[Federal Register: October 22, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55025-55075]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc97-21]
[[Page 55025]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Parts 300, 301, and 303
Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities,
Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, and Early Intervention
Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities; Proposed Rule
[[Page 55026]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 300, 301 and 303
RIN 1820-AB40
Assistance to States for the Education of Children With
Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, and
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities
program, the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities program,
and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities. These amendments are needed to implement changes recently
enacted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments
of 1997.
DATES: Comments must be received by the Department on or before January
20, 1998.
The Department plans to hold public meetings in conjunction with
this NPRM. The dates and times of the meetings are in the section
titled Public Meetings under Invitation to Comment elsewhere in this
preamble.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Thomas Irvin, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Room 3090, Mary
E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street., SW., Washington, DC 20202. Comments
may also be sent through the Internet to: comment@ed.gov
You must include the term ``Assistance for Education'' in the
subject line of your electronic message.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
ADDRESSES section.
The Department plans to hold public meetings in conjunction with
this NPRM. The locations of the meetings are in the section titled
Public Meetings under Invitation to Comment elsewhere in this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Irvin (202) 205-8969 or JoLeta
Reynolds (202) 205-5507. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 205-5465.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to Katie Mimcy, Director of the Alternate Formats
Center. Telephone: (202) 205-8113.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that
public comments have maximum effect in developing the final
regulations, the Department urges commenters to identify clearly the
specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each
comment addresses and to arrange comments in the same order as the
proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 3090, Mary E. Switzer Building, 300 C St., SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
On request the Department supplies an appropriate aid, such as a
reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking docket for these proposed regulations. An individual with a
disability who wants to schedule an appointment for this type of aid
may call (202) 205-8113 or (202) 260-9895. An individual who uses a TDD
may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339,
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden, the Secretary invites comments on whether
there may be further opportunities to reduce any regulatory burdens
found in these proposed regulations.
Public Meetings
In a notice published in the Federal Register on September 17, 1997
(62 FR 48923-48925), the Department announced public meetings to obtain
public comment on the statutory requirements of the IDEA Amendments of
1997. The Department will use those public meeting dates and times for
public comment on this NPRM. Individuals who wish to make a statement
at any of the meetings are encouraged to do so. Time allotted for each
individual to testify will be limited and will depend on the number of
speakers wishing to testify at each session. It is likely that each
participant choosing to comment will be limited to four minutes.
Persons interested in making oral public comment will be able to sign-
up to make a statement on the day of the meeting at the Department's
public meeting on-site registration desk on a first-come-first served
basis. If no time slots remain, then the Department will reserve a
limited amount of additional time at the end of each hearing to
accommodate those individuals. (Every effort will be made to have ample
time to hear all individuals who wish to make a statement.) For
individuals who want to speak at the public meeting, registration will
begin at 1:00 p.m., in all cities except Washington, DC where it will
begin at 12:00 Noon, in each hotel or public building at the
registration table outside the room where the public meeting will be
held. The dates, times, and locations of the meetings are as follows:
October 23, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region I--Logan Ramada Hotel, 75 Service Road, Logan International
Airport, Boston, MA 02128
October 27, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region IV--Radisson Hotel Atlanta, 165 Courtland and International
Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30303
October 28, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region VI--Radisson Hotel Dallas, 1893 West Mockingbird Lane, Dallas,
TX 75235
November 4, 1997--1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Department of Education, Government Service Administration (GSA), 7th
and D Streets, S.W. (Auditorium), Washington, D.C. 20407
November 18, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region VIII--Four Points, 3535 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207
November 21, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region IX--Holiday Inn Select/Chinatown, 750 Kearny Street, San
Francisco, CA 94108
November 24, 1997--2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Region V--Sheraton North Shore, 933 Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, IL
60062
[[Page 55027]]
The meeting sites are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or
service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service,
assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format) should
consult the notice mentioned in this document for the person to contact
at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date to ensure that
accommodations requested will be available. Although the Department
will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested
accommodation may not be available because of insufficient time to
arrange it.
Background
On June 4, 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Amendments of 1997 were enacted into law as Pub. L. 105-17.
The statute passed by Congress and signed by the President
reauthorizes and makes significant changes to IDEA to better accomplish
the following purposes: (1) Ensure that all children with disabilities
have available a free appropriate public education that emphasizes
special education and related services designed to meet their unique
needs and prepare them for employment and independent living; (2)
ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of
those children are protected; (3) assist States, localities,
educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the
education of all children with disabilities; (4) assist States in the
implementation of a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated,
multidisciplinary, interagency system of early intervention services
for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families; (5)
ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve
educational results for children with disabilities by supporting
systemic-change activities; coordinated research and personnel
preparation; coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and
support; and technology development and media services; and (6) assess,
and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with
disabilities.
On June 27, 1997, the Secretary published a notice in the Federal
Register requesting from the public advice and recommendations on
regulatory issues under the IDEA Amendments of 1997. As of the end of
August, 1997, 334 comments were received in response to the Notice,
including letters from parents and public and private agency personnel,
and from parent-advocate and professional organizations. The comments
addressed each major provision of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 (such as
the new funding provisions, discipline procedures, provisions relating
to evaluation of children, individualized education programs,
participation of private school children with disabilities, methods of
ensuring services from noneducational agencies, and changes in the
procedural safeguards). All of these comments were reviewed and
considered in developing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The
Secretary appreciates the thoughtful attention of the commenters in
responding to the June 27th notice.
Proposed Regulatory Changes
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 significantly updated the Assistance to
States program under Part B of the Act, as in effect before June 4,
1997. The changes made by those Amendments call for corresponding
updates to virtually all of the current regulations under this part, as
well as new regulatory provisions to incorporate new statutory
requirements such as those relating to performance goals and
indicators, procedural safeguards notice, mediation, and discipline.
In addition to incorporating new requirements from the Act, some
new provisions and notes are proposed to assist in clarifying the new
statutory requirements, or providing guidance with respect to
implementing those requirements. Finally, some changes are needed to
incorporate longstanding interpretations of the Act that have been
addressed in nonregulatory guidance in the past, or to ensure a more
meaningful implementation of the Act and its regulations for children
with disabilities, parents and public agencies.
To accommodate the reader in understanding these proposed changes,
the Secretary has elected to publish the full text of the regulations,
as they would be when amended, rather than simply publish an amendatory
document that shows only the changes proposed to current regulations.
Although this approach increases the length of this NPRM, it provides a
more meaningful way for parents, agency officials, and the general
public to review the changes within the context of the existing
regulations.
The following summary of the proposed regulatory changes describes
how the Secretary would incorporate the statutory changes of the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 into the applicable subparts of the Department's
regulations for the Assistance to States program (34 CFR part 300) and
Preschool Grants program (34 CFR part 301) for children with
disabilities, along with conforming changes to the Early Intervention
program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (34 part 303). The
Department plans to publish additional technical amendments to Part 303
at a later date. Those amendments will revise the Part 303 regulations
consistent with the changes made by the IDEA Amendments of 1997. This
summary identifies changes that are statutory and describes any
regulations that the Secretary is proposing in this NPRM to implement
these statutory provisions.
Commenters are requested to direct their comments to issues that
can be changed through regulation and not to statutory requirements.
Commenters also are reminded that, under section 607(b) of the IDEA,
the Secretary is not authorized to make regulatory changes to lessen
the protections for children with disabilities in the IDEA regulations
that were in effect on July 20, 1983, absent statutory changes
indicating a Congressional intent to lessen those protections.
Throughout this preamble, issues that the Secretary is proposing to
regulate on are introduced by phrases such as, ``The Secretary proposes
* * *'' or ``In this proposed section, the Secretary proposes * * *''.
Commenters are asked to focus their comments on these parts of the
proposed regulation.
Appendix C to the current regulations (Interpretation of IEP
program requirements) would be updated and revised consistent with the
changes made by the IDEA Amendments of 1997 and these proposed
regulations. Revised Appendix C is presented as Appendix C to this
NPRM.
To aid readers in referring between this NPRM and current
regulations, a distribution table for the part 300 regulations is
presented in Appendix D to these proposed regulations. That table
identifies each current regulatory section and the comparable proposed
regulatory section, if any.
These proposed regulations would implement the new statutory
changes relating to the three formula grant programs in the IDEA: (1)
the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with
Disabilities Program under Part B of the Act (34 CFR part 300); (2) the
Preschool Grants Program under section 619 of the Act (34 CFR part
301); and (3) the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers
with Disabilities under Part H of the Act (to be renamed part C on July
1, 1998) (34 CFR part 303).
[[Page 55028]]
1. Part 300--Assistance to States for the Education of Children
With Disabilities
The new statutory amendments to the IDEA, while retaining (and
strengthening) the basic rights and protections included in the Act
since 1975, also have redirected the focus of the law as in effect
before June 4, 1997, to heighten attention to improving results for
children with disabilities. This shift in focus was necessary in order
to make needed improvements in the Part B program, based on 20 years of
experience and research in the education of children with disabilities.
The amendments to the Part B program were the result of over three
years of intensive work by stakeholders from all realms of life and at
all governmental levels, who have a vested interest in the education of
children with disabilities.
Background and Need for Improvements
Before enactment of the 1975 amendments to the IDEA (then known as
the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA)), approximately one million
children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public
education system, and more than half of all children with disabilities
in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services
that would enable them to enjoy full equality of opportunity. The 1975
amendments to the EHA--the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(Pub. L. 94-142)--directly addressed the problems that existed at that
time by establishing the right to education for all children with
disabilities.
As a result of the Pub. L. 94-142 Amendments to the IDEA,
significant progress has been made in addressing the problems that
existed in 1975. Today, every State in the nation has laws in effect
ensuring the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to
all children with disabilities. The number of young adults with
disabilities enrolled in post-secondary education has tripled, and the
unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in their twenties
is almost half that of their older counterparts.
Despite the progress that has been made since 1975, the promise of
the law has not been fulfilled for many children covered by the Act.
Too many students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping
out of school. Almost twice as many students with disabilities drop out
as compared to students without disabilities. And, when students with
disabilities drop out of school, they are less likely to ever return to
school and are more likely to be unemployed or have problems with the
law. Further, almost half of the students with disabilities do not
participate in statewide assessments, and, therefore, schools are not
held accountable for results. Students from minority backgrounds
continue to be placed disproportionately in separate special education
settings.
Over 20 years of experience and research in implementing Part B of
the IDEA has demonstrated that the education of children with
disabilities can be made more effective by--
(1) Having high expectations of these children and ensuring their
access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible;
(2) Strengthening the role of parents and fostering partnerships
between parents and schools;
(3) Aligning the Part B program with State and local improvement
efforts so that students with disabilities can benefit from them;
(4) Providing incentives for whole-school approaches and pre-
referral intervention to reduce the need to label children as disabled
in order to address their learning needs;
(5) Focusing resources on teaching and learning, while reducing
paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational
results; and
(6) Supporting high-quality, intensive professional development for
all personnel who work with disabled children to ensure that they have
the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively assist these children
to be prepared for employment and independent living.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 are designed to make improvements in
the Part B program that address many of the factors based on experience
and research that are identified in the preceding paragraphs. A
description of some of these improvements is included in the following
paragraphs, together with an identification of where the statutory
provisions have been incorporated into these proposed regulations:
Improving Results for Children With Disabilities
The focus of the changes in the new amendments is directed at
improving results for children with disabilities--by promoting early
identification and early provision of services, and ensuring the access
of these children to the general curriculum and general educational
reforms. The amendments include a number of provisions to address this
goal.
A. Early Identification and Provision of Services
The Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with
disabilities and the Preschool Grants program have demonstrated the
importance of early intervention. Children who receive services at an
early age are often better able to learn once they reach school age. In
addition, research on school-aged children who are experiencing
significant reading or behavior problems has shown that the common
practice of waiting until the third or fourth grade to refer those
children to special education only increases these problems.
Appropriate interventions need to happen as early as possible in a
child's life, when it is clear that the child needs help, and at a
time, developmentally, when the child could profit most from receiving
services.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 include provisions that encourage
States to reach out to young children who are experiencing learning
problems, and allow States and local school districts to utilize
``developmental delay'' eligibility criteria as an alternative to
specific disability categories through age 9. Implemented properly,
this provision will allow children to receive earlier and more
appropriate interventions.
The amendments also allow for more flexible use of IDEA-funded
staff who work in general education classrooms or other education-
related settings so that they can work with both children who have
disabilities and others who may need their help. These provisions are
included in Secs. 300.7 and 300.235 of this NPRM.
B. IEPs That Focus on Improving Results Through the General Curriculum
The new amendments enhance the participation of disabled children
in the general curriculum through improvements to the IEP by--(1)
Relating a child's education to what nondisabled children are
receiving; (2) providing for the participation of regular education
teachers in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP; and (3)
requiring that the IEP team consider the specific needs of each child,
as appropriate, such as the need for behavior interventions and
assistive technology. These provisions are included in Secs. 300.344,
and 300.346-300.347 of these proposed regulations.
C. Education With Nondisabled Children
Research data show that for most students with disabilities
integration into general education programs with nondisabled children
is often associated
[[Page 55029]]
with improved results, higher levels of employment and independent
living. The data also show that if disabled students are simply placed
in general education classrooms without necessary supports and
modifications they are more likely to drop out of school than their
nondisabled peers. The new amendments address this issue by requiring
that the IEP include: (1) An explanation of the extent, if any, to
which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the
regular class; and (2) a statement of the specific special education
and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided
to the child or on behalf of the child, and a statement of program
modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided
for the child. These provisions are incorporated in Sec. 300.347 of
these proposed regulations.
D. Higher Expectations for Disabled Students and Agency Accountability
A critical element in improving educational results for disabled
children is promoting high expectations for them commensurate with
their particular needs, and ensuring meaningful and effective access to
the general curriculum. Data and experience show that when schools have
high expectations for these children, ensure their access to the
general curriculum, whenever appropriate, and provide them the
necessary supports and accommodations, many can achieve to higher
standards, and all can achieve more than society has historically
expected.
Despite the current knowledge base in this regard, the education
system often fails to promote such high expectations or to establish
meaningful education goals, and about half of all disabled children are
excluded from State and district-wide assessments.
The new amendments specifically address these concerns by requiring
(1) the development of State performance goals for children with
disabilities that must address certain key indicators of the success of
educational efforts for these children--including, at a minimum,
performance on assessments, dropout rates, and graduation rates, and
regular reports to the public on progress toward meeting the goals; (2)
that children with disabilities be included in general State and
district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations, if
necessary, and (3) that schools report to parents on the progress of
their disabled child as often as such reports are provided to parents
of nondisabled children. These provisions are included in
Secs. 300.137-300.138 and 300.347 of the proposed regulations.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also contemplate that State performance
goals and indicators will have a crucial role in determining personnel
training and development needs, and offer additional funding, through
the State Improvement Program authorized under Part D of the Act, to
help States meet their goals for children with disabilities. These
provisions are addressed in Secs. 300.380-300.382. Additionally, States
are encouraged to offer funding to school districts to foster capacity
building and systemic improvement activities, as addressed in proposed
Secs. 300.622-300.624. School districts are also authorized to
establish school-based improvement programs, as described in
Secs. 300.234 and 300.245-300.250.
E. Strengthening the Role of Parents and Fostering Partnerships Between
Parents and Schools
In order to achieve better results for children with disabilities,
it is critical to strengthen the role of parents, and to provide a
means for parents and school staff to work together in a constructive
manner. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 include several provisions aimed at
promoting the involvement of parents, including providing that they:
(1) Have an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of their child or
the provision of FAPE to the child; (2) are included in any group that
makes decisions on the educational placement of their child; and (3)
receive regular reports on their child's progress (by such means as
report cards) as often as reports are provided to parents of
nondisabled children.
The amendments also require that, at a minimum, parents be offered
mediation as a voluntary option whenever a hearing is requested to
resolve a dispute between the parents and the agency about any matters
specified in the preceding paragraph. These provisions are included in
Secs. 300.347, 300.501, and 300.506 of this NPRM.
F. Reducing Unnecessary Paperwork and Other Burdens
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 include several provisions that reduce
unnecessary paperwork, and direct resources to teaching and learning.
For example, the amendments permit initial evaluations and
reevaluations to be based on existing evaluation data and reports, and
do not require that eligibility be re-established when a triennial
evaluation is conducted if the IEP team agrees that the child continues
to have a disability. The amendments also eliminate unnecessary
paperwork requirements that discourage the use of IDEA funds for
teachers who work in regular classrooms, while ensuring that the needs
of students with disabilities are met. These provisions are included
under Secs. 300.234 and 300.533 of this NPRM.
In addition, these amendments permit States and local educational
agencies to establish eligibility only once by providing policies and
procedures to demonstrate that the eligibility conditions under part B
are met. Thereafter, only amendments to those policies and procedures
necessitated by identified compliance problems or changes in the law
would be required. These provisions are included under Secs. 300.110-
300.111 and 300.180-300.181.
Subpart A--General
Purposes, Applicability, and Regulations That Apply to This Program
Proposed Sec. 300.1 would retain the statement of the purposes of
this part in the existing regulations, except for conforming those
purposes to the new statutory changes. Consistent with section
601(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the purpose in proposed Sec. 300.1(a)
(relating to ensuring that all children with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education designed to meet
their unique needs) would be amended to add ``and to prepare them for
employment and independent living.'' This change represents a
significant shift in the emphasis of the Assistance to States program--
to an outcome oriented approach that focuses on better results for
children with disabilities rather than on simply ensuring their access
to education.
Consistent with section 601(d)(1)(C) of the Act, the purpose in
Sec. 300.1(c) (relating to assisting States and localities to provide
for the education of children with disabilities) would be amended by
adding ``educational service agencies'' and ``Federal agencies'' to the
list of entities that would be assisted under this part.
A note would be added following proposed Sec. 300.1 that emphasizes
the importance of independent living in promoting the integration and
full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of
American society, consistent with the new statutory purpose under
Sec. 300.1(a) (relating to employment and independent living). The note
describes the philosophy of independent living
[[Page 55030]]
contained in Section 701 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Proposed Sec. 300.2 (relating to the applicability of these
regulations to State, local, and private agencies) would maintain the
current regulatory provisions of this section, except for the following
changes to conform the section to the new statutory provisions: First,
paragraph (b) would be amended to eliminate the reference to State
plans. The newly revised Act (Section 612(a)) no longer requires States
to submit State plans. (See Subpart B, ``State Eligibility--General,''
for discussion of the statutory elimination of State plan
requirements). Second, consistent with new statutory provisions
relating to children with disabilities who are incarcerated, paragraph
(b)(4) of Sec. 300.2 would be amended to replace the term ``State
correctional facilities'' with the term ``State and local juvenile and
adult correctional facilities''.
