FR Doc E7-13145
[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 36970-36985]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-49]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1820-ZA42
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver
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 Paperwork Waiver
Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program). State proposals
approved under this program will create opportunities for participating
States to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties in
order to increase time for instruction and other activities to improve
educational and functional results for children with disabilities,
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 for this program.
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 4078, 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 Paperwork Waiver Program in
the Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75161) (December 2005
Notice).
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law Public Law 108-
446, 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (Act). This new law reflects the
importance of strengthening our Nation's efforts to ensure every child
with a disability has available a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) that is (1) of high quality and (2) designed to achieve the high
standards established in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
The Paperwork Waiver Program is one of two demonstration programs
authorized under the new law that is designed to address parents',
special educators' and States' desire to reduce excessive and
repetitious paperwork, administrative burden, and non-instructional
teacher time and, at the same time, to increase the resources and time
available for classroom instruction and other activities focused on
improving educational and functional results of children with
disabilities.
Paperwork burden in special education affects (1) the time school
staff can devote to instruction or service provision and (2) retention
of staff, particularly special education teachers. In 2002, the Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded a nationally representative
study of teachers' perceptions of sources of paperwork burden, the
hours devoted to these activities, and possible explanations for
variations among teachers in the hours devoted to these tasks. Among
the findings related to the Individualized Education Program (IEP),
student evaluations, progress reporting, and case management was that
teachers whose administrative duties and paperwork exceeded four hours
per week were more likely to perceive these responsibilities as
interfering with their job of teaching. Moreover, the study found that
the mean number of hours reported by teachers to be devoted to these
tasks was 6.3 hours per week.
[[Page 36971]]
However, data from the study also suggested that there was considerable
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devoted to
paperwork. For example, the average hours spent on administrative
duties and paperwork varied significantly by geographic region, with
the Northeast having the lowest paperwork burden.
Through the Paperwork Waiver Program, established under section
609(a) of the Act, the Secretary may grant waivers of certain statutory
and regulatory requirements under part B of the Act to not more than 15
States, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the
outlying areas (States) based on State proposals to reduce excessive
paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in
improving educational and functional results for children with
disabilities. The Secretary is authorized to grant these waivers for a
period of up to four years.
Although the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to reduce
the paperwork burden associated with the Act, not all statutory and
regulatory requirements under part B of the Act may be waived.
Specifically, the Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory
provisions relating to applicable civil rights requirements or
procedural safeguards. Furthermore, waivers may not affect the right of
a child with a disability to receive FAPE. In short, State proposals
must preserve the basic rights of students with disabilities.
Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program
As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the
following requirements to govern the Paperwork Waiver Program
proposals:
1. States applying for approval under this program must submit a
proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time
burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional
results for children with disabilities.
2. A State submitting a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program
must include in its proposal a list of any statutory requirements of,
or regulatory requirements relating to, part B of the Act that the
State desires the Secretary to waive, in whole or in part (not
including civil rights requirements and procedural safeguards as noted
elsewhere in this notice); and a list of any State requirements that
the State proposes to waive or change, in whole or in part, to carry
out the waiver granted to the State by the Secretary. Waivers may be
granted for a period of up to four years.
3. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving any statutory
requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to procedural
requirements under section 615 of the Act or applicable civil rights
requirements. A waiver may not affect the right of a child with a
disability to receive FAPE (as defined in section 602(9) of the Act).
4. The Secretary will not grant any waiver to a State if the
Secretary has determined 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.
5. The Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as part of
this program if the Secretary determines that the State (a) needs
assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the
waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance; (b) needs
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or
(c) fails to appropriately implement its waiver.
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 Paperwork Waiver Program requirements to
address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria
that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program.
In this notice, we also establish requirements with which States
must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Under section 609(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 using a quasi-
experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes: (a)
Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for
students with disabilities, (b) allocation and engagement of
instructional time for students with disabilities, (c) time and
resources spent on administrative duties and paperwork requirements by
teaching and related services personnel, (d) quality of special
education services and plans incorporated in IEPs, (e) teacher, parent,
and administrator satisfaction, (f) the promotion of collaboration of
IEP team members, and (g) enhanced long-term educational planning for
students. These outcomes will be compared between students who
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and students who are
matched on 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 paperwork waiver program. 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.
Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this
evaluation. They will, at a minimum, assist in developing the
evaluation plan, assure that districts participating in the Paperwork
Waiver Program will collaborate with the evaluation, provide background
information on relevant State policies and practices, supply data
relevant to the outcomes from State data sources (e.g., student
achievement and functional performance data, complaint numbers),
provide access to current student IEPs (if appropriate and paperwork
waiver affects an IEP) during Year 1 of the evaluation (consistent with
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g
(FERPA) and the privacy requirements under the Act), complete
questionnaires and surveys, and participate in interviews. Data
collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its
contractor. States can expect to allocate resources for this purpose at
a minimum during Year 1 to assist with planning the details of the
evaluation, ensuring participation of involved districts, providing
access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or
participating in interviews. Over 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.
The December 2005 Notice included a background statement that
described the rationale for the additional requirements and selection
criteria we were proposing. This notice of final 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 36972]]
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the December 2005 Notice, 22
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 22 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
additional requirements and selection criteria since publication of the
December 2005 Notice follows.
We group issues according to subject. We do not address technical
or other minor changes, and suggested changes that 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 Paperwork Waiver
Program.
FAPE
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the final additional
requirements and selection criteria identify all of the Federal
requirements that a State applying for approval under this program can
propose to waive while ensuring that students with disabilities
continue to receive FAPE.
