources to conduct data collection and analysis as part of
the evaluation of the program.
Discussion: We believe that it is not necessary to include a
selection criterion that evaluates an applicant's commitment to
cooperate with the national evaluation because paragraph 3(d) of the
additional requirements already requires applicants to include
assurances to this effect in their proposals. Moreover, as noted
elsewhere in this preamble, the Department has decided to use only
selection criteria from EDGAR; consequently, selection criterion 3(b)
has been deleted in its entirety, including references to the
sufficiency of resources devoted to the evaluation.
Changes: Criterion 3(b) has been deleted.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
how the applicant will ensure that the perspectives of children with
disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed
project.
One commenter recommended revising selection criterion 3(c) to
ensure that the perspectives of family members and advocates for
children with disabilities are considered.
Discussion: We believe it is important to involve children with
disabilities in their educational programming. We therefore agree with
the commenter that it is appropriate to ensure that the perspectives of
children with disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the
project. However, we do not agree with the commenter regarding the need
to involve family members and child advocates, other than the child's
parents or legal guardian. Selection criterion 3(c) addresses how the
applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to
bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of
parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary
and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or
others, as appropriate. While the perspectives of siblings,
grandparents, other relatives, and outside advocates can be important
in making educational decisions for a child with a disability, we
believe that the parents of a child with a disability are in the best
position to represent the interests of their child. Parents may, at
their discretion, convey the interests and perspectives of other family
members and outside advocates in the operation of the project on behalf
of their children.
In addition, outside stakeholder involvement in the development
phase of the project is assured under paragraph 3(c) of the additional
requirements.
Changes: Selection criterion 3(c) has been amended to adopt
selection criteria from section 75.210(g)(2)(v) of EDGAR: ``How the
applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to
bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of
parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary
and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or
others, as appropriate.''
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State
provide for examining the effectiveness of the project implementation
strategies and provide guidance for quality assurance.
Discussion: We believe that the concerns of the commenters are
addressed in the Quality of the project design selection criterion
(selection criterion 2). Selection criterion 2 provides that we will
consider (a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to
be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and
measurable; (b) the extent to which the design of the proposed project
is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the
target population or other identified needs; and (c) the quality of the
proposed project's procedures for documenting project activities and
results. Additionally, the responsibility for evaluation of these
projects rests with the national evaluation to be conducted by IES in
cooperation with the States, not with the States themselves.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State
will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment toward
achieving intended outcomes.
Discussion: We believe that the concerns of the commenters are
addressed in selection criteria 2(a) and 3(a). Selection criterion 2(a)
provides that the Secretary will consider the extent to which the
goals, objectives and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project
are clearly specified, measurable, and address active participation in
the program evaluation. Selection criterion 3(a) provides that we will
consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider
the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State
include multiple methods for collecting data on parent satisfaction
from a broad representative sample throughout the State with respect to
the waivers and the usefulness of the information and training they
have received.
Discussion: We believe that the evaluation of these projects is the
responsibility of the national evaluation to be designed and conducted
by IES in collaboration with the States. There is no requirement for
the States to complete an impact evaluation of their
[[Page 36998]]
projects independent of the national evaluation.
Changes: None.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. We will invite
applications through a separate notice in the Federal Register.
Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria for Multi-Year IEP
Program
Additional Requirements
The Secretary establishes the following additional requirements for
the Multi-Year IEP Program:
1. The Secretary may deny a State approval to participate in this
program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the
conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act relative
to its implementation of part B of the Act.
2. The Secretary may terminate any Multi-Year IEP Program project
if the Secretary determines that the State (a) needs assistance under
section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and the State's participation in
this program has contributed to or caused the need for assistance; (b)
needs intervention under 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or
(c) failed to appropriately implement its project.
3. States submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program
must include the following material in their proposal:
(a) Assurances that the multi-year IEP for any child with a
disability who takes an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards includes a description of benchmarks or short-
term objectives in accordance with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of
the Act.
(b) Assurances that before an LEA requests a parent's voluntary
informed written consent to the development of a multi-year IEP in lieu
of an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the
Act, the LEA will inform the parent in writing (and in the native
language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of:
(i) Any differences between the requirements relating to the
content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d)
of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content,
development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved
Multi-Year IEP Program proposal; and
(ii) The parent's right to revoke consent at any time during the
implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program and the LEA's
responsibility to conduct, within 30 calendar days after revocation by
the parent, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets the
requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act.