Proposed Sec. 300.3 would update the list of regulations that apply
to this program. Under proposed paragraph (a) of this section, the
regulations in 34 CFR part 76 (State Administered Programs) would
continue to apply to the Part B program, except for the following
sections:
Sections 76.125-76.137 (relating to ``Consolidated Grant
Applications for Insular Areas'') no longer apply. A new statutory
provision in section 611(b)(4) of the Act expressly prohibits the
consolidation of Part B grants provided to the outlying areas (defined
in Sec. 300.718) or to the ``freely associated States'' (defined in
section 611(b)(6) of the Act).
Sections 76.650-76.662 (relating to ``Participation of Children
Enrolled in Private Schools'') would no longer apply because the
applicable provisions of these regulations, that have applied to the
Part B program for many years, would be incorporated into Subpart D of
this part (``Children in Private Schools''), and specifically under the
provisions relating to ``Children with Disabilities Enrolled by their
Parents in Private Schools'' (Secs. 300.450-300.462).
All other regulations identified in Sec. 300.3 of the existing
regulations for this part would be retained under proposed Sec. 300.3,
except for 34 CFR part 86 (``Drug-Free Schools and Campuses'') because
those regulations are no longer applicable to State administered
programs, and now apply only to institutions of higher education.
Definitions
The proposed regulations under this part would retain the scheme
used in the current regulations relating to defining terms that are
used in this part--that is, Subpart A would include definitions of all
terms that are used in two or more subparts of the regulations, whereas
any term that would be used in only a single section or subpart would
only be listed in Subpart A, together with a reference to the specific
section in which the term is defined. The list of these terms would be
included in an introductory note (Note 1) immediately following the
heading ``Definitions'', and would be updated, as follows:
Two terms would be deleted from the list in Note 1 (``first
priority children'' (Sec. 300.320(a)), and ``second priority children''
(Sec. 300.320(b)). Statutory provisions regarding priorities in the use
of funds were deleted by the IDEA Amendments of 1997.
The term ``individualized education program'' (or ``IEP'') that
appears in the list in Note 1 of the existing regulations, would be
moved to proposed Sec. 300.14, and would be defined along with the
other terms of general applicability that are included under Subpart A.
Several terms that were added by the IDEA Amendments of 1997, but
are not terms of general applicability, would be added to the list in
Note 1. Following is a list showing each new term and the statutory and
regulatory citations for that term:
* Base year (Relates to the new funding formula) (Section
611(e)(2)(A); Sec. 300.707).
* Controlled substance (Relates to the discipline
provisions) (Section 615(k)(10)(A); Sec. 300.520).
* Excess costs (The term was defined in prior law, but the
statutory definition was not included in the current regulations. The
definition of the term, as updated by the IDEA Amendments of 1997,
would be incorporated into these regulations (Section 602(7);
Sec. 300.284).
* Freely associated States (Relates to the Pacific Basin
entities that are eligible for assistance under this part) (Section
611(b)(6); Sec. 300.722).
* Indian; Indian Tribe (Relates to the eligibility of the
Secretary of the Interior to receive amounts under this part) (Sections
602(9) and 602(10); Sec. 300.264).
* Outlying area (Relates to grant requirements under this
part) (Section 602.18; Sec. 300.718).
* Substantial evidence (Relates to discipline provisions)
(Section 615(k)(10)(C); Sec. 300.521).
* Weapon (Relates to discipline provisions) (Section
615(k)(10)(D); Sec. 300.520).
The following terms are not defined in the Act, but the Secretary
proposes to add them to the list in Note 1 in order to provide
additional clarification to certain provisions that would be added:
* Comparable in quality (A definition of this term would be
added to Sec. 300.455 to clarify what services must be provided by an
LEA to children with disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in
religiously affiliated or other private schools).
* Extended school year services (A definition of this term
would be added to a new provision under proposed Sec. 300.309 that
would require each public agency to consider extended school year
services on a case by case basis in ensuring that a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) is available to each child with a disability.
The definition would clarify that the meaning of the term ``extended
school year services'' applies to providing services during the summer
months. (A description of this provision is included under Subpart C,
Sec. 300.309, in this preamble).
* Meetings (A definition of this term would be added to
Sec. 300.501, relating to participation of parents in meetings about
their child on matters covered under this part).
* Financial Costs (A definition of this term is included in
proposed Sec. 300.142(e) on use of private insurance proceeds).
A second note (Note 2) following the heading ``Definitions'' would
maintain the note from the current regulations that lists abbreviations
of certain terms that would be used throughout the regulations, but
would update that list, as follows: The terms ``Comprehensive system of
personnel development'' (``CSPD'') and ``individualized family service
plan'' (``IFSP'') would be added; and, consistent with a statutory
change (section 602(4)), the term ``educational service agency''
(``ESA'') would replace the term ``intermediate educational unit''
(``IEU'').
Proposed Sec. 300.4 (Definition of ``Act'') would delete the
obsolete reference to the Education of the Handicapped Act from the
current regulatory definition of this term.
Proposed Secs. 300.5 and 300.6 (Definitions of ``assistive
technology device'' and ``assistive technology service'') would retain
the current regulatory definitions of those terms, with the exception
of a minor technical change for consistency in using the singular
``child with a disability.'' The note following the definitions of
those terms in the existing regulations (that states that the
definitions are substantively identical to the definitions of those
terms used in the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with
Disabilities Act of 1988) would be retained in abbreviated form.
[[Page 55031]]
Proposed Sec. 300.7 would make the following changes to the current
regulatory definition of ``children with disabilities'': The term would
be restated in the singular (``Child with a disability''), and the
definition itself would also be restated in singular rather than plural
terms. This change is made because it more appropriately comports with
the individualized focus of Part B of the Act. Paragraph (a)(1) of this
section would be revised, consistent with section 602(3)(A)(i) of the
Act, to clarify that the term ``serious emotional disturbance'' will
hereinafter be referred to as ``emotional disturbance''. A
corresponding change would be made in the definitions of the individual
disability categories under proposed paragraph (b), by changing the
term ``serious emotional disturbance'' to ``emotional disturbance'' and
moving the definition of that term from paragraph (b)(9) to paragraph
(b)(4).
Consistent with section 602(3)(B) of the Act, proposed
Sec. 300.7(a)(2) (relating to a State's discretion to use the term
``developmental delay'' for children aged 3 through 5) would be
revised, as follows: The age range for using that term would be
extended from ages 3 through 5 to ages 3 through 9; and the decision to
use the term ``developmental delay'' would be at the discretion of both
the State and the local educational agency (LEA). The State's
definition of the category may be different under Parts B and H (to
become Part C on July 1, 1998).
Note 1 following Sec. 300.7 of the current regulations (relating to
children with autism) would be added without change to proposed
Sec. 300.7, and four new notes would be added to that section, as
follows:
Note 2 would address the statutory change under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section relating to use of the term ``developmental delay''. The
note would clarify that (1) if a State adopts the term for children
aged 3 through 9, or a subset of that age range, LEAs that elect to use
the term must conform to the State's definition; (2) LEAs could not
otherwise use ``developmental delay'' as a basis for establishing a
child's eligibility under this part; and (3) even if a State adopts the
term, the State may not require an LEA to use it. This clarification is
necessary to avoid confusion and potential compliance problems in
implementing this new statutory provision, and to otherwise facilitate
its implementation.
Note 3 would further address the use of the term ``developmental
delay'' by including a statement from the House Committee Report that
emphasizes the value of using ``developmental delay'' in establishing
eligibility for young children in order to prevent locking the child
into an eligibility category that may be inappropriate or incorrect
during a period when it is often difficult to determine the precise
nature of the disability.
Note 4 would describe congressional intent in changing the term
``serious emotional disturbance'' to ``emotional disturbance''. The
note would include a statement from the House Committee Report that
explains that the statutory change (1) is intended to have no
substantive or legal significance, and (2) is intended strictly to
eliminate the pejorative connotation of the term ``serious.'' The
Report further makes clear that this statutory revision does not change
the meaning of the definition of ``serious emotional disturbance'' that
is included in the existing regulations for this part.
Note 5 would address the conditions under which a child with
attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) is eligible under Part B of the Act. The note clarifies
that some children with ADD or ADHD who are eligible under this part
meet the criteria for ``other health impairments'' if (1) the ADD or
ADHD is determined to be a chronic health problem that results in
limited alertness that adversely affects educational performance, and
(2) special education and related services are needed because of the
ADD or ADHD. (The note clarifies that the term ``limited alertness''
includes a child's heightened alertness to environmental stimuli that
results in limited alertness with respect to the educational
environment.)
The note further clarifies that (1) some children with ADD or ADHD
may be eligible for services under other disability categories in
Sec. 300.7(b) if they meet the applicable criteria for those
disabilities, and (2) if those children are not eligible under this
part, the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and its implementing regulations may still be applicable.
Proposed Sec. 300.8 would add a definition of ``day'' to clarify
that unless otherwise indicated, the term ``day'' means calendar day.
Although the Department has traditionally interpreted ``day'' to mean
calendar day, the term has never been defined in the regulations. It is
important to include such a definition in these proposed regulations
because under the new statutory provisions added by the IDEA Amendments
of 1997, the term is applied differently under certain provisions,
including the use of ``school days''; ``business days''; and ``business
days (including any holidays that fall on business days).''
Proposed Sec. 300.9 would add the definition of ``educational
service agency'' that appears in section 602(4) of the Act. That term
was added by the IDEA Amendments of 1997 to replace the term
``intermediate educational unit'' that was used in prior law and in the
current regulations.
Proposed Sec. 300.10 would add the definition of ``equipment'' that
appears in section 602(6) of the Act. That definition is substantively
identical to the definition of ``equipment'' in prior law. However,
that definition is not included in the current regulations. The
Secretary believes that, for the regulations to be most useful to
parents, school officials, and members of the general public, the
regulations should contain all applicable statutory provisions in one
document, rather than simply referencing definitions or other
provisions that are contained in other regulations. With very few
exceptions, these proposed regulations have been developed to include
all applicable provisions of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.11 would incorporate the existing regulatory
definition of the term ``free appropriate public education,'' except
that the reference to the IEP requirements in paragraph (d) of that
section would change from Secs. 300.340-300.350 to Secs. 300.340-
300.351, to conform to a proposed change made in those requirements.
The Secretary proposes to add in proposed Sec. 300.12 a definition
of ``general curriculum'' to clarify that, for purposes of this part,
there is a single curriculum that applies to all children within the
jurisdiction of the public agency, including nondisabled children and
children with disabilities. The purpose of adding this definition is to
eliminate (or significantly reduce) the possibility of misinterpreting
the new requirements in the Act relating to the participation of
children with disabilities in the general curriculum. Some commenters
on the June 27, 1997 Federal Register notice have expressed concern
that a public agency could assume that there is a ``general
curriculum'' for nondisabled and another ``general curriculum'' for
certain categories of children with disabilities. If the requirements
of this part were implemented based on that assumption this would
seriously limit the possibility of accomplishing the purposes of Part B
of the Act that are set out in the IDEA Amendments of 1997.
A note would be added following this section to clarify that the
term ``general curriculum'' relates to the content of the
[[Page 55032]]
curriculum and not to the setting in which it is used. The note further
clarifies that the general curriculum could be used in any educational
setting along a continuum of alternative placements, as long as the
setting is consistent with the least restrictive environment provisions
of Sec. 300.550-300.553 and is applicable to an individual child with a
disability. A number of comments were received requesting clarification
relating to this matter.
Proposed Sec. 300.13 would retain the current regulatory definition
of the term ``include''.
Proposed Sec. 300.14 would include a definition of the term
``individualized education program'' (IEP). Because the term ``IEP''
has traditionally been defined under Sec. 300.340 (an introductory
section to the IEP requirements of Secs. 300.340-300.350) the
definition in proposed Sec. 300.14 would simply reference the
definition in Sec. 300.340.
Proposed Sec. 300.15 would add a definition of ``individualized
education program team'' (or ``IEP team''). The definition states that
the term ``IEP team'' means a group of individuals described in
Sec. 300.344 that is responsible for developing, reviewing and revising
an IEP for a child with a disability. Because the term ``IEP team'' is
used throughout these regulations, it is important to include a
definition of that term in Subpart A. However, to preserve the
structural integrity of the current regulatory provisions on IEPs in
Secs. 300.340-300.350, the substantive definition of ``IEP team'',
which conforms to the statutory definition under section 614(d)(1)(B),
would be included in Sec. 300.344.
Proposed Sec. 300.16 would add a definition of ``individualized
family service plan'' (or ``IFSP''), because that term is used in
several subparts within these regulations. The definition of the term
would be a reference to 34 CFR 303.340(b).
Proposed Sec. 300.17 would incorporate the statutory definition of
``local education agency'' from section 602(15) of the Act. This
definition, which updates the prior statutory definition of ``LEA'' to
conform to the definition of that term in the Improving America's
Schools Act, would replace the current regulatory definition of
``LEA.''
A note would be added following proposed Sec. 300.17 to clarify
that a public charter school is eligible to receive funds under Part B
of the Act if it meets the definition of ``LEA.'' The note further
clarifies that if a public charter school receives Part B funds it must
comply with the requirements that apply to LEAs. Because of the
widespread interest in establishing charter schools as a major part of
educational reform, this clarification is necessary in order to ensure
that, to the extent applicable, these schools are in full compliance
with the requirements of this part.
Proposed Sec. 300.18 would incorporate the statutory definition of
``native language'' from section 602(16) of the Act. The new definition
is substantively similar to the current regulatory definition of
``native language.'' The note following the current regulatory
definition of ``native language'' would be retained, unchanged, except
for clarifying that the term ``native language'' is also used in the
procedural safeguards notice under proposed Sec. 300.504(c). (The
procedural safeguards notice is a new statutory provision that was
added by section 614(d) of the Act.)
Proposed Sec. 300.19 would incorporate the current regulatory
definition of ``parent'' (under a new paragraph (a)). A proposed new
paragraph (b) would be added to address questions raised by public
agencies and other agencies representing children with disabilities
about whether foster parents, who have a long-term relationship with a
disabled child, could serve as the child's parent, in lieu of requiring
the appointment of a surrogate parent to represent the child.
Proposed paragraph (b) of this section would permit State law to
provide that a foster parent qualifies as a parent under Part B of the
Act if the natural parents' authority to make educational decisions on
the child's behalf has been extinguished under State law, and if the
foster parent (1) has an ongoing, long-term parental relationship with
the child; (2) is willing to participate in making educational
decisions in the child's behalf; and (3) has no interest that would
conflict with the interest of the child.
The note following the current regulatory definition of ``parent''
(relating to other persons, such as a grandparent, who may act as a
parent) would also be incorporated into these proposed regulations. The
note would be revised to add conforming language about a foster parent,
as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
Proposed Sec. 300.20 would retain the current regulatory definition
of ``public agency,'' but would revise that definition to replace the
term ``IEUs'' with the term ``ESAs.''
Proposed Sec. 300.21 would incorporate without change the current
regulatory definition of the term ``qualified.''
Proposed Sec. 300.22 would retain the current regulatory definition
of ``related services,'' except for making the following changes: In
proposed paragraph (a), the term ``speech pathology and audiology''
would be replaced by the term ``speech-language pathology and audiology
services,'' and the term ``orientation and mobility services'' would be
added to the list of related services. These changes would be made to
conform to a statutory change in section 602(22) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.22(b) would be amended to add a definition of the
term ``orientation and mobility services'' identified in paragraph (a)
of this section. The definition (included as a new paragraph (b)(6))
states that the term ``orientation and mobility services'' means
services provided to blind or visually impaired students by qualified
personnel to enable those students to attain systematic orientation to
and safe movement within their environments in school, home and
community.
In proposed Sec. 300.22(b)(9) (relating to psychological services)
and (b)(13) (relating to social work services in schools) the
definitions of those terms would be amended to add a reference to
assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies to
the list of functions performed by these related services providers.
These providers could be helpful in ensuring effective implementation
of the new statutory provision in section 614(d)(3)(B) (proposed
Sec. 300.346) that requires that the IEP team, in the case of a child
whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider,
when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral
interventions.
In proposed Sec. 300.22(b)(14), the current regulatory definition
of the term ``speech-pathology'' would be retained, but the term would
be changed to ``speech-language pathology services,'' to conform to the
statutory change identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
The note following the current regulatory definition of ``related
services'' would be retained as Note 1 following proposed Sec. 300.22,
except for the following changes: The list of other related services in
the first paragraph of that note would be amended (1) by adding other
important services, including travel training, nutrition services, and
independent living services, and (2) to clarify that the services would
be provided if necessary for the child to receive FAPE.
Several notes would also be added to proposed Sec. 300.22, as
follows:
Note 2 would acknowledge the critical importance of orientation and
mobility services for children who are blind or have visual
impairments, and
[[Page 55033]]
point out that there are children with other disabilities who may also
need to be taught the skills they need to navigate their environments
(e.g., travel-training). The note includes a statement from the House
Committee report on Pub. L. 105-17 that emphasizes the importance of
travel training for certain children with disabilities.
Note 3 would clarify that, with respect to various related services
defined in this section, nothing would prohibit the use of
paraprofessionals to assist in the provision of those services if doing
so is consistent with the personnel standards requirements of proposed
Sec. 300.136(f).
Note 4 would explain that (1) most children with disabilities
should receive the same transportation services as non-disabled
children, and (2) for some disabled children, integrated transportation
may be achieved by providing needed accommodations such as lifts and
other adaptations on regular school transportation vehicles.
Proposed Sec. 300.23 would incorporate the statutory definition of
``secondary school'' from section 602(23) of the Act. This definition
updates the prior statutory definition of ``secondary school'' to
conform to the definition of that term in the Improving America's
Schools Act. The term ``secondary school'' is not defined in the
current regulations.
Proposed Sec. 300.24 would retain the current regulatory definition
of ``special education,'' except for the following changes:
In Sec. 300.24(a)(2), the term ``speech pathology'' would be
changed to ``speech-language pathology services,'' to conform to the
terms used in section 602(22) of the Act.
Under a new Sec. 300.24(b)(3), a definition of ``specially designed
instruction'' would be added to clarify that the term means adapting
the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to (1) address the
unique needs of an eligible child under this part that result from the
child's disability, and (2) ensure access of the child to the general
curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within
the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
Although the term is a key component in the definition of ``special
education'' in both prior law and the current Act, it has never been
defined. With the shift in emphasis of the Part B program toward
greater participation of children with disabilities in the general
curriculum, this definition should facilitate implementation of the
program.