One commenter recommended that States be required to explain why
they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be
waived and why they feel that such waivers can be accomplished without
denying FAPE
Discussion: The commenters misunderstand the statutory obligation,
which is to ensure that the Paperwork Waiver Program does not affect
the right of a child to receive a FAPE, not to ensure that children
continue to receive a FAPE. In general, States are in a better position
to identify Federal and State requirements that, in practice, do not
assist in improving educational and functional results for children
with disabilities residing in their State. States can make these
determinations by taking into consideration the uniqueness of their
State practices and policies, and the compliance history of local
school districts within their State. We believe that the right to
receive FAPE can be sufficiently protected by requiring that parents
provide voluntary informed written consent for any change in policies
or procedures under the Paperwork Waiver Program that affects the
provision of FAPE to their child, such as changes to the IEP.
We do not believe that States should be required to explain why
they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be
waived. The purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an
opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and
other administrative duties that are directly associated with the
requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources
available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving
educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The
national evaluation will assess the extent to which the waivers were
successful in reaching these goals.
Changes: We have revised paragraph 1 of the additional requirements
by revising paragraph 1(f) and adding a new paragraph 1(g) (paragraph
1(f) and 1(g) now contain language from paragraph 1(e) of the proposed
additional requirements) to require that local education agencies
(LEAs) obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents to waive
any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as
changes related to IEPs, and requiring that the LEA must inform the
parent in writing of any differences between the requirements of the
Act related to the provision of FAPE (including changes related to
IEPs), the parent's right to revoke consent, and the LEA's
responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the
provision of FAPE when the parent does not provide informed written
consent, or revokes that consent. Additionally, the LEA must inform the
parents that if the parents revoke consent to a waiver of paperwork
requirements regarding IEPs that the LEA must conduct, within 30
calendar days of such revocation, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that
meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act.
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. These commenters also 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 State educational agency (SEA) or participated in a
disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes.
Discussion: We generally agree with the commenters and will add a
new requirement that State applicants describe how they will collect,
report on and respond to evidence of adverse consequences. 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 Paperwork
Waiver Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take
corrective action, if needed.
Changes: Paragraph 1(c) of the additional requirements has been
revised to require the State to provide an assurance that the State
will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator all State
complaints related to the denial of FAPE to any student with a
disability, 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 the Paperwork Waiver Program due to
unresolved compliance problems. In addition, paragraph 1(h)(ii) of the
additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(ii) of the proposed additional
requirements) has been revised to require the State to describe to the
evaluator the circumstances under which district participation may be
terminated.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final additional
requirements specify that the authority to implement the Paperwork
Waiver Program will be terminated for any State that is found to be in
noncompliance with the Act.
Discussion: We believe that the commenter's concern is addressed by
the language in section 609(a)(4) of the Act. As explained in paragraph
5 of the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program section in
this notice, the Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as
part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State (a)
needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the
waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance; (b) needs
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or
(c) fails to appropriately implement its waiver.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters agreed that a State should not be
permitted to participate in the Paperwork Waiver
[[Page 36973]]
Program if the State meets the conditions under section
616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act, and recommended that the
additional requirements and selection criteria also limit participation
in the Paperwork Waiver Program to States in which the majority of the
State's schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq. (ESEA).
One commenter recommended that the Department contact the Chief
State School Officers and Special Education Directors of States that
are eligible to submit a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program to
inform them of their eligibility.
Discussion: Section 609 of the Act does not limit participation in
the Paperwork Waiver Program to States that have met the requirements
of the ESEA. Given that Congress did not limit eligibility in this
manner, the Department does not believe it is appropriate to limit
eligibility to States in which the majority of their schools meet AYP
under the ESEA.
The Secretary believes that the additional requirements and
selection criteria provide clear guidance as to eligibility criteria
for this program, and that separate notification of eligibility to
States is not necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed
additional requirements and selection criteria, we determined that it
was appropriate to revise paragraph 1 of the additional requirements to
better align it with the language of the Act as specified in paragraph
1 of the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program section of
this notice. Specifically, section 609(a)(1) of the Act specifies that
the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an
opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and
other administrative duties that are directly associated with the
requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources
available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving
educational and functional results for children with disabilities.
Changes: We have revised the introductory language in paragraph 1
of the additional requirements to clarify that a State applying for
approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive
paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in
improving educational and functional results for children with
disabilities.
Civil Rights/Procedural Safeguards
Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that States are
prohibited from proposing any waiver of procedural safeguards under
section 615 of the Act, and that the civil rights requirements that may
not be waived are not limited to provisions set forth in section 615 of
the Act.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that additional clarification is
needed because the civil rights requirements that may not be waived
under this program are not limited to the civil rights requirements in
section 615 of the Act. Accordingly, we have revised the wording of
paragraph 3 in the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program
section of this notice to clarify that States may not propose to waive
any procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act, and may not
propose to waive any applicable civil rights requirements. No changes
are necessary to the final additional requirements or selection
criteria in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended including the Act in the list
of statutes in the definition of applicable civil rights requirements
in paragraph 2 of the proposed additional requirements. In addition,
one commenter recommended that the list include the U.S. Constitution,
and that States should be required to add a detailed explanation of
what steps they will take to ensure that children's civil rights are
not violated or waived.
Discussion: Consistent with section 609 of the Act, the additional
requirements and selection criteria prohibit waiving any statutory or
regulatory requirements related to applicable civil rights
requirements. Paragraph 2 of the additional requirements defines the
term applicable civil rights as all civil rights requirements in:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and the
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. We
have not included the Act in the list of statutes in this definition
because section 609 of the Act clearly allows States that are
participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program to waive some
requirements of the Act. Including the Act in this list would preclude
States from waiving any Federal requirements in order to reduce the
paperwork burden associated with requirements of part B of the Act and
would be inconsistent with the explicit purposes of section 609 of the
Act. We do not include the U.S. Constitution in the list of applicable
civil rights statutes because, as a matter of law, the Act could not be
interpreted to allow for the waiver of any of the protections provided
under the U.S. Constitution.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the results of the
national evaluation on the Paperwork Waiver Program could form the
basis for waiving requirements of the Act in subsequent
reauthorizations, which would erode civil rights protections and FAPE
for children with disabilities.