(c) A description of how the State will meet the public
participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including
how the State:
(i) Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children
with disabilities, special education and regular education teachers,
related services providers, and school and district administrators, in
the development of its proposal;
(ii) Provided an opportunity for public comment in developing its
proposal. This description must include a summary of public comments
received by the State as well as a description of how the proposal
addresses those public comments; and
(iii) Obtained input from school and district personnel and parents
in developing the list of required elements for each multi-year IEP and
the description of the process for the review and revision of each
multi-year IEP.
(d) Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national
evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Multi-
Year IEP Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of four
months between the State's award and subsequent implementation of this
program to conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes
participation by the State educational agency (SEA) in the following
evaluation activities:
(i) Providing to the evaluator the list of required elements for
the multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review
and revision of the multi-year IEP submitted as part of the State's
application for this program. Consistent with the privacy requirements
of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, ensuring
that the evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if
applicable) before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program and the
multi-year IEP(s) created during the project for each participating
child (multi-year IEP participants and matched participants who do not
have a multi-year IEP), together with a general description of the
process for completing both versions of the IEP.
(ii) Recruiting districts or schools to participate in the
evaluation (as established in the evaluation design) and ensuring their
continued cooperation with the evaluation. Providing a list of
districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to
implement the proposed Multi-Year IEP Program, allow data collection to
occur, and cooperate fully with the evaluation. Providing, for each
participating school or district, basic demographic information such as
student enrollment, district wealth and ethnicity breakdowns, the
number of children with disabilities by category, and the number or
type of personnel, as requested by the evaluator.
(iii) Serving in an advisory capacity to assist the evaluator in
identifying valid and reliable data sources and improving the design of
data collection instruments and methods.
(iv) Providing to the evaluator an inventory of existing State-
level data relevant to the evaluation questions or consistent with the
identified data sources. Supplying requested State-level data in
accordance with the timelines specified in the evaluation design.
(v) Providing assistance to the evaluator on the collection of data
from parents, including obtaining written informed consent for parents
to participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.
(vi) Designating a coordinator for the project who will monitor the
implementation of the project and work with the evaluator. This
coordinator also will serve as the primary point of contact for the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer.
(e) A description of how the State will collect and report to the
Department, as part of the State's annual performance report submission
to the Secretary in accordance with section 616(b)(2)(c)(ii)(II) of the
Act, and to the national evaluator, that children are not receiving
appropriate services because of the State's implementation of Multi-
Year IEP Program, and how the State responded to this information,
including the outcome of that response such as providing technical
assistance to the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or
terminating the authority of an LEA to implement multi-year IEPs due to
unresolved compliance problems.
(f) A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure
that diverse stakeholders (including parents, teachers, administrators,
related services providers, and other stakeholders, as appropriate)
understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the
Multi-Year IEP Program.
4. Each State receiving approval to participate in the Multi-Year
IEP Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of not less
than $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related
evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually
to meet with the project officer and the evaluator.
[[Page 36999]]
Each participating State will receive an additional incentive payment
of not less than $15,000 annually from the contractor to support
evaluation activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be
provided to participating districts to offset the costs of their
participation in the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Total
available funds will depend on the number of awards made.
5. States must describe how districts were selected and provide an
assurance that districts are voluntarily participating along with a
description of the circumstances under which district participation may
be terminated. States participating in this program and the Paperwork
Waiver Demonstration Program may not select the same LEAs to
participate in both programs.
6. Proposals must be for projects not to exceed a period of four
years.
Note: The term ``parent'' as used in these requirements and
selection criteria for the Multi-Year IEP Program has the same
meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations
implementing part B of the Act.
Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate State
proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were
selected because they address the statutory requirements and program
requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to
addressing these requirements.
Note: We will inform applicants of the points or weights
assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published
in the Federal Register inviting States to submit applications for
this program.
1. Significance. The Secretary considers the significance of the
proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on,
or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(b) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies.
(c) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and
student outcomes.
2. Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers the
quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the
quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(b) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs.
(c) The quality of the proposed project design and procedures for
documenting project activities and results.
3. Quality of the management plan. The Secretary considers the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining
the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(b) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria
has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the
terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits
of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently. Although there may be costs associated with participating
in this pilot, the Department will provide incentive payments to States
to help offset these costs. In addition, we expect that States will
weigh these costs against the benefits of being able to participate in
the pilot and will only opt to participate in this pilot if the
potential benefits exceed the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.326Q Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education
Program Demonstration Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414.
Dated: June 29, 2007.
Jennifer Sheehy,
Director of Policy and Planning for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E7-13146 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P