Proposed Sec. 300.24(b)(4) would replace the outdated definition of
``vocational education'' in the current regulations with a new
definition that states that the term ``vocational education'' means
organized educational programs that are directly related to the
preparation of individuals for paid or unpaid employment, or for
additional preparation for a career requiring other than a
baccalaureate or advanced degree.
The note following the definition of ``special education'' in the
current regulations would be retained under proposed Sec. 300.24, but
would be revised to clarify that a related services provider may be a
provider of specially designed instruction if, under State law, the
person is qualified to provide that instruction.
Proposed Sec. 300.25 would incorporate the statutory definition of
``State'' from section 602(27) of the Act to mean each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
each of the outlying areas. This definition updates the prior statutory
definition of ``State.'' The term is not defined in the current
regulations.
Proposed Sec. 300.26 would incorporate the definition of
``supplementary aids and services'' from section 602(29) of the Act.
Although the term was included in prior law, it was not defined until
the enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997. The term is defined as
aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular
education classes or other education-related settings to enable
children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to
the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with the LRE provisions in
Secs. 300.550-300.556.
Proposed Sec. 300.27 would retain the current regulatory definition
of ``transition services,'' except for the following changes: The
organizational structure of the definition has been changed to conform
to the definition of the term in section 602(30) of the Act. The new
definition simply describes what the term means, but does not attempt
to regulate under the definition. The current regulatory definition
uses the regulatory term ``must'' in defining what services must be
provided. Consistent with the new statutory definition, the term
``related services'' is added as one of the services or activities
covered by the term.
Proposed Sec. 300.28 would add a list of terms found in the part B
regulations that are defined in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
Subpart B--State and Local Eligibility
State Eligibility--General
Under the prior statute, States were required both to meet certain
eligibility requirements and to submit State plans to the Department,
and were subject to periodic resubmission requirements. The newly
revised Act replaces that scheme with an eligibility determination
based on a demonstration satisfactory to the Secretary that the State
has in effect policies and procedures to ensure that it meets each of a
list of conditions. (Section 612(a)). A State that already has on file
with the Secretary policies and procedures demonstrating that it meets
any of these requirements will be considered to have met that
requirement for the purpose of receiving a grant under Part B of the
Act. (Section 612(c)(1)). A technical change will be made to Part 76
with the publication of the final regulations to reflect the
substitution of this demonstration of State eligibility for State
plans.
Under section 612(c) (2) and (3), the policies and procedures
submitted by a State remain in effect until a State submits
modifications that the State decides are necessary or until the
Secretary requires modifications based on changes to the Act or its
implementing regulations, new interpretations by a Federal court or the
State's highest court, or an official finding of noncompliance with
Federal law or regulations. The provisions regarding State eligibility
apply to modifications in the same manner and to the same extent as
they do to a State's original policies and procedures.
Section 612(d) specifies that if the Secretary determines that a
State is eligible to receive a grant under Part B of the Act, the
Secretary notifies the State of that determination, and that the
Secretary shall not make a final determination that a State is not
eligible until providing the State reasonable notice and an opportunity
for a hearing. These provisions are incorporated in the proposed
regulations in Secs. 300.110-300.113.
State Eligibility--Specific Conditions
The statutory eligibility conditions that must be addressed by each
State in order to receive a grant under Part B of the Act are contained
in proposed Secs. 300.121-300.156. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 made a
number of changes to the eligibility conditions and State plan
requirements previously contained in the Act. These proposed
regulations incorporate these statutory changes, with appropriate
modifications described below, into the regulations
[[Page 55034]]
regarding State plan contents. Some changes of a technical nature have
been made to preexisting regulatory provisions in order to reflect the
fact that States now demonstrate eligibility, rather than submit State
plans, as was the case under the prior law. In addition, some
reordering and reorganization of current regulatory provisions is done
for the sake of coherence.
Proposed Sec. 300.121 would add to the current Sec. 300.121 the new
statutory provision, under section 612(a)(1)(A), that the right to a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) extends to children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school. The issue
of what the right to FAPE means for children who have been suspended or
expelled from school has been the subject of numerous comments to the
Department in response to the June 27, 1997 notice, many of which raise
this issue in the context of lengthy discussions about all of the
provisions in the Act concerning discipline for children with
disabilities. Proposed Sec. 300.121(c) reflects the Secretary's
interpretation that the IDEA Amendments of 1997 take a balanced
approach to the issue of discipline for students with disabilities that
reflect both the need to protect the rights of children with
disabilities to appropriate educational services and the need of
schools to be able to ensure that all children, including children with
disabilities, have safe schools and orderly learning environments. The
positions taken in these proposed regulations on the issue of continued
services for children with disabilities who have been properly
suspended or expelled and on the other disciplinary provisions of the
Act (see proposed Secs. 300.520-300.529) reflect this need for a
balanced, fair interpretation of these new statutory provisions.
With regard to the issue of the provision of FAPE for children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled, the Secretary
believes that the statute struck a balance between the longstanding
interpretation of the Department that schools are not required by the
Act to provide services to children with disabilities who are suspended
for ten school days or less, and the desire to ensure that children
with disabilities not be removed from education for prolonged amounts
of time in any school year.
In proposed Sec. 300.121(c)(1), the Secretary proposes to define
children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from
school for purposes of this section to mean children with disabilities
who have been removed from their current educational placement for more
than 10 school days in a given school year.
In proposed Sec. 300.121(c)(2), the Secretary proposes to clarify
that the right to FAPE under these circumstances begins on the eleventh
school day from the date of the child's removal from the current
educational placement. For example, if a child with a disability who
has not previously been suspended in the school year receives a three
week suspension, services must be provided by the eleventh school day
of that suspension. If a child with a disability who has received two
five school day suspensions in the fall term is suspended again in the
spring of that school year, services must be provided from the first
day of the third suspension.
A second issue regarding the statutory right to FAPE for children
with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled is how to
reconcile the right to FAPE with the statutory recognition, in sections
612(a)(1)(A) and 615(k)(5)(A), that children with disabilities properly
could be subjected to the same disciplinary measures applied to
nondisabled children if their behavior was not a manifestation of their
disability. The Secretary proposes in Sec. 300.121(c)(2) to address
this question by requiring that in providing FAPE to children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled, a public agency shall
meet the requirements for interim alternative educational settings
under section 615(k)(3) of the Act. The Secretary believes requiring
that education for children who have been suspended or expelled meets
the standards in section 615(k)(3) allows accommodation of both the
statutory obligation to provide FAPE to these children and recognizes
in section 615(k)(5) that, through an appropriate suspension or
expulsion, school districts can legitimately remove children from their
current educational placement. Under proposed Sec. 300.622, States may
elect to use funds available for capacity building and improvement
activities to support public agency services to children who have been
suspended or expelled.
Two notes would also be added to proposed Sec. 300.121. The first
would be added to reflect the Department's longstanding interpretative
position that the obligation to make FAPE available to children 3
through 21 begins on each child's third birthday, and an IEP or IFSP
must be in effect by that date that specifies the special education and
related services that must be provided, consistent with proposed
Sec. 300.342, including extended school year services, if appropriate.
For children receiving early intervention services under Part C of the
Act and who will be participating in a preschool program under Part B
of the Act, the transition requirements of proposed Sec. 300.132 would
apply.
The second note to follow proposed Sec. 300.121 would recognize
that, under the statute, school districts are not relieved of their
obligations to provide appropriate special education and related
services to individual disabled students who need them even though the
students are advancing grade to grade, and that decisions about
eligibility under Part B of the Act for these students must be
determined on an individual basis.
Proposed Sec. 300.122 revises the current Sec. 300.122 to eliminate
an obsolete provision about the provision of FAPE to children with
disabilities before September 1, 1980, and incorporates the new
statutory limitation to the obligation to make FAPE available to
certain individuals in adult correctional facilities. Section
612(a)(1)(B)(ii) provides that the obligation to make FAPE available to
all children with disabilities does not apply to individuals aged 18
through 21 to the extent that State law does not require that special
education and related services under Part B of the Act be provided to
students with disabilities who, in the educational placement prior to
their incarceration in an adult correctional facility, were not
actually identified as being a child with a disability or did not have
an IEP under Part B of the Act. This provision, with minor
modifications for clarity, would be reflected in proposed
Sec. 300.122(a)(2). A note, Note 2, would be added following
Sec. 300.122 quoting the House Committee Report explaining the
statutory change.
The Secretary also proposes to amend Sec. 300.122 to make clear
that the right to FAPE does not apply to children with disabilities who
have graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma.
This reflects the Secretary's understanding that the right to FAPE is
ended either by a student successfully finishing a regular secondary
education program or reaching an age between 18 and 21 at which, under
State law, the right to FAPE has ended. In addition, the changes made
by the IDEA Amendments of 1997, particularly as they relate to the
content of children's IEPs in section 614(d) of the Act, reinforce the
Secretary's belief that FAPE is closely related to enabling children
with disabilities to progress in the same general curriculum that is
provided nondisabled children. The Secretary also believes that it is
[[Page 55035]]
important to clarify that the right to FAPE is not ended if a student
with disabilities is awarded some other certificate of completion or
attendance instead of a regular high school diploma. This change should
not be interpreted as prohibiting the use of Part B funds to provide
services to a student with disabilities who has already achieved a
regular high school diploma, but who still is in the State's mandated
age range if an LEA or SEA wishes to do so.
Note 1 following proposed Sec. 300.122 would explain that
graduation is a change of placement under Part B and, as such, would
require prior written notice to the parents, and student if
appropriate. The note would also explain that under Sec. 300.534(c) a
reevaluation is required before graduation. The note would further
explain that other documents, such as certificates of attendance or
other certificates granted instead of a regular high school diploma,
would not end a student's entitlement to FAPE.
Proposed Secs. 300.123-300.124 include, with only minor changes
reflecting the new State eligibility scheme of the statute, the current
regulatory provisions concerning State policies and procedures relating
to the full educational opportunity goal and the full educational
opportunity timetable. Current regulatory provisions concerning the
full educational opportunity goal regarding facilities, personnel, and
services, and priorities would be eliminated as these provisions were
removed from the statute by the IDEA Amendments Act of 1997. Section
612(a)(2) of the Act requires each State to have established a full
educational opportunity goal and timetable.
Proposed Sec. 300.125 incorporates the current regulatory
provision, revised as discussed, concerning child find obligations
(identification, location, and evaluation of children with
disabilities) with the new statutory provision that this obligation
includes children with disabilities attending private schools, in
accordance with section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The requirement in the
current regulation to provide yearly information about child find
activities would be eliminated in light of the fact that periodic State
plans are no longer required by statute. The provisions requiring data
on and the method for determining which children are not receiving
special education and related services also would be removed from the
regulation, reflecting statutory changes. A new Sec. 300.125(c) would
be added that includes the construction clause of section 612(a)(3)(B).
That clause clarifies that nothing in the Act requires that children be
classified by their disability so long as each child who has a
disability and, by reason thereof, needs special education and related
services, is regarded as a child with a disability under Part B of the
Act. The notes following the current regulatory provision regarding
child find would be retained, but shortened and updated as appropriate.
Two additional notes would be added to reflect longstanding policy
positions of the Department. A new Note 2 would recognize that the
services and placement needed by each child with a disability must be
based on the child's unique needs and may not be determined or limited
based on the child's disability category.
Note 3, which is largely retained from the current regulations,
explains the important relationship between child find activities under
this part and child find activities under Part 303 for children with
disabilities from birth through age 2. The Secretary believes that
developing effective child find activities for this age population will
provide significant benefits not just for very young children with
disabilities but also for schools and other public agencies that may
find their responsibilities easier because of early attention to these
children's needs.
A Note 4 following this section would reflect that each State's
child find obligation under the statute includes highly mobile
children, such as migrant and homeless children.
Proposed Sec. 300.126 incorporates the evaluation procedures from
sections 612(a)(7) and 612(a)(6)(B), by cross-referencing the
provisions of proposed Secs. 300.530-300.536, which include all of the
statutory evaluation provisions of sections 612(a)(6)(B) and 614(a)-(c)
and related evaluation procedures from current regulations. This
provision would replace the current regulatory section on State
procedures on protection in evaluation procedures.
Proposed Sec. 300.127 includes, with only minor changes reflecting
the new statutory State eligibility scheme, the provisions of the
current regulation concerning State policies and procedures on the
confidentiality of personally identifiable information. This provision
reflects section 612(a)(8) of the Act. The note following this section
would be updated to reflect current information about the regulations
implementing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.128 is the same as the current regulatory
provision concerning individualized education programs (IEPs), except
as revised to reflect the new statutory State eligibility scheme and
the requirements of section 612(a)(4) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.129 incorporates the current regulatory provision
concerning procedural safeguards, as revised as discussed, and the
statutory provision, in section 612(a)(6)(A), that children and their
parents are afforded the procedural safeguards required by section 615.
Proposed Sec. 300.130 would remove from the existing regulatory
provision regarding least restrictive environment (LRE) the data
collection requirements, and make other conforming revisions, as
discussed, in light of the new State eligibility structure of the Act,
consistent with section 612(a)(5)(A). (Data on LRE would still be
collected under section 618(a)(1)(A) (iii) and (iv) of the Act.)
Additionally, the following new statutory requirements regarding a
State's funding formula are added as proposed Sec. 300.130(b): (1) If a
State uses a funding mechanism to distribute State funds on the basis
of the type of setting in which a child is served, the funding
mechanism may not result in placements that violate the LRE
requirements; and (2) if the State does not have policies and
procedures to ensure compliance with this new requirement, the State
must provide the Secretary an assurance that the State will revise the
funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that the mechanism does
not result in placements that violate LRE. A note would also be added
to this provision quoting language from the House Committee Report
recognizing that this statutory addition does not eliminate the need
for a continuum of alternative placements that is designed to meet the
unique needs of each child with a disability.
Proposed Sec. 300.132 adds to the existing regulatory provision
concerning the transition of individuals from Part H (to be renamed
part C on July 1, 1998) to Part B the new statutory language (from
section 612(a)(9)) concerning ``effective'' transitions, and the
provision that LEAs will participate in transition planning conferences
arranged by the designated lead agency under Part H (to be renamed Part
C).
Proposed Sec. 300.133 updates the existing regulatory provision
concerning children in private schools to reflect the new statutory
structure, and the changes made in subpart D of this proposed
regulation, consistent with section 612(a)(10) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.135 reflects the new statutory requirements
concerning a comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD).
Section 612(a)(14)
[[Page 55036]]
provides that a State's CSPD must meet the requirements for a State
improvement plan relating to personnel development. A note following
this section would quote the House Committee Report to the effect that
the State's CSPD must include procedures for acquiring and
disseminating significant knowledge and for adopting appropriate
promising practices, materials, and technology. The note would also
explain that a State could use the information provided to meet the
State eligibility requirement under Part B of the Act as a part of a
State improvement program plan under Part D of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.136 reflects the existing regulatory provision on
personnel standards, revised as discussed, and the requirements of
section 612(a)(15) of the Act. A new paragraph (f) adds the new
statutory provision from section 612(a)(15)(B)(iii) that allows
paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and
supervised, under State law, regulations or policy to be used to assist
in the provision of services under Part B of the Act. Also added is the
new provision, from section 612(a)(15)(C), that a State may adopt a
policy that includes a requirement that LEAs in the State make an
ongoing good-faith effort to recruit and hire appropriately and
adequately trained personnel to provide special education and related
services, including, in a geographic area where there is a shortage of
those personnel, the most qualified individuals available who are
making satisfactory progress toward completing applicable course work
necessary to meeting State standards within three years. This provision
would be incorporated in Sec. 300.136(g). A note following this section
would be added explaining that a State may exercise the option in
paragraph (g) even though the State has reached its established date
for retraining or hiring of personnel to meet appropriate professional
requirements under paragraph (c) of this section so as to avoid any
unwarranted confusion on this issue. Another note would be added to
clarify that if a State has only one entry level degree requirement for
a specific profession or discipline, it is not precluded by
Sec. 300.136(b)(1) from modifying that standard if necessary to ensure
the provision of FAPE to all children with disabilities in the State.
Proposed Sec. 300.137 would add to the regulation the new statutory
provision of section 612(a)(16) concerning performance goals and
indicators. Basically, this provision requires that States have goals
for the performance of children with disabilities, and indicators of
progress that at a minimum address the performance of children with
disabilities on assessments, drop-out rates, and graduation rates. The
provision also requires reporting every two years to the Secretary and
the public on the progress of the State, and revisions to a State's
improvement plan under Part D of the Act as needed to improve
performance, if the State receives a grant under that authority. The
current regulatory provision concerning procedures for evaluation of
the effectiveness of programs would be removed, reflecting a statutory
change.
Proposed Sec. 300.138 would add the new requirement of section
612(a)(17)(A) concerning inclusion of children with disabilities in
general State and district-wide assessments, including conducting
alternative assessments not later than July 1, 2000 for children who
cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs. A
note following this section would explain that only a small number of
children with disabilities should need alternative assessments. The
provision of section 612(a)(17)(B) concerning reports related to these
assessments are contained in proposed Sec. 300.139.
The Secretary proposes to interpret the statutory requirements to
make clear that whenever the SEA reports to the public on student
performance on wide-scale assessments, the reports must include
aggregated results of all children, including children with
disabilities, as well as disaggregated data on the performance of
children with disabilities. The Secretary believes that the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 were designed to foster consideration of children
with disabilities as a part of the student population as a whole. It
would not be in keeping with that focus if, in reporting assessment
data, results for children with disabilities were not included in
reports on the student population as a whole. A note following this
section would explain that States would not be precluded from also
reporting data in a way that would, for example, allow them to continue
trend analysis of student performance, if children with disabilities
had not been included in those analyses in the past.
Proposed Sec. 300.141 incorporates the current regulatory
provision, revised as discussed, concerning SEA responsibility for all
educational programs, consistent with the requirement in section
612(a)(11) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.142 would replace the current regulatory
provision concerning interagency agreements with the requirements of
section 612(a)(12) regarding methods of ensuring services. This
provision requires that the Chief Executive Officer or designee in each
State ensure that an interagency agreement or some other mechanism for
interagency coordination is in effect between noneducational agencies
that are obligated under other law to provide or pay for services that
are considered special education or related services under Part B of
the Act and the SEA to ensure that those services are provided. In
addition to the statutory requirements, a paragraph (e) would reflect
the Department's interpretation that it would violate the statutory
obligation to provide free services if a public agency required a
parent to use private insurance proceeds to pay for services required
under the Act. The Department has long taken the position that Part B
of the Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit a public
agency from requiring parents to use insurance proceeds to pay for the
services that must be provided to an eligible child under the FAPE
requirements of those statutes, if they would incur a financial cost to
secure those services. (See Notice of Interpretation published on
December 30, 1980 (45 FR 66390)). This paragraph also would include a
definition of the term ``financial cost,'' so that both parents and
school districts will have a common understanding of the term. This
definition reflects the Department's longstanding interpretation of the
statutory obligation to provide services at no cost as applied to
parents' private insurance. A note following this section would explain
how this paragraph applies if a family is covered by both private
insurance and Medicaid.