Discussion: The Act provides for the Paperwork Waiver Program and
directs the Secretary to report to Congress on the effectiveness of
waivers granted under the program. The national evaluation will yield
the information necessary for the Department to carry out this
responsibility. We cannot address what future reauthorizations of the
Act will require or provide.
Changes: None.
Public Input/Parental Notification and Consent
Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that
submits a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver 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, including defining the terms ``excessive
paperwork'' and ``non-instructional time burdens.'' In addition, many
commenters recommended requiring that the State's 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 and State requirement
that the State proposed to waive under its proposed paperwork waiver
program.
Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of
mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including public meetings
held 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,
students, and parents.
[[Page 36974]]
Several commenters urged the Secretary to require that (in addition
to obtaining input from school and district personnel, and parents)
States obtain input from representatives of parent training and
information centers and community parent resource centers and parents.
In addition, one commenter recommended that the Secretary should
require States to (a) obtain input from family members and advocates
for children with disabilities, (b) require the State to summarize the
input that it received and the type of stakeholder who submitted the
input, and (c) describe how each specific proposal to waive a Federal
statutory or regulatory requirement, or State requirement, would
improve educational and functional results for children by reducing
paperwork.
One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements
and selection criteria define the kinds of paperwork that may be waived
that are excessive and impose non-instructional time burdens on school
personnel, and the Secretary should not allow any waiver of notices to
families, reports of evaluation results, IEPs, or performance reports
to parents. The commenter also recommended that (a) the State ensure
that the State Parent Training and Information Center and Special
Education Advisory Council support the State's application for each
proposed waiver; (b) institutions of higher education work in
collaboration with the State in developing its application; and (c) the
State have a plan for on-going implementation review that requires data
collection and the submission of interim reports to the Secretary.
One commenter recommended clarifying that any proposed State plans
must comply with section 612(a)(19) of the Act requiring public
participation.
One commenter recommended that the Department should clearly
articulate the impact that negative public input will have on the
selection criteria of a State's application, if any.
Discussion: It is not appropriate or possible for the Department to
prejudge the possible impact of stakeholder input on the peer
reviewers' recommendations. Likewise, we believe that States should
have some flexibility in designing their process for obtaining public
input. We have revised paragraph 1(a) of the additional requirements to
require States to include in their proposals a description of how they
involved multiple stakeholders in selecting the requirements proposed
for the waiver and any specific proposals for changing those
requirements to reduce paperwork, and a description of how they
provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the
requirements proposed for the waiver consistent with the requirements
of section 612(a)(19) of the Act. Paragraph 1(b) of the additional
requirements requires the proposal to include a summary of the public
comments received upon implementing paragraph 1(a) and a description of
how those comments were addressed in the proposal. Accordingly, each
State's application will be judged on the extent to which the State
involved multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public
comment in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver.
Changes: We have revised paragraph 1(a) of the additional
requirements to clarify that a State must include in its proposal a
description of how the State (a) involved multiple stakeholders,
including parents, children with disabilities, special education and
regular education teachers, related services providers, and school and
district administrators, in selecting the requirements proposed for the
waiver and any specific proposals for changing those requirements to
reduce paperwork, and (b) provided an opportunity for public comment in
selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver. In addition, we
have added a new paragraph 1(b) to the additional requirements to
require the State to provide a summary of public comments and how
public comments were addressed in the proposal.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that States be required to
provide a detailed description of how they plan to provide training on
the paperwork waivers 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 that are waived by the State.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is
essential that parents, teachers, administrators, related services
providers, and education support professionals understand what Federal
and State requirements are waived by the State as part of the Paperwork
Waiver Program in order to ensure proper implementation.
Changes: We have revised the additional requirements by adding a
new paragraph 1(d) 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 Paperwork Waiver Program. With the
addition of this new paragraph 1(d), we have redesignated paragraphs
1(d) through (f) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraphs
1(e) through (g). Paragraphs 1(e) through (g) reflect additional
changes as discussed in this preamble.
Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that the parents of
children with disabilities should receive written notice, in addition
to verbal notice, of any waiver of Federal requirements permitted under
the Paperwork Waiver Program. If the State proposes to waive IEP
requirements, the commenters recommended requiring that States receive
informed written consent from the parents before an IEP that does not
meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is developed for a
child with a disability. The commenters also recommended that parents
should receive written notice of any State requirements that will be
waived under the program, the anticipated effects of these waivers, and
the protections that have been put into place to ensure that no child
with a disability is denied FAPE. The commenters stressed that sending
parents a list of references to Federal and State requirements that
will be waived is insufficient to ensure that they are properly
informed. The commenters recommended requiring that notice to parents
of any waived requirements be fully explained, written in an easily
understandable manner and in the parent's native language, with an
explanation of the effect of such waivers and the protections that have
been put in place to ensure the provision of FAPE in the least
restrictive environment, and the protection of the child's civil rights
and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act.
Three commenters recommended eliminating the parental notification
requirement altogether.
One commenter recommended requiring that the Paperwork Waiver
Program include effective mechanisms for reporting to the Department
adverse effects of the program, such as denial of FAPE.
Discussion: Section 609(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires the State
to identify any statutory or regulatory requirements related to part B
of the Act that would be waived, and section 609(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the
Act requires the State to identify any State requirements that would be
waived. Although not specifically required under section 609 of the
Act, paragraph 1(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(d) of
the
[[Page 36975]]
proposed additional requirements), which requires States to ensure that
parents are given notice of any statutory, regulatory, or State
requirements that will be waived as part of the Paperwork Waiver
Program, is consistent with the parental notice requirements in section
615 of the Act.