The Secretary believes that the same basic principle, that services
be available at no cost to parents, would be equally applicable to
parents whose children are eligible for public insurance, but that
there is no current need to regulate on the public insurance issue
because there is no risk of financial loss to parents under current
public insurance programs such as Medicaid. The Secretary invites
comment on whether a policy on public insurance similar to the proposed
section regarding private insurance should be added to the final
regulation.
The Secretary also proposes to add a new paragraph (f) to specify
that proceeds from public or private insurance may not be treated as
program income for purposes of 34 CFR 80.25. That section imposes
limitations on how program income can be treated by grantees that would
lead to States returning reimbursements from public and private
insurance to the Federal
[[Page 55037]]
government or requiring that the funds be used under this part, which
could discourage States and school districts from using all the
resources available in paying for these services. Given the current
small percentage that Federal funds under this part are to total
funding for services under this part, and the fact that children with
disabilities are guaranteed services under this part, the Secretary
believes that States and school districts should be given some
flexibility in how they use and account for funds received as
reimbursements from other sources. A note would be added after this
section explaining the consequences, under the Maintenance of Effort
(MOE) requirements, of various State and local choices in accounting
for these funds.
Two other notes would also be added following proposed
Sec. 300.142. One would quote the House Committee Report relating to
the methods of insuring services provision. The other would explain
that if a public agency cannot get parent consent to use public or
private insurance for a service, the agency may use funds under Part B
of the Act for that service. In addition, the note would explain that
to avoid financial cost to parents who otherwise would consent to the
use of private insurance, the public agency may use funds under this
part to pay the costs of accessing the insurance, such as deductible or
co-pay amounts.
Proposed Sec. 300.143 incorporates, with revisions as described,
the existing regulatory provision concerning State procedures for
informing each public agency of its responsibility for ensuring
effective implementation of procedural safeguards for the children with
disabilities served by that public agency.
Proposed Sec. 300.144 would retain, with revisions as described,
the existing regulatory provisions concerning State procedures that the
SEA does not make a final determination regarding an LEA's eligibility
for assistance under Part B without first giving reasonable notice and
an opportunity for a hearing (consistent with section 612(a)(13)). The
Secretary also proposes to retain as proposed Sec. 300.145 the existing
regulatory provision regarding recovery of funds for misclassified
children. The statutory provision regarding recovery of funds for
misclassified children was removed by the IDEA Amendments of 1997. In
light of the fact that funds under section 611 of the Act will continue
to be distributed based on a child count until some time in the future,
however, the Secretary believes that prudent administration of Federal
funds dictates that States continue to recover funds allocated among
districts on the basis of incorrect child counts. The Secretary does
not believe that this requirement will impose additional burden on
States as all States already have these procedures. When the funding
formula changes to the permanent formula under proposed Sec. 300.706,
this provision will be removed.
Proposed Sec. 300.146 would add the new requirement of section
612(a)(22) regarding SEA examination of data to determine if
significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities among State
agencies and LEAs in the State and as compared to the rates for
nondisabled children. As provided in the statute, if discrepancies are
occurring, the SEA reviews and, if appropriate, revises its policies,
procedures, and practices relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of behavioral interventions, and
procedural safeguards.
Proposed Sec. 300.147 adds the new statutory requirements of
section 612(b) concerning information that is required if an SEA is
providing direct services. The Secretary interprets the statutory
provision regarding requirements that must be met by an SEA as not
including requirements relating to certain use of funds provisions,
reflecting the different rules for SEA and LEA use of Part B funds.
This regulation would replace the current regulatory provision on SEA
provision of direct services.
Proposed Sec. 300.148 adds the new statutory requirement of section
612(a)(20) concerning public participation in the adoption of any
policies and procedures needed to comply with Part B of the Act. The
proposed regulation would apply the procedures for public participation
regarding State plans in the current regulations, with appropriate
revisions as described, to the adoption of State policies and
procedures in the future. Those procedures are in this NPRM in proposed
Secs. 300.280-300.284. The Secretary believes that these procedures are
necessary to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for public
participation in the development of State policies and procedures
related to the provision of special education and related services to
children with disabilities. In addition, the Secretary does not see any
indication in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 of an intention by Congress
to lessen requirements concerning public participation in the
development of State policies and procedures. The existing regulatory
provision concerning consultation would be deleted, reflecting a
statutory change. The existing regulatory provision concerning other
Federal programs also would be deleted, in accordance with statutory
changes.
Proposed Sec. 300.150 incorporates the statutory requirement of
section 612(a)(21)(A) that the State establish and maintain an advisory
panel to provide guidance with respect to special education and related
services for children with disabilities in the State.
Proposed Sec. 300.152 incorporates the existing regulatory
provision, and a note concerning commingling of Part B funds with State
funds, with appropriate revisions, reflecting the requirements of
section 612(a)(18)(B).
Proposed Sec. 300.153 maintains the existing regulatory provision,
regarding State-level nonsupplanting, appropriately revised, consistent
with section 612(a)(18)(C). The note in the existing regulatory
provision on nonsupplanting would be removed as it would be confusing
in light of the new statutory State-level maintenance of effort
requirement addressed in proposed Sec. 300.154.
Proposed Sec. 300.154 reflects the new statutory requirement of
section 612(a)(19) which prohibits the State from reducing the amount
of State financial support for special education and related services
below the level of that support for the preceding fiscal year. If the
State does reduce State support, the Secretary is directed to reduce
funds to the State in the subsequent year by an amount equal to the
amount by which the State failed to meet the requirement. The statute
also provides that waivers are possible under certain described
circumstances, and, if granted, in the year following the waiver the
State must meet the level of support it had provided in the year before
the waiver.
Proposed Secs. 300.155 and 300.156 would simplify, in light of
statutory changes, the provision in current regulations regarding
policies and procedures for use of Part B funds, and annual
descriptions of the use of Part B funds. Proposed Sec. 30.156(b) would
incorporate the longstanding Department practice of permitting a State
to submit a letter instead of filing a new report when the State's use
of funds that are retained by the State has not changed from the prior
report submitted.
LEA and State Agency Eligibility--General
Similar to the State eligibility scheme as described, under section
613(a) LEAs and State agencies now also must demonstrate eligibility.
Section 613(b)
[[Page 55038]]
specifies that if an LEA or State agency has policies and procedures on
file with the State that meet a requirement of the new Act, the SEA
shall consider the LEA or State agency to have met that requirement.
Policies and procedures remain in effect until modified as the LEA or
State agency decides necessary, or until required by the SEA because of
changes to the Act or its implementing regulations, a new
interpretation of the Act by Federal or State courts, or an official
finding of noncompliance with Federal or State law or regulations. A
provision would be added to clarify that the same rules apply to
modifications to LEA or State agency policies and procedures as apply
to the original ones consistent with the statutory provision regarding
State eligibility. These provisions are in proposed Secs. 300.180--
300.182.
The excess costs provisions in the current regulations would be
condensed and streamlined in these proposed regulations in
Secs. 300.184-300.185.
Proposed Secs. 300.190 and 300.192 reflect the new statutory
requirements of section 613(e) concerning joint establishment of
eligibility and requirements for education service agencies (formerly
intermediate educational units). These provisions eliminate the $7,500
minimum grant requirement of prior law and add an explicit prohibition
on an SEA from requiring a charter school that is an LEA to jointly
establish eligibility unless the SEA is explicitly permitted to do so
under State law.
Proposed Sec. 300.194 reflects the new statutory provision in
section 613(i) concerning State agency eligibility. The Secretary
proposes, in these regulations, to require that these agencies meet all
the conditions of Subpart B of these proposed regulations that apply to
LEAs, in keeping with the authorization in section 613(i)(2).
Proposed Sec. 300.196 reflects the statutory provision of section
613(c) that if the SEA determines that an LEA or State agency is not
eligible, the SEA notifies the LEA or State agency of that
determination, and provides the LEA or State agency with reasonable
notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Proposed Sec. 300.197 adds the statutory requirements concerning
SEA actions if an LEA is failing to comply with the requirements of
Part B.
LEA Eligibility--Specific Conditions
In accordance with the statutory changes in section 613(a),
proposed Sec. 300.220 simplifies the basic eligibility conditions for
LEAs. This provision would replace most of the current regulations
concerning the content of LEA applications. Under these proposed
regulations LEAs must have in effect policies, procedures, and programs
that are consistent with State policies and procedures required to
demonstrate State eligibility.
With regard to implementation of the State's comprehensive system
of personnel development, proposed Sec. 300.221 reflects the
requirement in section 613(a)(3) that the LEA demonstrate that all
personnel necessary to carry out this part are appropriately and
adequately prepared, consistent with State requirements, and that to
the extent the LEA determines appropriate, it contributes to and uses
the CSPD established by the State.
Proposed Sec. 300.230 reflects the statutory provision of section
613(a)(2)(A) that funds under Part B of the Act must be used in accord
with the requirements of Part B, may only be used for the excess costs
of providing special education and related services to children with
disabilities, and must supplement and not supplant other State, local
and Federal funds.
Proposed Sec. 300.231 reflects the new statutory provision that
LEAs not reduce the level of expenditure of LEA funds.
Proposed Sec. 300.232 incorporates new statutory exceptions to the
local maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. With regard to the
exception relating to the voluntary departure or departure for just
cause of special education personnel, the Secretary in these proposed
regulations proposes to clarify that the exception only applies if
personnel departing are replaced by qualified, lower-salaried
personnel. This limitation would not permit a public agency to meet the
MOE requirement by removing personnel and failing to replace them. The
Secretary does not believe that the statutory provision was intended to
permit a reduction in expenditures through attrition unless one of the
other exceptions also applied. Other statutory exceptions added include
exceptions covering a decrease in enrollment of children with
disabilities; the termination of an obligation of the agency to pay for
an exceptionally costly program, as determined by the SEA, because the
child has left the agency, has reached the age at which the agency no
longer has an obligation, or the child no longer needs special
education; and the termination of costly expenditures for long-term
purchases. A note following this section would quote from the House
Committee Report on the issue of exceptions to maintenance of effort
for voluntary departure of special education personnel, which provides
the basis for the clarification of this exception.
Proposed Sec. 300.233 reflects the new statutory provision in
section 613(a)(2)(C) that in years when the Federal appropriation under
section 611 is more than $4,100,000,000 an LEA may treat as local funds
up to 20 percent of the amount of funds it receives under Part B that
exceed the amount it received under Part B in the prior year. Under
certain circumstances, an SEA may be authorized under State law to
prevent an LEA from exercising this authority.
Proposed Sec. 300.234 incorporates a new statutory provision
concerning use of Part B funds in schoolwide project schools under
section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The
amount of Part B funds that may be used in a schoolwide project is
limited, by statute, to the amount arrived at by multiplying the per
child amount the LEA receives under Part B by the number of children
with disabilities participating in the schoolwide project school. The
Secretary interprets the statutory provision regarding use of funds to
require that these funds may be used without regard to the excess costs
requirement, and that in calculating supplement, not supplant and
maintenance of effort under Part B, these funds be considered as
Federal Part B funds. An explicit statement that except as to the
flexibility granted concerning how the Part B funds are used, all other
requirements of Part B must be met by an LEA using Part B funds in a
schoolwide project school would also be added. This reflects the
Secretary's interpretation that this provision cannot be used as a
basis for not providing services to children with disabilities in
accordance with the other requirements of the Act. A note following
this section would caution that children in schoolwide project schools
must still receive services in accordance with a properly developed IEP
and must still be afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to
children with disabilities under the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.235 incorporates the provisions of section
613(a)(4) regarding permissive use of Part B funds for special
education and related services and supplementary aids and services
provided to a child with disabilities that also benefit other children
and to develop and implement a coordinated services system. The
provision would make clear that an LEA will not be found to violate the
commingling, excess costs, supplement not supplant, or maintenance of
effort requirements
[[Page 55039]]
based on its use of funds in accordance with this provision.
Proposed Secs. 300.240-300.250 reflect the new statutory provisions
of section 613(a) (5), (6) and (7), (f) and (g) related to treatment of
charter schools and their students, information for the SEA to carry
out its duties under Part B, public availability of documents related
to LEA eligibility, coordinated services systems, and school-based
improvement plans. A note following proposed Sec. 300.241 would explain
that the provisions of the Part 300 regulations that apply to public
schools also apply to children in public charter schools and that
children with disabilities in charter schools retain all their rights
under these regulations.
Secretary of the Interior--Eligibility
Proposed Secs. 300.260--300.267 incorporate the revised statutory
provisions concerning the payment to the Secretary of the Interior into
the existing regulations on this topic. In proposed Sec. 300.260
references to State eligibility requirements would be updated to
reflect the new State eligibility requirements of the Act. In proposed
Sec. 300.262 the amount the Secretary of the Interior may use of the
payment for administrative costs would be changed to 5 percent of its
payment or $500,000 whichever is greater, reflecting the increase in
the minimum for State administration in section 611. Provisions in the
statute regarding a plan for coordination of services for all Indian
children residing on reservations covered by Part B (section
611(i)(4)), definitions of the terms ``Indian'' and ``Indian tribe''
(section 602 (9) and (10)), and provisions regarding the establishment
of an advisory board and reports by that board (sections 611(i) (5) and
(6)(A)) would also be added.
Public Participation
Proposed Secs. 300.280-300.284 incorporate the existing regulatory
provisions concerning public participation, revised to reflect the
statutory changes from State plans to State eligibility demonstrations.
The Secretary believes that these provisions remain necessary to ensure
adequate public participation in the development of State policies and
procedures regarding the provision of special education and related
services to children with disabilities under Part B of the Act, and
sees nothing in the changes in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 that
indicates a Congressional intent to reduce these requirements.
Subpart C--Services
Free Appropriate Public Education
Proposed Sec. 300.300 is essentially the same as in the current
regulation, with minor changes to update and accommodate new statutory
provisions. Proposed Secs. 300.301-300.308 also are restatements of the
current regulatory provisions at these sections.
Reflecting the Secretary's long standing interpretation of the
obligation to make FAPE available based on individual needs, a new
Sec. 300.309 would be added to address extended school year services.
This provision would require that each public agency ensure that
extended school year services are available to each child with a
disability to the extent necessary to ensure that a free appropriate
public education is available to the child, based on an individual
determination of the child's needs by the child's IEP team. The term
``extended school year services'' is defined to be special education
and related services that are provided to a child with a disability
beyond the normal school year, in accordance with the child's IEP, at
no cost to the child's parents, and that meet the standards of the SEA.
A note following this section would explain that agencies may not limit
extended school year services only to children with particular
categories of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of
services. The note would also explain that nothing in Part B requires
that every child with a disability is entitled to, or must receive,
extended school year services. A second note would explain that States
may establish standards for decisions regarding which children should
receive extended school year services and provides examples of
acceptable factors that may be considered. These changes reflect the
Secretary's policy guidance over the years on this topic, which itself
has been informed by a number of Federal court decisions over the last
twenty years under Part B of the Act. The Secretary believes that the
changes are necessary to ensure that children with disabilities who
need extended school year services have appropriate access to those
services, and that those services are a part of FAPE.
Proposed Sec. 300.311 reflects new statutory provisions in sections
612(a)(1)(B) and 614(d)(6) concerning students with disabilities who
are in adult correctional facilities. Paragraph (a) would specify that
the obligation to make FAPE available to all children with disabilities
does not apply to students aged 18 through 21 to the extent that State
law does not require that special education and related services under
Part B be provided to students with disabilities who, in the last
educational placement prior to their incarceration in an adult
correctional facility, were not actually identified as being a child
with a disability and did not have an IEP under Part B. This language
is taken from the statute, with minor changes for the sake of clarity.
Paragraph (b) would provide that certain requirements of Part B do not
apply to students with disabilities who are convicted as adults under
State law and incarcerated in adult prisons: the provisions relating to
participation of children with disabilities in general assessments, and
the provisions relating to transition planning and transition services
for students whose eligibility under Part B will end, because of their
age, before they will be released from prison. The Secretary interprets
the provision concerning transition services to require consideration
of the student's sentence and eligibility for early release because the
required determination must happen before the student actually is
released from prison. Reflecting statutory requirements, paragraph (c)
would specify that the IEP team of a student with a disability who is
convicted as an adult under State law and incarcerated in an adult
prison may modify the student's IEP or placement if the State has
demonstrated a bona fide security or compelling penological interest
that cannot otherwise be accommodated.
Evaluations and Reevaluations
Proposed Secs. 300.320 and 300.321 would be added to reflect the
basic statutory requirements concerning evaluations and reevaluations
contained in section 614 (a) and (b) of the Act. Evaluations and
reevaluations would be addressed in greater detail in the discussion of
proposed Secs. 300.530-300.536.
Individualized Education Programs
Proposed Sec. 300.340 would restate the current regulatory
definitions of ``IEP'' and ``participating agency.''
Proposed Sec. 300.341 would restate the current regulatory
provision concerning the SEA responsibility for development and
implementation of IEPs, with one minor wording change. Throughout these
proposed regulations, the Secretary proposes to use the term
``religiously-affiliated'' rather than the term ``parochial'' as the
former is more inclusive and accurately reflects the type of schools
described. These proposed regulations distinguish between children
placed in private schools by public agencies and those
[[Page 55040]]
placed in private schools by their parents. Proposed Secs. 300.401 and
300.402 address children placed by public agencies in private schools.
Proposed Sec. 300.403 concerns placement in private schools when the
provision of FAPE is at issue. Proposed Secs. 300.450-300.462 concern
children placed by their parents in private schools.
Proposed Sec. 300.342 (a) and (b) would restate, with minor
nonsubstantive changes, the current regulatory provisions regarding
when IEPs must be in effect. A new paragraph (c) would be added
regarding the use of IFSPs for children aged 3 through 5 as provided
for in the statute at section 614(d)(2)(B), and reflecting the
Secretary's interpretation that this provision permits, if State policy
provides and the public agency and parent agree, the use of an IFSP
that meets the content requirements of section 636(d) of the Act in
place of a document meeting the IEP content requirements of section
614(d) of the Act, for children aged 3 through 5. With regard to the
requirement for agreement by the parents to using an IFSP instead of an
IEP, the Secretary proposes to require written informed consent that is
based on an explanation of the differences between an IFSP and an IEP
in light of the importance of the IEP as the statutory vehicle for
ensuring the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities. For most
children who are five-years old, and for many 3- and 4-year olds as
well, the use of an IEP that must be tied to the general curriculum
provided to nondisabled age peers, is encouraged.
The Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (d) to this section
representing the Secretary's understanding of section 201(a)(2)(C) of
Pub. L. 105-17 that IEPs that meet the requirements of section 614(d)
(1)-(5) must be in effect as of July 1, 1998. Delaying implementation
of these provisions beyond that date would be inconsistent with the
right of children with disabilities to an IEP that meets the new
requirements as of July 1, 1998. The note following this section from
current regulations would be retained with minor changes, and a new
note added to clarify that the provisions of section 614(d)(6) of the
Act, relating to services to children with disabilities in adult
prisons, took effect on June 4, 1997.
Proposed Sec. 300.343(a) restates the current regulatory provision
concerning the general standard for conducting IEP meetings. In
paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary would add a new provision
on timelines for IEPs that would require that an offer of services
based on an IEP must be made within a reasonable period of time from a
public agency's receipt of parent consent to an initial evaluation
reflecting the Department's longstanding interpretation of the
requirements of the statute. A note following this section would be
added to explain that for most children it would be reasonable to
expect that a public agency would offer services based on an IEP within
60 days of receipt of parent consent for initial evaluation. The
Secretary proposes this reasonable time standard in light of the
importance of appropriate educational services for children with
disabilities to enable them to receive FAPE and the frequent long
delays observed between referral for special education evaluation and
actual provision of services. Paragraph (b) would retain the current
regulatory timeline of 30 days from the determination that the child is
a child with a disability to an IEP meeting. A new paragraph (c) would
also be added to this section that revises the current regulatory
provision concerning review of IEPs to reflect new statutory
requirements in section 614(d)(4). The note following this section in
current regulations would be deleted as unnecessary and confusing in
light of changes proposed to the regulation.
Proposed Sec. 300.344 would revise the current regulatory provision
concerning IEP team membership to reflect the requirements of section
614(d)(1)(B). Under this provision the IEP team includes the parents of
the child with a disability; at least one regular education teacher (if
the child is, or may be, participating in regular education); at least
one special education teacher or, if appropriate, at least one special
education provider of the child; a representative of the LEA who meets
certain specified requirements; an individual who can interpret the
instructional implications of evaluation results; at the discretion of
the parent or agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special
expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel;
and, if appropriate, the child.
The Secretary proposes to expand the current regulatory provision
requiring the agency to invite students to participate in IEP meetings
if the meeting will include consideration of the statement of needed
transition services to also include meetings that will include
consideration of transition service needs, in accordance with
Sec. 300.347(b)(1) and note 5 following that section. This reflects the
Department's longstanding regulatory position that a student with a
disability be involved in the development of an IEP if transition
services are being considered. The current regulatory provision
regarding taking other steps to ensure consideration of the student's
preferences and interest if the student does not attend the IEP meeting
would be maintained. This section also would maintain the current
regulatory provisions concerning inviting representatives of any other
agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for
transition services, including taking other steps to obtain
participation if a representative invited to a meeting does not attend.
Note 1 following this section would be revised in light of the
statutory changes. It would also explain that an LEA may designate one
or more regular education teachers of the child to attend the IEP
meeting, if the child has more than one. It would further state that if
all of the child's teachers are not participating in the IEP meeting,
LEAs are encouraged to seek input from teachers who will not be
attending, and should ensure that teachers who do not attend the IEP
meeting are informed about the results of the meeting, including
receiving a copy of the IEP. Finally, the note would explain that LEAs
are encouraged, in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the
learning of the child or others, to have a person knowledgeable about
positive behavior strategies at the meeting. Note 2 following this
section in the current regulations would be removed.
Proposed Sec. 300.345 largely would maintain the current regulatory
provision concerning parent participation in IEP meetings based on the
statutory requirements at section 614(d)(1)(B). It would be revised
only by adding to the parent notification provisions that for students
of any age, if a purpose of the IEP meeting is either the development
of a statement of transition service needs or consideration of needed
transition services, the agency's notice to the parent must indicate
that purpose, and that the agency must invite the student to attend.
This change merely modifies the current regulation to accommodate the
new statutory provision requiring a statement of transition service
needs for students beginning no later than age 14 contained in proposed
Sec. 300.347.
Proposed Sec. 300.346 would add a new provision to the regulations
based on the requirements of section 614(d)(3) concerning development
of the IEP. That section requires that in developing each child's IEP
the IEP team consider the strengths of the child and the concerns of
the parents for enhancing the education of their child and the results
of the initial or most recent
[[Page 55041]]
evaluation of the child. That section requires that the IEP team also
consider a number of special factors that may apply to individual
children. For example, if a child's behavior impedes his or her
learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider, if appropriate,
strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies,
and supports to address that behavior. These statutory requirements are
included in proposed Sec. 300.346(a). Proposed Sec. 300.346(b) would
clarify that IEP teams consider these factors in review and revision of
IEPs as well as in their initial development. A paragraph (c) also
would be added to clarify that if in considering a factor, the IEP team
determines that a child needs a particular device or service (including
an intervention, accommodation, or other program modification) in order
for the child to receive FAPE, the IEP team must include a statement to
that effect in the child's IEP. It would be an anomalous result if an
IEP team determined that a service or device was needed to address one
of the statutory special factors, and that service or device were not
included in the child's IEP.
Paragraph (d) of this proposed section would add the statutory
requirements of section 614(d) (3)(C) and (4)(B) which specify that the
regular education teacher, to the extent appropriate, must participate
in the development, review, and revision of the IEP of the child,
including assisting in the determination of appropriate positive
behavioral interventions and strategies and the determination of
supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and support for
school personnel. Paragraph (e) of this section would incorporate the
new statutory provision of section 614(e) which specifies that IEP
teams are not required to include information under one component of a
child's IEP that is already included under another. Three notes would
also be added following this section. The first would recognize the
importance of the consideration of the special factors in development
of a child's IEP. As appropriate, consideration of these factors must
include a review of valid evaluation data and the observed needs of the
child resulting from the evaluation process. The second note would
acknowledge the statement in the House Committee Report regarding Pub.
L. No. 105-17 that states that for children who are deaf or hard of
hearing the IEP team should implement the special consideration
provision in a manner consistent with the ``Deaf Students Education
Services'' policy guidance from the Department. The third note would
explain how the considerations addressed in this section affect the
development of an IEP for a child who is limited-English proficient.
This is one of several notes addressing the responsibility of public
agencies to effectively meet the needs of children with limited English
proficiency who have a disability or are suspected of having a
disability. The Secretary requests public comment on whether additional
clarification would be useful.
Proposed Sec. 300.347 would replace the current regulatory
provision on the contents of IEPs with the new statutory requirements
from section 614(d)(1)(A) regarding the contents of an IEP. In
addition, proposed Sec. 300.347 would maintain the current regulatory
provision regarding transition services on a student's IEP which states
that if the IEP team determines that services are not needed in one or
more of certain of the areas specified in the definition of transition
services, the IEP team must include a statement to that effect and the
basis upon which the determination was made. In addition, the Secretary
would add, as paragraph (d), a statement that special rules concerning
the content of IEPs apply for children with disabilities who are in
adult prisons, consistent with section 614(d)(6) of the Act. The notes
following the current regulatory provision on IEP contents would be
shortened and condensed into one note regarding transition services.
Notes would be added following this section explaining several issues
raised by the new provisions on IEP contents--the emphasis on the
general curriculum, the focus of the IEP on enabling children with
disabilities to access the general curriculum, the relationship of
teaching and related service methodologies or approaches and the
content of the IEP, the new reporting to parents requirement and the
new statement of transition service needs. A final note would explain
that it would not be a violation of Part B of the Act for a public
agency to begin planning for transition service needs for students
younger than age 14 and transition services for students younger than
age 16.
Proposed Sec. 300.348 would maintain the current regulatory
provision concerning agency responsibility for transition services,
consistent with section 614 (d)(5) and (d)(1)(A)(vii). Current
regulatory provisions concerning private school placements by public
agencies and children with disabilities in private schools would be
retained as proposed Secs. 300.349 and 300.350, with minor wording
changes. These sections reflect the Secretary's interpretation of how
public agencies meet their responsibilities regarding conducting IEP
meetings under section 614(d)(1)(B) in light of the requirements of
section 612(a)(10) (A) and (B) regarding providing services to children
with disabilities in private schools. The current regulatory provision
concerning IEP accountability would also be maintained as proposed
Sec. 300.351. The Secretary believes that this provision continues to
represent the appropriate interpretation of the statutory provisions
concerning IEPs. However, the note following this section has been
revised in light of the heightened focus in the IDEA Amendments of 1997
on providing children with disabilities the instruction, services and
modifications that will enable them to achieve a high standards.
Direct Services by the SEA
Proposed Sec. 300.360(a) would replace the current regulatory
provision describing the SEA's use of funds, that otherwise would have
gone to an LEA, to provide direct services, with the new statutory
requirements on this issue. Paragraphs (b) and (c) would be maintained
from the current regulations, reflecting the Secretary's continuing
interpretation of how SEAs implement direct services. The note
following this section would be retained, with material deleted that
has been rendered obsolete by the new statute. Proposed Sec. 300.361
would be retained from the current regulations, consistent with the
requirements of section 613(h)(2) of the Act.
Section 611(f)(3) authorizes several new uses of money that the
State may retain at the State level, including to establish and
implement the mediation process; to assist LEAs in meeting personnel
shortages; to develop a State Improvement Plan under subpart 1 of Part
D of the Act; to carry out activities at the State and local levels to
meet performance goals and to support implementation of the State
Improvement Plan; to supplement other amounts used to develop and
implement a Statewide coordinated services system (but not more than
one percent of the grant under section 611 of the Act); and for
capacity building and system improvement subgrants to LEAs. The current
regulatory provision would be expanded by adding these new statutory
provisions as Sec. 300.370(a) (3)-(8). Proposed Sec. 300.370(a) (1) and
(2) reflect statutory provisions that were in the prior law and are
retained in section 611(f)(3). The provision in the current regulations
concerning State matching would be deleted, reflecting the deletion of
this requirement from the statute.
[[Page 55042]]
Proposed Sec. 300.372 would replace the current regulatory
provision regarding the applicability of the nonsupplanting provision
to funds that the State uses with the new requirements from section
611(f)(1)(C) that the SEA may use funds retained without regard to the
prohibition on commingling and the prohibition on supplanting other
funds.
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development
The regulatory provisions in proposed Secs. 300.380-300.382 would
be revised to reflect new statutory requirements concerning a State's
comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD). Proposed
Sec. 300.380 would require that each State's CSPD be consistent with
Part B of the Act and the CSPD provision of Part H (to be renamed Part
C); be designed to ensure an adequate supply of qualified special
education, regular education and related services personnel; be updated
at least every five years; and meet the requirements of Secs. 300.381-
300.382, which contain the provisions of section 653 (b)(2)(D) and
(c)(3)(D), as required by section 612(a)(14). Because the statute makes
the CSPD the same as the personnel sections of a State Improvement
Plan, the Secretary proposes to add a provision to make clear that a
State with a State Improvement grant would be considered to have met
the requirements of this section.
Proposed Sec. 300.381 would require a State to include an analysis
of State and local needs for professional development of personnel to
serve children with disabilities that must include at least certain
minimum specified information. Proposed Sec. 300.382 would require
States to describe the strategies in a number of specified areas that
they will use to address the needs identified under proposed
Sec. 300.381, including identified needs for in-service and pre-service
preparation to ensure that all personnel who work with children with
disabilities (including both professional and paraprofessional
personnel who provide special education, general education, related
services, or early intervention services) have the skills and knowledge
necessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities.
Subpart D--Children in Private Schools
Children With Disabilities in Private Schools Placed or Referred by
Public Agencies
Sections 300.400-300.402 of these proposed rules would incorporate
the existing rules regarding children with disabilities placed in
private schools by public agencies and children with disabilities
placed in private schools by their parents. These proposed rules
reflect the unchanged statutory provision in section 612(a)(10)(B) that
children with disabilities placed in or referred to private schools or
facilities by an SEA or LEA must be provided special education and
related services (1) in accordance with an IEP, and (2) at no cost to
their parents. Section 612(a)(10)(B) further requires that the SEA must
ensure that the private facilities meet State standards and that
children placed in those facilities have the same rights they would
have if served by a public educational agency. The IDEA Amendments of
1997 added new requirements concerning children placed by their parents
in private schools. Section 612(a)(10)(C)(i) provides that an LEA is
not required to pay for the cost of education, including special
education and related services, of a child with a disability at a
private school or facility if the LEA made FAPE available to the child
and the parents elected to place the child in the private school.
Parent reimbursement is subject to certain requirements described in
the next paragraph of this preamble. This provision would be reflected
in proposed Sec. 300.403(a). Proposed Sec. 300.403(b) would be retained
from the current regulations to clarify that due process procedures can
be used to resolve disagreements about the provision of FAPE and
financial responsibility of the public agency.
Section 612(a)(10)(C)(ii) describes the circumstances under which a
parent may seek reimbursement from a public agency for a private school
placement. This provision states that a court or a hearing officer may
require the public agency to reimburse parents for the cost of a
private school placement if the court or hearing officer finds that the
public agency had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely
manner. It also states that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if
(1) at the child's most recent IEP meeting the parents did not inform
the IEP team that they were rejecting the public agency's proposed
placement, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll
their child in a private school at public expense; (2) ten (10)
business days (including holidays that occur on a business day) prior
to the removal of the child from public school, the parents did not
give written notice that they were rejecting the public agency proposal
and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public
expense; (3) prior to the parents' removal of the child from a public
school, the public agency notified the parents, through the prior
written notice required under section 615(b)(7) of the Act, of its
intention to evaluate the child, but the parents did not make the child
available for evaluation; or (4) upon a judicial finding of
unreasonableness regarding the actions of the parents. Reimbursement
may not be reduced or denied for failure to provide that notice if: (1)
The parent is illiterate and cannot write in English; (2) compliance
with an evaluation would likely result in physical or serious emotional
harm to the child; (3) the school prevented the parent from providing
the notice; or (4) the parents had not received notice, pursuant to
section 615 of the Act, of the notice requirement. These provisions
would be incorporated in the proposed regulations at Sec. 300.403(c)-
(e).
Children With Disabilities Enrolled by their Parents in Private Schools
Proposed Sec. 300.450 would retain the current regulatory
definition of ``private school children with disabilities.''
Section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act provides that to the extent
consistent with the number and location of children with disabilities
who are enrolled by their parents in private elementary and secondary
schools, provision is made for the participation of those children in
the program assisted or carried out under this part by providing for
these children special education and related services, by spending a
proportionate amount of the Federal funds available under Part B of the
Act on services for these children. Those services may be provided to
children with disabilities on the premises of private, including
parochial, schools, to the extent consistent with law. The statute also
requires that the SEA's and LEA's child find activities apply to
children with disabilities who are placed by their parents in private,
including parochial, schools.
Proposed Secs. 300.451-300.462 would incorporate these statutory
requirements, and appropriate provisions from existing regulatory
requirements (from 34 CFR 76.650-76.662) regarding the participation of
private school students with disabilities. The term ``religiously-
affiliated'' would be used instead of the statutory term ``parochial''
as the Secretary assumes that all religious schools were intended by
Congress to be included, not just those organized on a parish basis.
The child find obligation from the statute is reflected in proposed
Sec. 300.451. Proposed Sec. 300.452 describes the basic statutory
obligation to provide special
[[Page 55043]]
education and related services to private school children with
disabilities and says that obligation is met by meeting the
requirements of Secs. 300.453-300.462. In Sec. 300.453, the Secretary
interprets the statutory limitation on the amount of funds that LEAs
must spend on providing special education and related services to
private school children with disabilities as the same proportion of the
LEA's total subgrant under sections 611 and 619 of the Act as the
number of private school children with disabilities aged 3 through 21
and 3 through 5, respectively, is to the total numbers of children with
disabilities in its jurisdiction in each of those age ranges. A note
would be added after this section to clarify that SEAs and LEAs are not
prohibited from providing more services to private school children with
disabilities than is required under the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.454(a) specifies that no individual private
school child with a disability has a right to receive some or all of
the special education and related services the child would receive if
enrolled in a public school. This provision reflects the Secretary's
longstanding regulatory interpretation of the statutory limitations on
the obligation to provide services to private school children with
disabilities, which now specifically reference the limited amount of
funds that LEAs must spend on these services. LEAs should have the
authority to decide, after consultation with representatives of private
school children with disabilities, how best to provide services to this
population. Proposed Sec. 300.454 (b)-(e) specifies that LEAs make
decisions about which children to serve and what services to be
provided to private school children with disabilities, and how those
services will be provided and evaluated after timely and meaningful
consultation with appropriate representatives of private school
children with disabilities that gives those representatives a genuine
opportunity to express their views on these subjects. These rules are
similar to requirements governing how decisions are made about services
provided to private school children under Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, and are based on the consultation provisions
in 34 CFR 76.652 that have applied to services to private school
children with disabilities under the Act for many years.
Proposed Sec. 300.455 specifies that services provided to private
school children with disabilities must be comparable in quality to
services provided to children with disabilities enrolled in public
schools and provides a definition of ``comparable in quality.'' This
proposed section also specifies that the IEPs developed for these
children must address the services that the LEA has determined that it
will provide to the child, in light of the services that the LEA has
determined, through the consultation process, that it will make
available to private school children with disabilities. (The proposed
regulations will maintain the current regulatory provision at
Sec. 300.341(b)(2) requiring that IEPs be developed for children
enrolled in private schools and receiving special education and related
services from a public agency.)
Proposed Sec. 300.456(a) would incorporate the statutory provision
that services may be provided on-site at the child's private school, to
the extent consistent with law. The term ``religiously-affiliated'' is
used instead of the statutory term, ``parochial.'' A note would be
included after this section that recognizes that under recent decisions
of the U.S. Supreme Court, LEAs may provide special education and
related services on-site at religiously-affiliated private schools in a
manner that does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Proposed Sec. 300.456(b) would specify that transportation to a
site other than the child's private school must be provided if
necessary for the child to benefit from or participate in the other
services offered, based on the Secretary's longstanding position that
all children with disabilities must be provided transportation to and
from other services provided under the Act, if that transportation is
necessary to enable them to benefit from those other services.
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section would clarify that the cost of that
transportation may be included in calculating whether the LEA has met
the requirement of Sec. 300.453. A second note following this section
would explain that transportation is not required between the student's
home and the private school, but only between the site of the services,
if other than the private school, and the student's private school or
the student's home, depending on the time of the services.