We agree with the commenters that the notice containing the
requirements that are being waived should be presented to parents in
writing and in a manner that is understandable to parents consistent
with section 615 of the Act. We have incorporated, in paragraphs 1(f)
and 1(g) of the additional requirements, parent consent requirements to
ensure that waivers will not result in the denial of a child's right to
FAPE. We agree that States should disseminate information about how
they will ensure a child's right to FAPE, and otherwise protect the
child's civil rights and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the
Act to participating LEAs that, in turn, should provide the information
to parents. Accordingly, we have added language to paragraph 1(e) of
the additional requirements (paragraph 1(d) in the proposed additional
requirements) to clarify that the parental notice on what Federal and
State requirements are being waived include a description of the
procedures the State will employ to ensure that the child's right to
FAPE is preserved and that the child's civil rights and procedural
safeguards under section 615 of the Act are protected, and that such
notice should be in writing in easily understandable language and in
the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to
do so.
In addition, we agree with the commenters that participating LEAs
must obtain informed written consent from parents before an IEP that
does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is
developed for a child with a disability. Paragraph 1(g) of the
additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional
requirements) requires States to ensure that, in requesting voluntary
informed written consent from parents, the LEA must inform the parent
in writing of (i) any differences between the paperwork requirements of
the Act related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to
IEPs, (ii) the parent's right to revoke consent to waive any paperwork
requirements related to the provision of FAPE at any time, (iii) the
LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the
provision of FAPE if the parent does not provide voluntary written
informed consent or revokes consent, and (iv) the LEA's responsibility
to conduct an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all requirements
of section 614(d) of the Act within 30 calendar days if the parent
revokes consent to waiving paperwork requirements related to the
content, development, review, and revision of IEPs. We do not agree
with commenters that the notice must include an explanation of the
effects of such waivers. Section 609 of the Act does not require the
State to include in such a notice specific anticipated effects of the
waiver program. Moreover, we believe that the possible benefits of
including this information in the notices are outweighed by the burden.
In short, we believe that children are sufficiently protected by the
fact that States must ensure that the waiver program does not affect
the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE.
Changes: We have re-designated paragraph 1(d) of the proposed
additional requirements as paragraph 1(e) and revised paragraph 1(e) of
the final additional requirements to require States to provide
assurances that each parent of a child with a disability in
participating LEAs will be given written notice (in the native language
of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any
statutory, regulatory, or State requirements that will be waived and
notice of the procedures that State will employ under paragraph 1(c)
(which requires that States ensure the right to FAPE and protection of
due process protections under section 615 of the Act, and applicable
civil rights requirements).
In addition, we have re-designated paragraph 1(e) of the proposed
additional requirements as paragraph 1(f) and revised paragraph 1(f) of
the additional requirements to require that in applying for a waiver of
any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as
changes related to IEPs, applicants must assure that they will require
any participating LEA to obtain voluntary informed written consent from
the parents. We also have added language to paragraph 1(g) of the
additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional
requirements) to clarify that States must ensure that in requesting
voluntary informed written consent from parents, the LEA must inform
the parent in writing (and in the parent's native language, unless it
clearly is not feasible to do so) of (i) any differences between the
paperwork requirements of the Act related to the provision of FAPE,
such as changes related to IEPs, (ii) the parent's right to revoke
consent to waive any paperwork requirements related to the provision of
FAPE at any time, (iii) the LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork
requirements related to the provision of FAPE if the parent does not
provide voluntary written informed consent or revokes consent, and (iv)
the LEA's responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting to develop an IEP
that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act within 30
calendar days if the parent revokes consent to waiving paperwork
requirements related to the content, development, review and revision
of IEPs.
Comment: One commenter recommended deleting the additional
requirement that States allow parents to revoke consent to an IEP that
does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act as part of
the Paperwork Waiver Program proposal.
One commenter recommended deleting all parental consent
requirements regarding the development of an IEP that does not meet the
requirements of section 614(d) of the Act as part of the Paperwork
Waiver Program.
One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements
clarify that parental consent is voluntary to ensure that parents are
not pressured or coerced into agreeing to an IEP that does not meet the
requirements of section 614(d) of the Act.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter that LEAs should not be
required to receive parental consent before an IEP that does not meet
the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is developed. We also
disagree with the commenter that parents should be prohibited from
withdrawing their consent. We believe these provisions are essential to
ensuring that States participating in the Paperwork Waiver
Demonstration Program ensure the right to FAPE for all participating
students.
We intended the reference to ``informed consent'' of parents in
paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements to mean 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. However, we agree with the commenter that additional
clarification is needed to ensure that parental consent is voluntary.
Changes: As noted elsewhere in this section, we have re-designated
paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph
1(f) of the additional requirements. We also have revised that
paragraph by inserting the term ``voluntary'' before the word
``informed'' and inserting the term ``written'' before the word
``consent.''
[[Page 36976]]
Comment: One commenter recommended that States be required to
inform parents that refusing to consent to an IEP that does not meet
the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act will not affect the
delivery of special education and related services to their child.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that additional
clarification is needed regarding situations where a parent refuses to
provide consent for an IEP that does not meet the requirements of
section 614(d) of the Act. If a parent does not provide consent for an
LEA to develop an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section
614(d) of the Act, the LEA is responsible for implementing the child's
current IEP that meets all of the requirements of section 614(d) of the
Act.
Changes: We have revised paragraph 1(g) of the additional
requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements)
to make clear that the information provided to parents must explain
that if the parent does not provide consent, or revokes consent, the
LEA is responsible for meeting all paperwork requirements related to
the provision of FAPE.
Comment: Many commenters recommended prohibiting States from
proposing to waive any requirements related to IEPs, Individualized
Family Services Plans (IFSPs), Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior
Written Notices as part of their applications for the Paperwork Waiver
Program. The commenters also recommended that the Secretary terminate a
State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary
determines that the State has violated any requirements related to
IEPs, IFSPs, Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior Written Notices.
Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional
requirements for this program be revised to prohibit applicants from
using the Paperwork Waiver Program as a vehicle for implementing multi-
year IEPs that do not comply with the terms of the Department's Multi-
Year IEP Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program).
Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit States
from participating in both the Paperwork Waiver Program and the Multi-
Year IEP Program.