In proposed Sec. 300.457(a), the Secretary interprets the statutory
provision regarding services to private school children with
disabilities to mean that the due process procedures of the Act do not
apply to complaints that an LEA has failed to meet the requirements of
Secs. 300.452-300.462, including the provision of services indicated on
the child's IEP. This provision is based on the statutory scheme, which
does not include any individual right to services for private school
students placed by their parents. Proposed Sec. 300.457(b) would
clarify that complaints that an SEA or LEA has failed to meet the
requirements of Secs. 300.451-300.462 may be filed under the State
complaint procedures addressed in this NPRM at Secs. 300.660-300.662.
Proposed Secs. 300.458-300.462 would incorporate, with only minor
changes that are not intended to be substantive, the requirements from
34 CFR Secs. 76.657-76.662 that have applied to the Part B program of
the Act for many years. The Secretary believes that these provisions
are necessary to ensure that funds under Part B of the Act are not used
to benefit private schools or in ways that could raise questions of
inappropriate assistance to religion.
Proposed Secs. 300.480-300.487 would repeat, with only minor
nonsubstantive changes, the bypass provisions from the current
regulations. The bypass provisions in section 612(f) are unchanged from
prior law.
Subpart E--Procedural Safeguards
Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children
Proposed Sec. 300.500 would combine in one section two current
regulatory provisions that establish the general responsibility of SEAs
for establishing and implementing procedural safeguards and define
``consent,'' ``evaluation,'' and ``personally identifiable.'' The
provision in proposed Sec. 300.500(a) regarding the general
responsibility of SEAs would be updated to include all the procedural
safeguards in the proposed regulations, consistent with the
requirements of section 615(a) of the Act. Similarly, the definition of
``evaluation'' in proposed Sec. 300.500(b)(2) would be updated to refer
to all of the evaluation procedures in Subpart E of the proposed
regulation, which are based on the statutory provisions of sections
612(a)(6)(B) and 614 (a)-(c). A new note following this section would
be added to clarify that a parent's revocation of consent is not
retroactive in effect. For example, if a parent grants consent for an
evaluation, and after the evaluation is completed the parent revokes
consent for the evaluation, the IEP team would still be able to
consider that evaluation in making decisions about the child's program
and placement.
Based on the requirements of section 615(b)(1), proposed
Sec. 300.501(a) would be revised to address the parents' opportunity to
inspect and review all educational records, as in the current
regulation, and the new statutory
[[Page 55044]]
requirements that parents be given an opportunity to participate in
meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and
educational placement of the child, and the provision of FAPE to the
child. In paragraph (b) of this section the Secretary proposes that the
statutory obligation to afford parents the opportunity to participate
in meetings means that parents must be given notice of the meeting,
including the purpose, time and location, and who will be in
attendance, early enough so that they have an opportunity to attend,
because these requirements seem essential to giving parents an
opportunity to participate in these meetings. In paragraph (b)(2), the
Secretary proposes to define ``meeting'' to make clear that only
certain conversations about providing educational services to a child
are covered, to eliminate potential confusion about the scope of this
requirement. Paragraph (c) of this section would incorporate the
requirement of section 614(f) that public agencies ensure that parents
are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational
placement of their child. The Secretary proposes in this paragraph to
require that public agencies use procedures like those required for
parent involvement in IEP team meetings, to ensure that parents are
members of the group that makes decisions on the educational placement
of their child, including notice of the meeting as described, using
other methods to involve parents in the meeting when parents cannot be
physically present, maintaining a record of attempts to ensure the
participation of the parents, and taking steps to ensure that parents
are able to understand and participate in the meetings. The Secretary
would adopt this position as necessary to ensure that parents
participate in these meetings, as required by section 614(f), and as
these procedures have been used for many years by all public agencies
regarding parent participation in IEP meetings. In many, if not most
instances, placement decisions will be made as a part of IEP meetings,
as is already the case in many jurisdictions.
Proposed Sec. 300.502 (a), (c), and (d) would contain, with minor
modifications, the current regulatory provisions setting out the
general requirements regarding independent educational evaluations,
parent-initiated evaluations, and requests for evaluations by hearing
officers, consistent with the statutory provision of section 615(b)(1).
Proposed paragraph (b) would restate the current regulatory provision
concerning the parent's right to evaluation at public expense to make
clear that if a parent requests an independent educational evaluation,
the agency, without unnecessary delay, must either initiate a due
process hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate, or insure
that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public
expense, reflecting the Secretary's interpretation that a public agency
must take action to respond to a parent's request for an independent
educational evaluation, and may not just refuse to respond. Paragraph
(e) of this proposed section would restate, with modifications, the
current regulatory provision concerning agency criteria for
evaluations. The Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (e)(2) to
clarify that other than the agency's criteria for an agency-initiated
evaluation, the public agency may not impose conditions or timelines on
a parent's right to obtain an independent educational evaluation at
public expense. This proposal reflects the Department's analysis of the
statutory provision that an independent educational evaluation must be
available if the parent objects to an evaluation that a school district
is using. A note following this section would explain that a public
agency may not impose conditions on obtaining an independent
educational evaluation other than the agency criteria for the agency's
own evaluations, but must either timely provide the independent
educational evaluation at public expense or initiate a due process
hearing. A second note would be added to encourage public agencies to
make information about the agency's criteria for evaluations known to
the public, so that parents who disagree with an agency evaluation will
know what standards an independent evaluation should meet. A third note
would explain how agency criteria apply to an independent educational
evaluation.
Proposed Sec. 300.503(a)(1) would repeat, unchanged, the current
regulatory provision concerning the basic obligation to provide prior
written notice, based on the statutory requirements for prior notice.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would be added to clarify that an agency may
provide the prior written notice at the same time that it requests
parent consent, if an action proposed by a public agency requires
parent consent and prior written notice, reflecting the Secretary's
interpretation that these activities are closely related. The new
statutory requirements concerning the content of prior written notice
from section 615(c) would be addressed in proposed Sec. 300.503(b) (1)
through (7). These new content requirements are different from, and
would replace, the provision in current regulations on the content of
prior written notice. The Secretary proposes to add to this paragraph a
requirement that the prior written notice include a statement informing
parents about the State complaint procedures, including a description
of how to file a complaint and the timelines under those procedures.
The Secretary believes that insuring that parents know about these
procedures, which are an alternative mechanism to due process, should
help, in conjunction with the new statutory provisions regarding
mediation that are also contained in these proposed regulations, to
reduce the number of disagreements between parents and school districts
that go to due process. Based on the requirement of section 615(b) (3)
and (4) of the Act, paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 300.503 would
maintain the provision from current regulations concerning providing
this notice in language understandable to the general public and in the
native language or other mode of communication used by the parent,
unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
Proposed Sec. 300.504 would contain the new statutory provisions
concerning procedural safeguards notice, including in paragraph (a)
when that notice must be provided, and in paragraph (b) what content it
must include, as provided in section 615(d) of the Act. Paragraph (c)
of this section would address the statutory requirements, also from
section 615(d), that this notice be in language understandable to the
general public and in the native language or other mode of
communication used by the parent unless clearly not feasible to do so,
in the same way as similar requirements would be treated regarding
prior written notice.
Changes were made in how the statute addresses parent consent (in
sections 614 (a)(1)(C) and (c)(3)), and so the existing regulatory
provision would be revised in the following ways at proposed
Sec. 300.505. Paragraph (a) would be revised in recognition of the new
statutory provision concerning parent consent for reevaluations. The
Secretary proposes to read this provision to require parent consent
before conducting a new test as a part of a reevaluation. The statute
now discusses evaluation and reevaluation as including reviewing
existing data and, if appropriate, conducting new assessments or tests
when new information is needed. The Secretary does not believe that in
adding a parent right to consent to reevaluations that Congress
intended to require school
[[Page 55045]]
personnel to obtain parent consent before reviewing existing data about
a child. Therefore, the proposed regulation would make clear that as to
reevaluations, parent consent is needed only before conducting a new
test as part of that reevaluation. Paragraph (b) of this section would
reflect the statutory requirement of section 641(a)(1)(C)(ii) regarding
parent refusals to consent.
Paragraph (c)(1) of this proposed section would reflect the
statutory requirement of section 614(c)(3) of the Act that parent
consent need not be obtained for reevaluation if the public agency can
demonstrate that it has taken reasonable measures to obtain that
consent, and the parent fails to respond. In paragraph (c)(2) of this
section the Secretary proposes to describe the demonstration of
``reasonable measures'' as procedures consistent with those required to
demonstrate attempts to involve a parent in an IEP meeting. Those
procedures, which are unchanged from the current regulations, would be
in proposed Sec. 300.345(d) (1) and (2). Proposed paragraphs (d) and
(e) of this section would restate current regulatory provisions
concerning additional State consent requirements and a limitation on
using parent consent for a Part B service or activity as a condition on
other benefits to the parent or child. Note 1 following the consent
provision in the current regulations would be removed as unnecessary.
Note 2 from current regulations would be shortened and revised
consistent with the proposed regulatory changes and renumbered as Note
1. Note 3 in current regulations would be renumbered as Note 2 and a
new Note 3 would be added addressing agency choices when a parent
refuses to consent to a reevaluation.
Proposed Sec. 300.506 would reflect the new statutory provisions of
section 615(e) of the Act concerning mediation in paragraphs (a), (b),
and (d)(1), which set forth the general responsibility to establish and
implement mediation procedures, specific requirements regarding the
mediation process, and the statutory provision concerning requiring
parents who elect not to use mediation to meet with a disinterested
party who would explain the benefits of mediation and encourage its
use. In paragraph (c) the Secretary proposes to clarify the requirement
that mediation be conducted by an impartial mediator by specifying that
a mediator may not be an employee of an LEA or State agency acting as
an LEA or an SEA that is providing direct services to the child who is
the subject of the mediation and must not have a personal or
professional conflict of interest. This position reflects the
explanation of this statutory provision in congressional committees'
reports. Given Congress' interest in encouraging the use of mediation,
it is unlikely that it would have considered any person not meeting
basic standards of impartiality to be an acceptable mediator. The
Secretary believes that these standards will encourage the use of
mediation by ensuring parties to a dispute the availability of an
objective third party to mediate disputes. The Secretary proposes to
add, in paragraph (d)(2), a clarification that a public agency may not
deny or delay a parent's right to a due process hearing based on a
parent's failure to participate in the meeting described in proposed
paragraph (d)(1). This proposal is made in recognition of the statutory
provision of section 615(e)(2)(A)(ii) which provides that the mediation
process not be used to deny or delay a parent's right to due process. A
note following this section would quote language from the House
Committee Report, noting the Committee's intention that if a mediator
is not selected at random from the list maintained by the SEA, both the
parents and the agency must be involved in selecting the mediator and
in agreement about the selection. A second note would note the
discussion of House Committee Report's the confidentiality provisions
regarding mediation.
Proposed Sec. 300.507(a)(1) would set out the general provision,
from section 615(b)(6) of the Act, regarding the right of parents and
public agencies to initiate a due process hearing on any matter
relating to the identification, evaluation, educational placement or
provision of FAPE to a child. In paragraph (a)(2), the Secretary would
interpret the requirement of section 615(e)(1) that mediation be
available whenever a hearing is requested, as requiring that parents be
notified of the availability of mediation whenever a due process
hearing is initiated. Paragraph (a)(3) would restate the requirement
from the current regulations that the public agency inform the parent
of free or low-cost legal and other relevant services if the parents
request it, and whenever a due process hearing is initiated. Paragraph
(b) of this proposed section would reflect the statutory requirement of
section 615(f)(1) of the Act that the hearing be conducted by the SEA
or public agency directly responsible for the education of the child.
Paragraph (c) of this proposed section would reflect the new statutory
requirements of section 615(b) (7) and (8) concerning the notice that a
parent is required to provide to a public agency in a request for a due
process hearing, and the model form that must be developed by the SEA
to assist parents in filing a request for due process that includes the
information required in proposed paragraphs (c) (1) and (2). In
paragraph (c)(4) the Secretary proposes to clarify that failure to
provide the notice specified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) cannot be
used to deny or delay a parent's right to a due process hearing, as the
Secretary believes that Congress did not intend that failure of a
parent to provide this notice would prevent them from using procedures
necessary to protect their child's right to FAPE. A note following this
section would be added to clarify that a public agency may not deny a
parent's request for due process, even if it believes that the issues
raised are not new, and that this determination must be made by a
hearing officer. A second note would quote the House Committee Report
noting that a consequence of failure to provide this notice may be a
possible reduction in attorneys' fees, noting that the provision is
designed to encourage early resolution of disputes and foster
partnerships between parents and school districts.
Proposed Sec. 300.508 would maintain the current regulatory
requirements concerning impartial hearing officers, consistent with the
requirement of section 615(f)(3).
Proposed Sec. 300.509 would add, to existing regulatory provisions
concerning rights of all parties to a due process hearing, the new
statutory requirement of section 615(f)(2) of the Act regarding
disclosure, at least 5 business days prior to a hearing, of all
evaluations and recommendations based on those evaluations that have
been completed by that date and that a party intends to introduce at
the hearing. This provision would be in addition to the existing
regulatory requirement of disclosure of any evidence to be introduced
at the hearing at least 5 days before the hearing. The provisions from
current regulations concerning the parties' rights to obtain a verbatim
record of the hearing and the findings of fact and decisions of the
hearing officer would be modified consistent with statutory changes in
section 615(h) (3) and (4) of the Act, which give parents the right to
choose either a written or electronic version of these documents.
Paragraph (c)(1) of this proposed section would maintain the existing
regulatory provision concerning parents' rights to have the child who
is the subject of the hearing present, and to open the hearing to the
public. Paragraph (c)(2) would specify that the record of the hearing
and the findings of fact and decisions of
[[Page 55046]]
hearings must be provided to parents at no cost. This reflects the
Department's longstanding interpretation that parents must have access
to copies of records of hearings and findings of fact and decisions at
no cost so that the right to appeal due process hearing decisions in
order to protect their child's right to FAPE is not foreclosed.
Proposed paragraph (d) of this section would maintain the current
regulatory provision requiring public agencies, after deleting
personally identifiable information, to transmit findings and decisions
of due process hearings to the State advisory panel and make them
available to the public, consistent with section 615(h)(4).
Proposed Sec. 300.510(a) maintains, with minor changes, the current
regulatory provision regarding finality of decisions, consistent with
section 615(i)(1)(A). Proposed Sec. 300.510 (b), (c), and (d),
reflecting the statutory requirements, maintain current regulatory
provisions concerning the State level review procedure, including the
reviewing official's duties; the responsibility, after deleting
personally identifiable information, to make findings and decisions in
reviews available to the public and transmit them to the State advisory
panel; and finality of review decisions. The notes following the
provision on these subjects in current regulations would be retained.
Proposed Secs. 300.511 and 300.512(a) would maintain the current
regulatory provisions concerning the timelines for due process hearings
and State review proceedings and the right of an aggrieved party to
bring a civil action. Proposed Sec. 300.512 (b) and (c) would add the
statutory requirements of section 615 (i)(2) and (i)(3)(A) of the Act
regarding the duties of the court in reviewing a due process decision
or State level review and the jurisdiction of the Federal district
courts. Proposed Sec. 300.511(d) would add to the regulation the
statutory rule of construction of section 615(l) of the Act regarding
the applicability of other laws such as the Constitution, the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, and title V of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, to actions seeking relief that is also available under section
615 of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.513(a) would maintain the current regulatory
provision concerning attorneys' fees, reflecting the requirements of
section 615(i)(3)(B)-(G). The Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph
(b) to specify that funds provided under Part B of the Act may not be
used to pay attorneys' fees awarded under the Act. The Secretary does
not believe that funds awarded under the Act for special education and
related services should be used to pay attorneys' fees because it would
divert limited Federal resources from direct services. A note would be
added following this section to explain that States may permit hearing
officers to award attorneys' fees to prevailing parents.
Proposed Sec. 300.514(a) would revise the current regulation
consistent with the new statutory provision in section 615(j), which
adds, as an explicit exception to the ``pendency'' provision, the
provisions of section 615(k)(7) of the Act. Proposed paragraph (b) of
this section would retain the current regulatory provision concerning
due process complaints involving an initial admission to public school.
The Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (c) to clarify that if a
hearing officer in a due process hearing or a review official in a
State level review agrees with the child's parents that a change of
placement is appropriate, that placement must be treated as an
agreement between the State and local agency and the parents for
purposes of determining the child's current placement during subsequent
appeals. The pendency provision is designed as a protection to be used
by parents of children with disabilities when there is a dispute
between the parents and school district about the identification,
evaluation, or placement of the child, or about any matter related to
the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. When
parents are in agreement with the decision reached in a due process
hearing or appeal, the pendency provision should not be invoked to
prevent the implementation of that decision. The note from current
regulations concerning children who are endangering themselves or
others would be retained.
Proposed Sec. 300.515 would maintain, without change, the current
regulatory provisions concerning surrogate parents, consistent with the
provisions of section 615(b)(2) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.517 would add the new statutory provision
regarding transfer of parent rights at the age of majority from section
615(m) of the Act. The Secretary would interpret this to clarify that
whenever an agency transfers rights the agency must notify both the
individual and the parents of the transfer, consistent with basic
standards of due process. With regard to the permissive transfer of
rights to individuals who are in correctional institutions, the
reference to Federal correctional facilities would be removed, as
States do not have an obligation to provide special education and
related services under the Act to individuals in Federal facilities.
Minor changes for the sake of clarity, that are not intended to affect
the substance, would be made to the provision in paragraph (b)
regarding a ``special rule.''
Discipline Procedures
Proposed Sec. 300.520 would incorporate the provisions of section
615(k)(1) of the Act regarding the ability of school personnel to
remove a child with a disability from his or her current placement for
not more than 10 school days, and the ability of school personnel to
place a child with a disability in an interim alternative educational
setting for not more than 45 days, if the child carries a weapon to
school or a school function or knowingly possesses or uses illegal
drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled substance at school
or a school function. These provisions would be incorporated in
paragraph (a) of this proposed section.