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: Section 609 of the Act does not authorize the Secretary
to allow States to propose waiving any requirements of IFSPs under part
C of the Act. Section 609 of the Act authorizes the Secretary only to
grant waivers of statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements
relating to, part B of the Act. In addition, 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 changes 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.
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 Paperwork Waiver Program and
the Multi-Year IEP 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: A note has been added at the end of the Additional
Requirements and Selection Criteria section to clarify that receipt of
an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does not preclude an
applicant from applying for and receiving an award for the Department's
Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that receives an award for
both programs may not execute both programs within the same LEA.
Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring States to work with
the national evaluator to convene Statewide meetings at a time and
place convenient for parents and family members so that they can
publicly express whether there is family satisfaction with the
Paperwork Waiver Program.
Discussion: We strongly support parental involvement in the
education of children, and believe that the involvement of parents and
other stakeholders in the development and evaluation of the Paperwork
Waiver Program is ensured through requirements established in this
notice. In addition, parent satisfaction will be evaluated under the
outcomes that are measured as part of the national evaluation. The
evaluation contractor, working under the direction of IES and in
consultation with a technical workgroup and participating States, may
choose to convene Statewide public meetings as part of its research
methodology to collect data on parent satisfaction. However, we see no
compelling reason to require the evaluation contractor to convene
Statewide meetings at this time. The details of the national evaluation
will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical
workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months
of the study, including how parent satisfaction will be evaluated.
Changes: None.
National Evaluation
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 (a) of the outcomes to be measured
now reads: ``Educational and functional results (including academic
achievement) for students with disabilities.''
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).
One commenter noted the absence of a research question within the
proposed additional requirements for the national evaluation conducted
by IES and asked for clarification as to why a research question was
not specified.
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
[[Page 36977]]
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 example, because this is a
competitive program, only eligible States that apply for and are
awarded authority to waive Federal and State requirements will
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. As such, it is not
possible to randomly assign States to experimental and control groups.
For this reason, IES will conduct an evaluation using a rigorous quasi-
experimental design (i.e., a research design that does not include
random assignment of participating States and LEAs to experimental and
control groups). The design will, however, allow for the collection of
data on the following outcomes: (a) Educational and functional results
(including academic achievement) for students with disabilities, (b)
allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with
disabilities, (c) time and resources spent on administrative duties and
paperwork requirements by teaching and related services personnel, (d)
quality of special education services and plans incorporated in IEPs,
(e) teacher, parent, and administrator satisfaction, (f) the promotion
of collaboration of IEP team members, and (g) enhanced long-term
educational planning for students. These outcomes will be compared
between students who participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and
students who are matched on disability, age, socioeconomic status,
race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational
outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education,
and who do not participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
Given that limitations may preclude random assignment of States and
LEAs to experimental and control groups, the findings from the national
evaluation may largely be ``descriptive'' in nature rather than drawing
``causal'' inferences that can be reached from experimental research
design, which we believe is what the commenters were referring to as
``rigorous research design.'' That is, descriptive research has the
goal of describing what, how, or why something is happening, whereas
experimental research has the goal of determining whether something
causes an effect. Therefore, specific research questions commonly
associated with experimental research design cannot be generated a
priori because independent and dependent variables associated with
experimental research design cannot readily be established due to the
variability of demographic characteristics between and within States
that preclude random assignment of States and LEAs to experimental and
control groups. The specifics of the national evaluation design will be
confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup,
and the participating States during the first several months of the
study and might include a variety of qualitative and quantitative
evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost benefit
analyses).
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring States to
prohibit participation of some LEAs within the State in order to create
separate experimental and control groups.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this section, it may not be
possible to match LEAs within States according to demographic
characteristics in order to establish experimental and control groups.
The specifics of the national evaluation design will be confirmed
during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the
participating States during the first several months of the study, and
decisions regarding the extent to which experimental research design
can be employed will be decided at that time.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States
that participate in the Paperwork Waiver 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. In addition, the commenters recommended 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 administrators, educators, and parents to ensure proper
implementation of the proposed project.
Discussion: IES will conduct the national evaluation of the
Paperwork Waiver Program. Paragraph 1(h) of the additional requirements
(paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements) makes clear
that participating States must cooperate fully in this national
evaluation. Section 609 of the Act does not require a State evaluation
under the Paperwork Waiver Program and we do not think it is
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: 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 Paperwork Waiver
Program.
One commenter stated that it was unreasonable to expect States to
allocate resources for the project to assist with planning the details
of the evaluation and ensuring the participation of the involved school
districts, and that it was unlikely that the research would yield
reliable and valid experimental outcomes.
One commenter noted that the State lacked the authority to enforce
the cooperation of school districts to participate in the national
evaluation.
Discussion: IES will ensure that the national evaluation yields
results that are reliable and valid. Under section 609 of the Act, the
Department is responsible for reporting to Congress on the
effectiveness of the waiver program. In order to accurately evaluate
program effectiveness, the national evaluation is necessary, and it is
appropriate for States that are granted waivers under the program, and
participating LEAs, to participate in that evaluation. A State that
does not provide an assurance that it will fully cooperate with the
national evaluator will be deemed ineligible to participate in the
Paperwork Waiver Program. Moreover, 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 Paperwork Waiver
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.
[[Page 36978]]
In addition, 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, over 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
1(h)(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 original and all subsequent new
versions of the associated documents for each child involved in the
evaluation, including IEPs (if applicable). We also 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 1(h)(i) of the additional
requirements (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed 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 the original and all subsequent new versions of the
associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation.
Comment: Two commenters recommended revising paragraph 1(f) of the
proposed additional requirements by deleting the phrase ``if
selected.''
Discussion: Paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements
(which has been re-designated as paragraph 1(h) of the additional
requirements) requires States to provide assurances that they will
cooperate fully, if selected, in a national evaluation of the Paperwork
Waiver Program. The phrase ``if selected'' was intended to clarify that
the requirement only applies to States that are selected to participate
in the Paperwork Waiver Program; however, we agree with the commenters
that the phrase is confusing. 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 Paperwork Waiver Program.''