Section 615(k)(1) also requires an IEP meeting to review a child's
behavioral intervention plan or to develop an assessment plan to
address that behavior. The Secretary proposes to adopt these
requirements in paragraph (b) with the following clarifications: (1)
The statute's provision that the IEP team meeting occur within 10 days
of taking a disciplinary action would specify that this meeting occur
within 10 business days of the disciplinary action rather than 10
calendar days; and (2) if the child does not have a behavioral
intervention plan, the purpose of the IEP meeting is to develop an
assessment plan and appropriate behavioral interventions to address
that behavior. The Secretary believes that the business day
interpretation would allow school personnel an adequate amount of time
to convene the meeting, while ensuring that it occur within the window
of time during which a child may be removed from the regular placement
under proposed Sec. 300.520(a)(1). The Secretary believes that the
purpose of the IEP meeting should be not just development of an
assessment plan, but also development of appropriate behavioral
interventions so that some behavioral interventions can be instituted
without delay. The Secretary also proposes to specify, in paragraph
(c), that if a child with a disability is removed from his or her
current educational placement for 10 school days or less in a given
school year, and no further removal or disciplinary action is
contemplated, the IEP team review of the child's behavioral
interventions, or need for them, need not be conducted. In light of the
legislative history of the IDEA Amendments of 1997, the Secretary
[[Page 55047]]
does not believe that these procedures were contemplated if children
with disabilities would only be out of their regular educational
placements for short periods of time in a given school year; that is,
for less than 10 school days in a school year.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 300.520 would incorporate the
statutory definitions of ``controlled substance,'' ``illegal drug,''
and ``weapon'' from section 615(k)(10) (A), (B), and (D) of the Act. A
note following this section would explain the Department's longstanding
interpretation that removing a child from his or her current
educational placement for no more than 10 school days does not
constitute a change in placement under the Part B regulations. However,
a series of short-term suspensions totaling more than 10 days could
amount to a change of placement based on the circumstances of the
individual case. A second note following this section would encourage
public agencies whenever removing a child with disabilities from the
regular placement to review as soon as possible the circumstances
surrounding the child's removal and consider whether the child was
receiving services in accordance with the child's IEP and whether the
child's behavior could be addressed through minor classroom or program
adjustments or whether the child's IEP team should be reconvened to
address changes in that document.
Proposed Sec. 300.521 reflects the provisions of section 615(k)(2)
of the Act regarding the authority of a hearing officer to place a
child with a disability in an interim alternative educational setting
for not more than 45 days if the hearing officer determines that the
public agency has demonstrated by substantial evidence that maintaining
the child in the child's current educational placement is likely to
result in injury to the child or to others, and considers the
appropriateness of the child's current placement, whether the agency
has made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm, including the
use of supplementary aids and services, and then determines that the
interim alternative educational setting meets certain requirements. The
Secretary is proposing to clarify how this determination is made by
specifying that the determination is made by a hearing officer in an
expedited due process hearing. The Secretary believes that a due
process hearing was contemplated by Congress in view of the requirement
that the agency demonstrate the likely risk of harm by ``substantial
evidence'', which is defined at section 615(k)(10) as beyond a
preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph (e) of this section would
include the statutory definition of this term.
Proposed Sec. 300.522 would incorporate the section 615(k)(3)
requirements that the alternative educational setting be determined by
the IEP team and that it be selected so as to enable the child to
continue to participate in the general curriculum, although in another
setting, and to continue to receive those services and modifications,
including those described in the child's current IEP, that will enable
the child to meet the goals set out in that IEP, and include services
and modifications designed to address the behavior, so that it does not
recur. This statutory language would be interpreted only as necessary
to make clear that, consistent with proposed Secs. 300.520 and 300.121,
these requirements would have to be met if a child is removed from his
or her current educational placement for more than 10 school days in a
school year.
Proposed Sec. 300.523 would reflect the provisions of section
615(k)(4) concerning when and how a manifestation determination review
is conducted with the following modifications: (1) a paragraph (b)
would include the Secretary's proposal that if a child with
disabilities is removed from the child's current educational placement
for 10 school days or less in a given school year, and no further
disciplinary action is contemplated, the manifestation review need not
be conducted; (2) a paragraph (e) would clarify that if the IEP team
determines that any of the standards described in the statute are not
met, the team must consider the child's behavior to be a manifestation
of the child's disability; and (3) a paragraph (f) would make clear
that the manifestation review may be conducted at the same meeting in
which the behavioral review of proposed Sec. 300.520(b) is done. The
interpretation in paragraph (e) on how the manifestation determination
is made, using on the standards described in the statute, is based on
the explanation of this decision process in the congressional committee
reports. A note following this section would quote the language of the
House Committee Report on how the manifestation determination is made.
A second note would explain that if the decision is that the behavior
is a manifestation of the child's disability, the LEA must take steps
to remedy any deficiencies found during that review in the child's IEP
or placement or in their implementation. Often these steps will enable
a child whose behavior is a manifestation of his or her disability to
return to the child's current educational placement before the
expiration of the 45-day period.
Proposed Sec. 300.524 (a) and (b) would reflect the provisions of
section 615(k)(5) regarding behavior that is not a manifestation of a
child's disability. Proposed paragraph (c) would clarify that the
requirements of the ``pendency'' provision apply if a parent requests a
hearing to appeal a decision that a child's behavior is not a
manifestation of the child's disability. Section 615(j) of the Act
provides that the only exceptions to the ``pendency'' rule are those
specified in section 615(k)(7) of the Act, which concerns placement
during parent appeals of 45-day interim alternative educational
placements. A note following this section would further explain this
issue.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability, including disciplining
children with disabilities for behavior that is a manifestation of
their disability. For example, disciplining a child with a seizure
disorder for behavior that results from that disability would violate
Section 504. The Secretary invites comment on whether further
clarification of this point should be provided in these regulations.
Proposed Sec. 300.525 would reflect the requirements of section
615(k)(6) regarding parent appeals of manifestation determinations or
any decision regarding placement, including the requirement for an
expedited hearing, and the standards used by the hearing officer in
reviewing these decisions.
Proposed Sec. 300.526 would adopt the requirements of section
615(k)(7) involving placement if a parent requests a hearing to
challenge the interim alternative educational setting or the
manifestation determination, including the requirement that the child
remain in the interim alternative educational setting until the
decision of the hearing officer or the expiration of the 45-day period,
whichever comes first, the requirement that an LEA may request an
expedited due process hearing to seek to demonstrate to the hearing
officer that it would be dangerous to return the child to his of her
current educational placement, and the standards that the hearing
officer uses in reaching a decision. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would
clarify that these placements would be for a duration of not more than
45 days, as the 45-day limit is one of the standards in section
615(k)(2) referred to in section 615(k)(7)(C). A note following this
section would explain that if the LEA maintains that the child is still
dangerous at the
[[Page 55048]]
expiration of the 45 days and the issue has not been resolved through
due process, the LEA could seek a subsequent expedited hearing on the
issue of dangerousness.
Proposed Sec. 300.527 would incorporate the statutory requirements
of section 615(k)(8) regarding the application of these rules to
children not yet determined eligible for special education and related
services, with certain clarifications. Paragraph (b)(1) would clarify
that oral communication from the child's parents would constitute a
basis for knowledge only if the parent is illiterate in English or has
a disability that prevents a written statement. Proposed paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii) and (iii) would clarify that if the parents have requested
an evaluation, the child remains in the educational placement
determined by school authorities until the evaluation is completed, and
that if the result of the evaluation is that the child is a child with
a disability, the agency must provide special education and related
services in accordance with the provisions of Part B, including the
requirements of proposed Secs. 300.520-300.529 and section 612(a)(1)(A)
of the Act.
In proposed Sec. 300.528, the Secretary proposes to specify what an
expedited due process hearing must entail, including time frames and
hearing procedures, the qualifications of hearing officers, and appeal
rights. These provisions are based on the Secretary's belief that all
expedited hearings under these discipline procedures should result in
decisions within a very short period of time in order to protect the
interests of both schools and children with disabilities, and that a
10-business-day limit would allow these hearings to result in decisions
before the expiration of a potential 10-school-day removal of a child
from the regular placement. The Secretary believes that requiring that
due process hearing officers under these procedures meet the same
requirements that apply to hearing officers under other due process
procedures under the Act and that the hearings meet the same basic
standards that apply to other due process hearings will ensure that
these proceeding meet basic standards of due process, and are perceived
as fair, while allowing some flexibility by allowing States to adjust
their own procedural rules to accommodate these very swift hearings.
Proposed Sec. 300.529 incorporates the provisions of section
615(k)(9) of the Act regarding reporting crimes committed by a child
with a disability to appropriate authorities and transmitting copies of
the special education and disciplinary records of the child to the
authorities to whom the agency reports the crime.
Procedures for Evaluation and Determinations of Eligibility
Proposed Sec. 300.530 would reflect section 612(a)(7), which gives
general responsibility to the SEA to ensure that each public agency
establishes and implements evaluation procedures that meet the
requirements of the Act. Proposed Sec. 300.531 incorporates the
requirement of section 614(a)(1) that each public agency conduct a full
and complete initial evaluation before initiating the provision of
special education and related services to a child with a disability.
Proposed Sec. 300.532 incorporates the requirements of section 614(b)
(2) and (3) and section 612(a)(6)(B) with the requirements of current
regulations that a variety of assessment tools and strategies must be
used to gather information about the child; that evaluation materials
include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and
not merely designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient;
and that tests must be selected and administered so as to best insure
that the test results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or
achievement level or whatever the test purports to measure, rather than
the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills. Three notes
following proposed Sec. 300.532 would explain how a public agency meets
its obligation to properly evaluate a child who is limited English
proficient and suspected of having a disability.
Proposed Sec. 300.533 would reflect the provisions of section
614(c) (1), (2), and (4) of the Act regarding review of existing
evaluation data and determinations of whether more data is needed.
Proposed Sec. 300.534 would incorporate the requirements of section 614
(b) (4) and (5) and (c)(5) of the Act regarding determinations of
eligibility.
Proposed Sec. 300.535 would maintain from the current regulations
the procedures for determining eligibility.
Proposed Sec. 300.536 would reflect the statutory provisions of
section 614(a)(2) concerning reevaluation and the existing regulatory
provision regarding review of IEPs, with minor modifications.
Additional Procedures for Evaluating Children with Specific Learning
Disabilities
Proposed Sec. 300.540 would be changed from the current regulation
only as necessary to reflect the new requirements as described,
concerning the composition of the teams of individuals who make
determinations about eligibility. Proposed Secs. 300.541 and 300.542,
regarding the criteria for determining the existence of a specific
learning disability and observation of a child suspected of having a
specific learning disability, would be unchanged from current
regulations. Proposed Sec. 300.543, concerning the written report,
would be changed from current regulations only to make clear that for a
child suspected of having a specific learning disability, this report
satisfies the requirement for documentation of the determination of
eligibility as described with reference to proposed Sec. 300.534(a).
The Secretary intends to review carefully over the next several
years the additional procedures for evaluating children suspected of
having a specific learning disability contained in proposed
Secs. 300.540-300.543 in light of research, expert opinion and
practical knowledge of identifying children with a specific learning
disability with the purpose of considering whether legislative
proposals should be advanced for revising these procedures.
Least Restrictive Environment
Proposed Secs. 300.550-300.556 are taken from current regulations,
with the exceptions noted. These provisions interpret the statutory
provision regarding placement in the least restrictive environment in
Section 612(a)(5)(A), which is substantively the same as prior law. A
minor change to proposed Sec. 300.550(a) would be made to reflect the
new organization of the statute around State eligibility requirements,
and a conforming change to the note following proposed Sec. 300.552 to
update a reference to another section of this regulation. A note
following proposed Sec. 300.551 would be added explaining that home
instruction is generally only appropriate for children who are
medically fragile and those who are unable to participate with
nondisabled children in any activities. Section 300.552 from current
regulations would be revised to incorporate the provisions of current
regulations in Sec. 300.533(a) (3) and (4) regarding how the placement
decision is made. A note following this section would be added to
explain that the group of persons making the placement decision may
also serve as the child's IEP team, as long as all appropriate IEP team
members are included. Another note would be added suggesting that if
IEP teams appropriately consider and include in IEPs positive
behavioral interventions and supplementary aids and services many
children who would otherwise be disruptive will be able to
[[Page 55049]]
participate in regular education classrooms.
Confidentiality of Information
With the following exceptions, proposed Secs. 300.560-300.575 and
Sec. 300.577 retain the provisions of current regulations on
confidentiality of information, with only very minor, nonsubstantive
changes. These provisions interpret the statutory provision regarding
confidentiality in sections 612(a)(8) and 617(c). A new note would be
added as Note 2 following proposed Sec. 300.574 explaining the
relationship between these procedures and the new requirements
concerning transfer of rights to students at the age of majority, as
discussed under proposed Sec. 300.517. A new regulation would be added
(proposed Sec. 300.576) reflecting the statutory authority from section
613(j) of the Act for SEAs to require LEAs to include in records of a
child with a disability a statement of current or previous disciplinary
action, and transmit that statement to the same extent that
disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, records
of nondisabled children, including a description of information
relevant to the discipline. The statute also requires that if a State
adopts such a policy and the child transfers from one school to
another, any transmission of the child's records must include both the
child's current IEP and any statement of current or previous
disciplinary action taken against the child.
Department Procedures
Proposed Secs. 300.580-300.586 largely restate existing regulatory
provisions concerning Department procedures for State plan disapproval
as Department procedures for determinations of State ineligibility, in
light of the restructuring of the Act to eliminate the State plan.
Reflecting the requirement in section 612(d) of the Act, a new proposed
Sec. 300.580 would state that if the Secretary determines a State is
eligible to receive a grant, the Secretary notifies the State.
A new Sec. 300.587 would be added to incorporate the statutory
provisions of section 616(a) of the Act regarding enforcement by the
Department if a SEA or LEA fails to comply with Part B of the Act or
its regulations. This section would incorporate the types of
enforcement actions available to the Department--withholding payments
in whole or in part, and referral to the Department of Justice,
mentioned in section 616(a), and taking any other enforcement action
authorized by law, such as other actions authorized under 20 U.S.C.
1234. The Secretary proposes to regulate to clarify the type of notice
and hearing provided before withholding and referral for enforcement
action because the type of hearing appropriate before announcement of
an enforcement action that itself involves an adversarial hearing
logically will be different than the adversarial hearing before a
withholding or eligibility decision. Proposed paragraph (e) of this
section would address enforcement in situations in which a State has
assigned responsibility for children with disabilities who are
convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons
to an agency other than the SEA.
In proposed Sec. 300.589, the Secretary proposes to revise the
current regulatory provision regarding the statutory requirement in
section 612(a)(18)(C) permitting a waiver, in whole or in part, of the
supplement, not supplant rule for use of funds provided under Part B if
the State demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that all
children with disabilities in the State have FAPE available to them,
and the Secretary concurs with the evidence provided by the State.
Section 612(a)(19)(C)(ii) now also provides that the Secretary may
waive the new maintenance of State financial support requirement of
section 612(a)(19)(A) if the Secretary determines that the State meets
the standard described in section 612(a)(18)(C). Section 612(a)(19)(E)
directs the Secretary to issue proposed regulations establishing
procedures, including objective criteria and consideration of the
results of compliance reviews of the State conducted by the Department,
within 6 months of the enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 (or
December 4, 1997) and final regulations on this topic within one year
of enactment (or June 4, 1998). The Secretary proposes to implement
these requirements by providing that a State wishing to request a
waiver must submit: (1) an assurance that FAPE is and will remain
available to all children with disabilities in the State; (2) the
evidence that the State wishes the Secretary to consider that details
the basis on which the State has concluded that FAPE is available to
all children with disabilities in the State and State procedures
regarding child find, monitoring, State complaint handling and due
process hearings; (3) a summary of all State and Federal monitoring
reports and hearing decisions for the prior three years that include
any finding that FAPE was not available and evidence that FAPE is now
available to all children addressed in those reports and decisions; and
(4) evidence that the State in reaching its conclusion that FAPE is
available to all children with disabilities in the State consulted with
interested organizations and parents in the State and a summary of that
input. If the Secretary determines that the State has made a prima
facie showing that FAPE is available to all children with disabilities
in the State, the Secretary conducts a public hearing on whether FAPE
is and will be available to all children with disabilities in the
State. If the Secretary concludes that the evidence clearly and
convincingly demonstrates that FAPE is and will be available to all
children with disabilities in the State, the Secretary provides a
waiver for a one-year period. The Secretary also proposes that a State
use these same procedures to obtain a waiver in subsequent years. The
Secretary believes that these procedures would appropriately allow
States to demonstrate that all children with disabilities in the State
are, and will be, appropriately served so that a waiver could be
granted without violating the rights of children with disabilities.
Subpart F--State Administration
General
Proposed Sec. 300.600 (a) through (c) would retain, with minor
nonsubstantive changes, the provisions of current regulations
concerning SEA responsibility for all educational programs for children
with disabilities in the State, consistent with section 612(a)(11).
Paragraph (d) of this section would add the new provision from section
612(a)(11)(C) of the Act which permits the Governor (or other
authorized individual under State law), consistent with State law, to
assign to another public agency of the State the responsibility of
ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are met with
respect to children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under
State law and incarcerated in adult prisons. The note following this
section in current regulations would be maintained.
Proposed Sec. 300.601 would retain, with only minor, nonsubstantive
revisions, the current regulation specifying that Part B of the Act not
be construed to permit a State to reduce medical and other assistance
available to children with disabilities or alter the eligibility of a
child with a disability to receive services that are also part of FAPE,
based on the statutory provision at section 612(e).
[[Page 55050]]
Proposed Sec. 300.602 would reflect the new statutory cap on the
amount of funds that States can retain for administration and other
State-level activities. Section 611(f)(1) provides that each year the
Secretary will determine and report to each State an amount that is 25
percent of the amount the State received under section 611 for fiscal
year 1997 cumulatively adjusted annually by the lesser of the
percentage increase of the State's allocation from the prior year's
allocation or the rate of inflation, which will be the maximum amount
that the State can retain for these purposes.
Use of Funds
Section 611(f)(2) specifies that a State can use for State
administration of the Part B program, including section 619, not more
than twenty percent of the amount that the State may retain, or
$500,000 adjusted cumulatively for inflation, whichever is greater, and
that each outlying area can retain $35,000 for that purpose. This
provision is reflected in proposed Sec. 300.620.
Proposed Sec. 300.621 would maintain the requirements of current
regulations on the allowable uses of funds retained by the State for
State administration, reflecting the Secretary's interpretation of
section 611(f)(2) of the Act. The Secretary believes that these
provisions adequately address the statutory purpose of these funds
while giving States reasonable flexibility in how they use these funds.
Section 611(f)(4) of the Act creates a new category of subgrants
that SEAs, under certain circumstances, will make to LEAs for capacity
building and improvement.
Proposed Sec. 300.622 would reflect this new authority, including
the statutorily prescribed purposes of these subgrants to LEAs.
Proposed Sec. 300.623 would describe the amount reserved for
capacity-building and improvement subgrants to LEAs, consistent with
the requirement of section 611(f)(4)(B) of the Act. A note would be
added following this section that would explain that the amount of
funds available for these capacity-building and improvement subgrants
to LEAs will vary year to year, and that in each year following a year
in which these subgrants are made, these funds become part of the
required flow-through subgrants to all LEAs.