Changes: As noted elsewhere, we have re-designated paragraph 1(f)
of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph 1(h). We also have
revised that paragraph to clarify that assurances are required from
States selected to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
Comment: Many commenters recommended including representatives of
national parent organizations in the design of the national evaluation.
The commenters stated that it is essential that stakeholders have
confidence that the evaluation procedures will yield valid, reliable,
and comprehensive data.
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: Two commenters recommended eliminating the requirement for
a State to designate a coordinator for the Paperwork Waiver Program.
Discussion: We believe that it is necessary and reasonable to
ensure effective implementation and evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver
Program to require States to designate a coordinator who will monitor
the State's implementation of the program and work with the national
evaluator.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended adding a new requirement that
would preclude a State from authorizing school districts to begin
implementing waivers 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. The commenters noted that more
time was needed to work with the national evaluator on the specifics of
the national study design before LEAs begin implementing the program.
One commenter recommended allowing States to establish their own
implementation schedule in their proposals, and that the Department
should encourage States to do so in an expeditious manner to meet the
congressional expectation that the Department issue an ``effectiveness
report'' to the Congress by the end of 2006.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed
because the evaluation design will be determined prior to
implementation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Accordingly, LEAs may
not begin implementing waivers until 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. We believe that States should have
some flexibility in the timing of their implementation and, while a
State may propose to delay implementation of the Paperwork Waiver
Program as part of its application, it must fully cooperate with the
national evaluator in developing the specifics of the national study
design.
Changes: None.
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 that it is
necessary at this time to require the national evaluation process to
commence as soon as the final study design has been completed, nor do
we believe that the evaluator should be required to begin collecting
background information from the States at this time. Rather, specifics
of the design (including matters of when data collection will commence)
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: One commenter recommended that the Department contract
with an independent agency to develop a research design that would
produce reliable information about the effectiveness of the Paperwork
Waiver 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-experimental design that will yield valid and reliable
results consistent with the WWC evidence standards for
[[Page 36979]]
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 609(b) of the Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the national evaluation
include collection of data on ``family member'' satisfaction.
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 Paperwork Waiver Program.
Section 609(b) of the Act requires the Department to report to Congress
on the effectiveness of the waiver program and to provide specific
recommendations for broader implementation of such waivers related to
five outcomes, including 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.
Accordingly, we have included language in the background statement
for the additional requirements and selection criteria in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to clarify that, as
part of the national evaluation, IES will collect data on the extent to
which program activities result in parent satisfaction. We have not
made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria
in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the national evaluation not
include collection of data on ``teacher'' and ``administrator''
satisfaction.
Discussion: Section 609 of the Act does not require the collection
of data on teacher and administrator satisfaction as part of the
national evaluation. However, because multiple stakeholders, including
teachers and administrators, will be involved in the development and
implementation of the Paperwork Waiver Program, the Secretary believes
that the national evaluation should include collection of data on
teacher and administrator satisfaction.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that IES collect data on
whether the Paperwork Waiver Program will promote collaboration of IEP
team members and how long-term educational planning will be enhanced
for students through the program.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters. Section 609(b) of the Act
requires the Department to report on the effectiveness of the Paperwork
Waiver Program and provide specific recommendations for broader
implementation of such waivers related to five outcomes, including (but
not limited to) promoting collaboration between IEP team members, and
enhancing longer-term educational planning, in its annual report to
Congress. Accordingly, we have included language in the background
statement for the additional requirements and selection criteria in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to clarify that, as
part of the national evaluation, IES will collect data on the extent to
which program activities promote collaboration among IEP team members
and enhance long-range educational planning. We have not made any
changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria in
response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify the language in
paragraph 1(h)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(i) of
the proposed additional requirements) regarding an evaluator having
access to the most recent IEP created before participating in the
Paperwork Waiver Program because this language implies that no
initially identified child could participate in the pilot project if
elements of the IEP are waived.
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 1(h)(i) (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed
additional requirements) has been revised to clarify that the evaluator
will have access to the most recent IEP created (if a previous IEP was
created) before participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
Comment: One commenter recommended re-ordering the requirements
with which States must comply that will allow the Department to
evaluate the effectiveness of the program to parallel the requirements
of section 609(b) of the Act. The same commenter also recommended
limiting data collection on the effectiveness of the program related to
student outcomes to educational and functional results that are ``in
accordance with each student's IEP.''
Discussion: Section 609(a)(1) of the Act specifies that the purpose
of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an opportunity for States
to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative
duties that are directly associated with the requirements of the Act in
order to increase the time and resources available for instruction and
other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results
for children with disabilities. We believe that the ordering of
evaluation outcomes is sufficiently clear, and re-ordering is not
necessary. In addition, we believe that potential improvements in the
educational and functional results for children with disabilities as a
result of this program should not be limited to IEP goals. For example,
the national evaluation could include examination of student assessment
data or other indices of student progress beyond what is included in
students' IEPs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended eliminating some or all
data collection requirements as part of the national evaluation to
reduce burden and costs on States participating in the Paperwork Waiver
Program.
Discussion: Section 609(b) of the Act requires the Department to
report on the effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program and provide
specific recommendations for broader implementation of such waivers
related to five outcomes. However, data collection and analysis will
not be the responsibility of States. Rather, data collection and
analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its contractor.
States can expect to allocate resources, at a minimum during Year 1, to
assist with planning the details of the evaluation, ensuring
participation of involved districts, providing access to relevant State
records, and completing questionnaires or participating in interviews.
Over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an
annual incentive payment (described in the Additional Requirements
section of this notice) that
[[Page 36980]]
will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation.
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.
Discussion: Paragraph 3 of the proposed additional requirements
provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the
Paperwork Waiver 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 3 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 Paperwork Waiver 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 3 of the final additional
requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program will be awarded an annual
incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related
evaluation activities, and not less than $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 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
609(b) of the Act, the Secretary will include in the annual report to
Congress pursuant to section 426 of the Department of Education
Organization Act information related to the effectiveness of waivers
including any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is
the expectation of the Department that the annual report will be based,
at least in part, on the results of the national evaluation.
Changes: None.
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. Upon further consideration, we 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 selection
criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have deleted or
modified proposed selection criteria 1(b), 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
criterion 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
Paperwork Waiver Program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring the Secretary to
evaluate, separately, the significance of the proposed project in terms
of how likely it would lead to reduced paperwork burden, increase
instructional time, and improve academic achievement. The commenters
also recommended that the Secretary consider the likelihood that the
proposed project will ensure parent satisfaction.
One commenter stated that section 609(b) of the Act anticipates
``positive outcomes'' for students and that the expected outcomes for
the program should relate directly to the individual's annual IEP goals
(educational and functional outcomes) as opposed to being limited to
academic achievement.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns about the
likelihood that the project will lead to reduced paperwork, increased
instructional time, improved academic achievement, and will ensure
parents' satisfaction are sufficiently addressed by the national
evaluation. Similarly, we believe that the comment on measuring
outcomes related to the IEP is already addressed by the national
evaluation. Readers are referred to the Background for Additional
Requirements and Selection Criteria section, which lists the measures
on which IES will collect data for purposes of the national evaluation.
These measures include data on the educational and functional results
of students with disabilities, the quality of the services and plans
within the IEP, allocation and engagement of instructional time for
students with disabilities, time and resources spent on administrative
duties and paperwork requirements by teaching and related services
personnel, and parent satisfaction, among other things.
We strongly support parental involvement in all aspects of
education, but believe that parental involvement in the development and
evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program is more appropriately
ensured through other additional requirements included in this notice
(e.g., paragraphs 1(a) and (d) of the additional requirements) and will
be addressed by the outcomes measured as part of the national
evaluation conducted by IES (e.g., parent satisfaction) and selection
criterion 3(c).
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
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
[[Page 36981]]
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 certain
paperwork waivers 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 the paperwork
requested for waiver. 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 the Secretary consider
the importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be
attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and
student achievement.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the importance or
magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the
project, particularly improvements in teaching and student achievement,
is an important criterion in assessing the significance of a proposed
project. We also agree that it is important to evaluate the effects a
proposed project will have on instructional time that could lead to
improvements in educational and functional outcomes for children with
disabilities.
Changes: Selection criteria 1 has been amended by adding new
selection criterion 1(c), which allows the Secretary to evaluate the
importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be
attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and
student achievement.
Comment: Many commenters recommended amending the selection
criteria to ensure that the emphasis on paperwork reduction in a
State's proposal includes a focus on improved student outcomes and does
not come at the expense of FAPE for children with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the program's
emphasis on paperwork reduction should include a focus on improved
student outcomes and should not come at the expense of a student's
right to a FAPE. Accordingly, we have added selection criterion 1(c)
and replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection
criterion to enable the Secretary to focus on student outcomes or
needs. The changes made in the additional requirements (discussed
elsewhere in this notice) provide adequate protection to students'
right to a FAPE.
Changes: We have added selection criterion 1(c) to enable the
Secretary to evaluate the importance or magnitude of the outcomes
likely to be attained by the project. We also have replaced proposed
selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection criterion to enable
the Secretary to assess the extent to which the proposed project will
address the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
Comment: One commenter recommended striking selection criterion
2(c) as it seemed vague and duplicative of selection criterion 3(c).
Discussion: We agree that proposed selection criterion 2(c) is
duplicative of selection criterion 3(c).
Changes: We have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c) (i.e.,
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 Paperwork Waiver
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: 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 involve multiple
stakeholders, including parents, in the implementation of their
projects. Moreover, we believe that paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(e),
and 1(f) of the additional requirements ensure involvement by parents
in this program.
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 replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an
EDGAR selection criterion to emphasize how well the project will
address the needs of the target population as a basis for application
review.
Changes: We have replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an
EDGAR selection criterion to enable the Secretary to consider 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.
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 Paperwork Waiver
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
[[Page 36982]]
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: 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.
Discussion: We are committed to ensuring the objectivity and
integrity of IES's national evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program.
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 the outcome data
gathered as part of the evaluation component for this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended amending the selection criteria
to require States to address their commitment to cooperate in the
national evaluation in their applications, but to clarify that they 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 waiver program.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that documentation of the
extent to which applicants have devoted sufficient resources to the
data collection and analysis of the evaluation is not necessary. The
applicant's commitment to the evaluation is assessed through additional
requirement 1(h). However, the specific change requested by the
commenter is unnecessary since, following further internal review of
the selection criteria, we have deleted proposed selection criterion
3(b) in favor of including only EDGAR selection criteria.
Changes: Selection criterion 3(b) (i.e., the extent to which the
applicant has devoted sufficient resources to the evaluation of the
proposed project) has been deleted.
Comment: One commenter 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 the selection criteria 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. We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed by
selection criterion 3(c), which authorizes the Secretary to consider
how an applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives,
including those of ``recipients or beneficiaries of services,'' are
brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project. Children with
disabilities are ``recipients or beneficiaries of services'' provided
under this program.
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. 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.
Changes: None.
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 states 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.
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 and measurable. 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
receive.
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 projects
independent of the national evaluation.
Changes: None.
Other Issues
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
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 the 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 also must provide a summary of
public comments and how the public comments were addressed in its
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
[[Page 36983]]
program design and development activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the background for the
additional requirements and selection criteria include information from
the ``Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education Paperwork'',\1\
and the ``Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE)'',\2\
particularly related to information regarding the geographical
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to
paperwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Project Forum, Project Forum Proceedings Document,
``Policy Forum: Special Education Paperwork.'' 2002.
\2\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE),
Final Report of the Paperwork Substudy. 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The background for the proposed additional requirements
and selection criteria included information from the SPeNSE study,
although the study was not directly cited. That said, the Secretary
agrees with the commenters that it is important to include in the
background statement for the additional requirements and selection
criteria information from the SPeNSE study that shows the geographical
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to
paperwork. The Secretary does not believe it is appropriate to include
information from the Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education
Paperwork because it was not intended to be a scientific study of the
time that educators spend completing special education paperwork.
Accordingly, we have included information from the SPeNSE study in the
background statement for the additional requirements and selection
criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. We
have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection
criteria in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that the Department
will not allow any State that fails to sufficiently address all
requirements under section 609 of the Act in its application to
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
Discussion: We will ensure that only applications that meet the
requirements of section 609 of the Act are deemed eligible for approval
under the program.
Changes: None.
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 recommended that States be required to use
the model IEP, procedural safeguards notice, and prior written notice
forms developed by the Department.
Discussion: As part of the 2004 amendments to the Act, the Congress
required the Department to publish and widely disseminate model forms
that are consistent with the requirements of part B of the Act and are
``sufficient to meet those requirements.'' Specifically, the Act
requires the Department to develop forms for the IEP; the notice of
procedural safeguards; and the prior written notice. Consistent with
the Act, the Department developed the three forms to assist SEAs and
LEAs in understanding the content that part B of the Act requires for
each of these three types of forms. The content of each of these forms
is based upon the requirements set forth in the final regulations
implementing part B of the Act. Although States must ensure that school
districts include all of the content that part B of the Act requires
for each of the documents that they provide to parents, States are not
required to use the format or specific language reflected in these
forms. States may choose to include additional content in their forms,
so long as the additional content is consistent with all requirements
under part B of the Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States should indicate in
their applications whether they will 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
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program 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 Paperwork Waiver Program.
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
Additional Requirements
The Secretary establishes the following additional requirements for
the Paperwork Waiver Program.
(1) A State applying for approval under this program must submit a
proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time
burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional
results for children with disabilities. A State submitting a proposal
under the Paperwork Waiver Program must include the following material
in its proposal:
(a) A description of how the State met the public participation
requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including how the State
(1) involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children with
disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, related
services providers, and school and district administrators, in
selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific
proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork, and (2)
provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the
requirements proposed for the waiver.
(b) A summary of public comments received in accordance with
paragraph 1(a) of these additional requirements and how the public
comments were addressed in the proposal.
(c) A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure
that, if the waiver is granted, it will not result in a denial of the
right to FAPE to any child with a disability, a waiver of any
applicable civil rights requirements, or a waiver of any procedural
safeguards under section 615 of the Act. This description also must
include an assurance that 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, all State complaints related to the
denial of FAPE to any student with a disability and how the State
responded to this information, including the outcome of that response
[[Page 36984]]
such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve
implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to
waive paperwork requirements due to unresolved compliance problems.
(d) 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
Paperwork Waiver Program.
(e) Assurances that each parent of a child with a disability in
participating LEAs will be given written notice (in the native language
of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any
statutory, regulatory, or State requirements that will be waived and
notice of the procedures that State will employ under paragraph 1(c) in
easily understandable language.
(f) Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to
obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents for a waiver of
any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as
changes related to IEPs.
(g) Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to
inform parents in writing (and in the native language of the parents,
unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of (i) any differences
between the paperwork requirements of the Act related to the provision
of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs, (ii) the parent's right to
revoke consent to waive any paperwork requirements related to the
provision of FAPE at any time, (iii) the LEA's responsibility to meet
all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE if the
parent does not provide voluntary written informed consent or revokes
consent, and (iv) the LEA's responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting to
develop an IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act
within 30 calendar days if the parent revokes consent to waiving
paperwork requirements related to the content, development, review and
revision of IEPs.
(h) Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national
evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Paperwork
Waiver Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of 4 months
between the award and the implementation of the State's waiver to
conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes
participation by the State educational agency (SEA) in the following
evaluation activities:
(i) Ensuring that, for each item in the list of statutory,
regulatory, or State requirements submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 in
the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program section of this
notice, and consistent with the privacy requirements of the Act and The
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the evaluator will have
access to the original and all subsequent new versions of the
associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation,
together with a general description of the process for completing each
of the documents. For example, if elements of the IEP process are
waived, the evaluator shall have access to the most recent IEP created
under previous guidelines for each participating child (if a previous
IEP was created), as well as all of the new IEPs created under the
waiver, along with a description of the process for completing both
types of IEPs.
(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 Paperwork Waiver Program, along with a
description of the circumstances under which district participation may
be terminated, allow data collection to occur, and cooperate fully with
the evaluation. For each participating school or district, providing
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 timeline specified in the evaluation design.
(v) Providing assistance to the evaluator with the collection of
data from parents, including obtaining informed consent, for parent
interviews and responses to surveys and questionnaires, if necessary to
the final design of the evaluation.
(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
OSEP project officer.
(2) For purposes of the statutory requirement prohibiting the
Secretary from waiving any statutory requirements of, or regulatory
requirements relating to, but not limited to, applicable civil rights,
the term ``applicable civil rights requirements,'' as used in this
notice, includes all civil rights requirements in: (a) Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; (b) Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; (c) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
(d) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and (e)
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. The
term does not include other requirements under the Act.
(3) Each State receiving approval to participate in the Paperwork
Waiver 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. Each participating
State will receive an additional incentive payment of not less than
$15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation
activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be provided to
participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in
the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Total available funds
will depend on the number of awards made.
Note: Receipt of an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does
not preclude an applicant from applying for and receiving an award
for the Department's Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that
receives an award for both programs may not execute both programs
within the same local school district.
Note: The term ``parent'' as used in these requirements and
selection criteria for the Paperwork Waiver 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
[[Page 36985]]
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 achievement.
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's 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 Numbers 84.326P Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration
Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1408.
Dated: June 29, 2007.
Jennifer Sheehy,
Director of Policy and Planning for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E7-13145 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P