In proposed Sec. 300.624, the Secretary proposes to provide clear
authority for States to establish priorities to award capacity building
and improvement subgrants competitively or on a targeted basis because
the Secretary believes that this flexibility is necessary to enable
States to design these subgrants to suit State needs. A note following
this provision would recognize that the purpose of these subgrants is
to address particular needs that are not readily addressed through
formula assistance, and that SEAs can use these subgrants to promote
innovation, capacity building, and systemic improvement.
State Advisory Panel
Proposed Sec. 300.650 would retain the provisions of current
regulation concerning establishment of State advisory panels,
consistent with section 612(a)(21)(A) of the Act. A note would be added
to follow this section making clear that the State advisory panel
advises the State regarding the education of all children with
disabilities in the State, including in situations where the State has
divided State responsibility for eligible children with disabilities
who have been convicted as adults and are incarcerated in adult
prisons.
Proposed Sec. 300.651 would reflect the new statutory membership
requirements for the State advisory panel, as provided in section
612(a)(21) (B) and (C), including a new statutory requirement that a
majority of the members of the panel must be individuals with
disabilities or parents of children with disabilities.
Proposed Sec. 300.652 would reflect the duties of the advisory
panel, as specified in section 612(a)(21)(D) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.653 would maintain from the current regulations
the advisory panel procedures, representing the Secretary's
interpretation of reasonable rules for the operations of an advisory
panel under the Act.
State Complaint Procedures
The current Part 300 regulations establish a State complaint
mechanism that individuals, organizations, and other interested parties
can use to bring to the SEA's attention, for resolution, allegations
that a public agency is violating a requirement of Part B or its
implementing regulations. The Secretary views these State complaint
procedures as an important, less costly, less time consuming, and less
formal alternative to due process hearings and other dispute resolution
mechanisms through which disagreements under Part B and its regulations
may be resolved. Proposed Secs. 300.660-300.662 would retain these
State complaint procedures with the changes described.
The Secretary proposes in proposed Sec. 300.660(b) to revise the
current regulation to require that States widely disseminate to parents
and others information about the State's complaint procedures. The
Secretary intends, through this requirement, in conjunction with the
provision in proposed Sec. 300.503(b)(8) that would require that prior
written notice to parents of children with disabilities include a
description of the State complaint procedures and how to file a
complaint, to ensure that persons interested in special education in a
State know that there are alternatives to resorting to due process
hearings that can be used to resolve disputes. A new note would be
added following this section that would explain that in resolving an
alleged denial of FAPE, an SEA may award compensatory education if
appropriate.
Proposed Sec. 300.661 would retain from current regulation the
minimum State complaint procedures in current regulations, with one
exception. In this proposed regulation the Secretary proposes to delete
the provision regarding Secretarial review. This change reflects a
recommendation of the Department's Inspector General in his report of
August, 1997 on the utility and efficiency of the Secretarial review
process under the IDEA. In that report the Inspector General noted that
in the Secretarial review process the Department's limited resources
for implementation of the IDEA are being diverted to an activity that
is providing minimal benefits to children with disabilities or to the
program. The Secretary expects that removing the Secretarial review
provision will allow the Department to spend more of its time and
attention on evaluating States' systems for ensuring compliance with
program requirements, which will have benefit for all parties
interested in special education.
Two new notes would be added following proposed Sec. 300.661. The
first would clarify that if a complaint is received that raises an
issue that is also the subject of a due process hearing, or multiple
issues, some of which are also the subject of a due process hearing,
the SEA must set aside the issues in due process until the end of the
hearing, but resolve the remaining issues in the complaint within the
60-day complaint time line. The second proposed note would explain that
if an issue raised in a complaint previously had been the subject of a
due process hearing, the hearing decision would be binding, and the SEA
would satisfy its obligation under these procedures by informing the
complainant that the hearing decision is binding as to that issue. The
note would also explain that the SEA would have to resolve an alleged
failure
[[Page 55051]]
to implement a due process hearing decision.
The Secretary proposes in proposed Sec. 300.662 to maintain the
provisions of current regulation regarding filing a complaint, and add
a new paragraph (c) that would specify that complaints must be received
within one year of the alleged violation, unless a longer period is
reasonable because the violation is continuing or the complainant is
requesting compensatory services for a violation that occurred not more
than three years prior to the date the complaint is received by the
SEA. The Secretary believes that SEAs should not be required in the
future to use their resources to resolve complaints that do not involve
issues that are relevant to the current operation of the State's
special education program and that do not involve the possibility of
educational remedy for particular children. A note following this
section would be added to explain that SEAs must resolve complaints
that meet the complaint requirements, even if filed by an organization
or individual from another State.
Subpart G--Allocation of Funds; Reports
Allocations
Proposed Sec. 300.700 would adopt the special definition of
``State'' from section 611(h)(2) of the Act with regard to distribution
of funds provided under section 611 of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.701 would describe the purpose of the grants
under section 611 of the Act and the maximum amount of those grants, as
provided in section 611(a) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.702 would incorporate the statutory definition of
``average per-pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary
schools in the United States'' from section 611(h)(1) of the Act.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 create a new formula for distribution
of funds under section 611 of the Act that is first applied when the
appropriation for section 611 of the Act is more than a certain trigger
amount--$4,924,672,200. Until that time, funds under section 611 will
continue to be distributed based on the formula under section 611
before enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997, with certain minor
changes stipulated in the statute.
Proposed Sec. 300.703(a) would incorporate the general order of
distribution of funds, consistent with section 611(d)(1) of the Act,
which applies to both the interim and new formula distribution.
Proposed Sec. 300.703(b) would incorporate the interim formula for
distribution among States, including the new statutory provision
permitting States to count the number of children receiving special
education and related services as of the last Friday in October or
December 1, at the State's discretion, as specified in section
611(d)(2) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 300.706 reflects the section 611(e) (1) and (2)
requirements for when the permanent formula takes effect, and
calculation of the ``base year'' amount for purposes of that new
formula.
Proposed Sec. 300.707 would include the requirements of the new
formula from section 611(e)(3) of the Act, which specifies that funds
in excess of those distributed to a State in the base year are
allocated 85 percent on relative population of children aged 3 through
21 who are of the same age as children with disabilities for whom the
State ensures the availability of FAPE and 15 percent on the basis of
relative populations of children of those ages who are living in
poverty, based on the most recent data available and satisfactory to
the Secretary.
Proposed Sec. 300.708 would specify the statutory floors and a cap
in the size of any State's increased allocation, as provided in section
611(e)(3) (B) and (C) of the Act. The requirements of section
611(e)(4), regarding what happens if the section 611 appropriation
decreases, would be incorporated in proposed Sec. 300.709.
Proposed Sec. 300.710 would retain, with minor modifications, the
provisions of current regulations regarding allocations to a State in
which a bypass is implemented for private school children with
disabilities, consistent with section 612(f)(2) of the Act.
Under section 611(g) of the Act, States will use a mechanism for
distributing the formula subgrant funds to LEAs that parallels the
distribution among States. This will include an interim formula, based
on the formula in the Act prior to the enactment of the IDEA Amendments
of 1997, and, after the 611 appropriation is greater than
$4,924,674,200, a new permanent procedure that, like the one at the
State level, allocates new funds 85 percent based on the relative
numbers of children enrolled in public and private elementary and
secondary schools in the agency's jurisdiction, and 15 percent in
accordance with the relative numbers of children living in poverty, as
determined by the SEA.
Proposed Sec. 300.711 would reflect the requirement of section
611(g)(1) that funds not retained at the State level for State
administration and other State purposes, or distributed to LEAs as
capacity building and improvement subgrants, must be distributed to
LEAs and State agencies under the statutory formula that applies in
that year. Proposed Sec. 300.712 would set forth the statutory interim
formula and permanent procedure for distribution of funds to LEAs and
State agencies, reflecting section 611(g)(2) of the Act. A note
following this section would explain that States should use the best
data that is available to them on enrollment in public and private
schools, and that States have discretion in determining what data to
use regarding children living in poverty, and suggests some options for
poverty data. Proposed Sec. 300.713 would reflect the statutory
requirements of section 611(g)(3) concerning treatment of former
Chapter 1 State agencies in the distribution of funds. The Secretary
proposes minor adjustments to make the count date for children in these
agencies compatible with the count date used by the State for LEA
reporting because requiring a different count date in a State that
chooses to count in LEAs on the last Friday in October could result in
double counting.
Proposed Sec. 300.714 would retain with minor nonsubstantive
changes the current regulatory provision concerning reallocation of LEA
funds to other LEAs. This provision reflects the requirements of
section 611(g)(4) of the Act.
Proposed Secs. 300.715 and 300.716 reflect the statutory provisions
of sections 611(c) and 611(i) (1) (A) and (B) and (3) regarding
payments to the Secretary of the Interior for the education of Indian
children and for Indian children aged 3 through 5. The new statutory
provisions concerning grants to the outlying areas and freely
associated States of section 611(b) would be incorporated in proposed
Secs. 300.717 through 300.722.
Reports
Proposed Secs. 300.750 through 300.754 would retain, from the
current regulation, the provisions concerning report requirements for
the annual report of children served, the information required in the
report, certification, criteria for counting children, and other
responsibilities of the SEA regarding these reports. These provisions
are consistent with the statutory requirement in section 611(d) that
directs that funds appropriated for section 611 of the Act continue to
be allocated based on a child count as in effect before enactment of
the IDEA Amendments of 1997 for some time into the future. Minor
changes would be
[[Page 55052]]
made to reflect the fact that a child count for distribution of funds
will not be required under the permanent funding formula, and to
reflect the new State option on when the count will be conducted. A
reference to the old Chapter 1 handicapped program would be eliminated,
as that program no longer exists.
Proposed Sec. 300.755 would incorporate the new statutory
requirements regarding State collection and examination of data to
determine if significant disproportionality based on race is occurring
in the State regarding the identification and placement of children
with disabilities.
Proposed Sec. 300.756 would reflect new rules specified in section
605 of the Act regarding use of funds provided under Part B of the Act
for the acquisition of equipment or construction.
2. Part 301--Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities
Subpart A--General
Proposed Sec. 301.1 in the proposed regulations would conform the
regulatory purpose for the Preschool Grants for Children with
Disabilities Program with the provisions of section 619(a) of the Act,
to provide grants to States to assist them in providing special
education and related services to children with disabilities aged three
through five years, and, at a State's discretion, to two-year-old
children with disabilities who will turn three during the school year.
Proposed Sec. 301.4 would list regulations found in parts other
than Part 301 that also apply to the Preschool Grants program. The
proposed regulations would be consistent with the existing regulations,
with three exceptions. First, the proposed regulations would specify
that the provisions of 34 CFR 76.125-76.137 do not apply to the
program, consistent with the requirements of section 611(b)(4)
providing that consolidation of grants is no longer possible for the
outlying areas. Second, the proposed regulations would specify that the
requirements of 34 CFR 76.650-76.662 do not apply, in light of the
changes proposed under Part 300 regarding the provision of services to
children placed by their parents in private schools. Third, the
reference to Part 86 would be removed, as that part no longer applies
to SEAs and LEAs.
Proposed Sec. 301.5 would specify the definitions that apply to
certain terms used in Part 301. The section would be unchanged from the
existing regulations, with the following exceptions: Consistent with
the IDEA Amendments of 1997, proposed Sec. 301.5(a) would replace the
term ``intermediate educational unit'' with ``educational service
agency,'' and proposed Sec. 301.5(c) would add a definition of
``State'' and delete definitions of ``comprehensive service delivery
system'' and ``excess appropriation.''
Subpart B--State Eligibility for a Grant
Proposed Sec. 301.10 would be conformed with section 619(b) of the
Act, and provide that a State is eligible to receive a grant under the
program if the State is eligible under 34 CFR Part 300 and the State
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it has in effect
policies and procedures that assure the provision of FAPE to all
children with disabilities aged three through five years in accordance
with the requirements of 34 CFR Part 300, and for any two-year-old
children who are provided services by the State or by an LEA. Proposed
Sec. 301.12 would restate the current regulation concerning sanctions
if a State does not make FAPE available to all preschool children with
disabilities to conform to the changes made by the IDEA Amendments of
1997 and other law.
Subpart C--Allocation of Funds to States
Proposed Sec. 301.20 would be conformed with section 619(c)(1) of
the Act, and provide that, after reserving funds for studies and
evaluations under section 674(e) of the Act, the Secretary will
allocate the remaining amount among the States in accordance with
Secs. 301.21-301.23.
Proposed Sec. 301.21 would incorporate the requirements of section
619(c)(2)(A) of the Act which sets forth the basis on which, subject to
certain limitations (described in this NPRM under Sec. 301.22),
allocations to States under the Preschool Grants program would be
calculated if the amount available to States were equal to or greater
than the amount allocated to States for the preceding fiscal year.
Consistent with this statutory provision, proposed Sec. 301.21(a) would
provide that, except as provided in Sec. 301.22, the Secretary will
first allocate to each State the amount it received for fiscal year
1997, and then allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to States on
the basis of their relative populations of children aged 3 through 5
and allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to States on the basis
of their relative populations of all children aged 3 through 5 who are
living in poverty. Also reflecting the statutory requirements, proposed
Sec. 301.21(b) would further provide that in making these calculations,
the Secretary will use the most recent population data, including data
on children living in poverty, that are available and satisfactory to
the Secretary.
Consistent with section 619(c)(2)(B) of the Act, proposed
Sec. 301.22 (a) and (b) would set forth floors and caps for calculating
the allocations to States under the Preschool Grants program in fiscal
years in which the amount available to States under Sec. 301.20 were
equal to or greater than the amount allocated to States for the
preceding fiscal year. Proposed Sec. 301.22(c) would also be conformed
to section 619(c)(2)(C) of the Act and provide for ratable reductions
if available funds are insufficient to make allocations to the States
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 301.22 (a) and (b).
Proposed Sec. 301.23 would, consistent with the requirements of
section 619(c)(3) of the Act, set forth the basis on which allocations
to States under the Preschool Grants program would be calculated if the
amount available to States under Sec. 301.20 were less than the amount
allocated to States for the preceding fiscal year. Proposed
Sec. 301.23(a) would provide that if the amount available for
allocations were greater than the amount allocated to the States for
fiscal year 1997, each State would be allocated the sum of the amount
it received for fiscal year 1997 plus an amount that bears the same
relation to any remaining funds as the increase the State received for
the preceding fiscal year over fiscal year 1997 bears to the total of
all of those increases for all States. Proposed Sec. 301.23(b) would
provide that if the amount available for allocations is equal to or
less than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal year 1997, each
State would be allocated the amount it received for that year, ratably
reduced, if necessary.
Consistent with section 619(d) of the Act, proposed Sec. 301.24
would provide that for each fiscal year a State may retain for
administration and other State-level activities, in accordance with
Secs. 301.25 and 301.26, not more, as calculated by the Secretary, than
25 percent of the amount the State received under the section 619 of
the Act for fiscal year 1997, cumulatively adjusted by the Secretary
for each succeeding fiscal year by the lesser of--(1) the percentage
increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in the State's
allocation under section 619 of the Act; or (2) the rate of inflation,
as measured by the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding
fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban
[[Page 55053]]
Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
Department of Labor.
Consistent with section 619(e) of the Act, proposed Sec. 301.25
would provide that a State may use not more than 20 percent of the
maximum amount it may retain under Sec. 301.24 for any fiscal year for
(a) administering section 619 of the Act (including the coordination of
activities under Part B of the Act with, and providing technical
assistance to, other programs that provide services to children with
disabilities); or for the administration of Part C of the Act, or both,
if the SEA is the lead agency for the State under that part.
Consistent with section 619(f) of the Act, proposed Sec. 301.26
would provide that a State must use any funds that it retains under
Sec. 301.24 and does not use for administration under Sec. 301.25 for
any of the following: (1) support services (including establishing and
implementing the mediation process required by section 615(e) of the
Act), which may benefit children with disabilities younger than 3 or
older than 5 as long as those services also benefit children with
disabilities aged 3 through 5; (2) direct services for children
eligible for services under section 619 of the Act; (3) developing a
State improvement plan under subpart 1 of part D of the Act; (4)
activities at the State and local levels to meet the performance goals
established by the State under section 612(a)(16) of the Act and to
support implementation of the State improvement plan under subpart 1 of
part D of the Act if the State receives funds under that subpart; or
(5) supplementing other funds used to develop and implement a Statewide
coordinated services system designed to improve results for children
and families, including children with disabilities and their families,
but not to exceed one percent of the amount received by the State under
section 619 of the Act for a fiscal year. A note following this section
would provide an example of an authorized use of these funds.
Subpart D--Allocation of Funds to Local Educational Agencies
Proposed Sec. 301.30 would provide that a State must distribute any
funds that it does not retain under Sec. 301.24 to LEAs that have
established their eligibility under section 613 of the Act, consistent
with the requirements of section 619(g)(1) of the Act.
Proposed Sec. 301.31 would, in conformity with section 619(g)(1),
set forth the basis on which a State must distribute the funds
described in Sec. 301.30 to LEAs that have established their
eligibility under section 613 of the Act. Proposed Sec. 301.31(a) would
require that the State first award to each of those agencies the amount
it would have received under section 619 of the Act for fiscal year
1997 if the State had distributed 75 percent of its grant for that year
under section 619(c)(3), as then in effect. Proposed Sec. 301.31(b)
would further require that, after making the base payment allocations
required by Sec. 301.28(a), the State allocate 85 percent of any
remaining funds to each LEA on the basis of the relative numbers of
children enrolled in public and private elementary and secondary
schools within the agency's jurisdiction, and 15 percent of those
remaining funds in accordance with their relative numbers of children
living in poverty, as determined by the SEA. A note following this
section would explain that States should use the best data that is
available to them on enrollment in public and private schools, and that
States have discretion in determining what data to use regarding
children living in poverty, and proposes some options for poverty data.
Proposed Sec. 301.32(a) would, in conformity with section 619(g)(2)
of the Act, provide that: (a) If an SEA determines that an LEA is
adequately providing FAPE to all children with disabilities aged 3
through 5 residing in the area served by that agency with State and
local funds, the SEA may reallocate any portion of the funds under
section 619 of the Act that the LEA does not need in order to provide
FAPE to other LEAs that are not adequately providing special education
and related services to all children with disabilities aged 3 through 5
residing in the areas they serve.
Proposed Sec. 301.32(b) would provide that if a State provides
services to preschool children with disabilities because some or all
LEAs are unable or unwilling to provide appropriate programs, the SEA
may use payments that would have been available to those LEAs to
provide special education and related services to children with
disabilities aged 3 through 5 years, and to two-year-old children with
disabilities, residing in the areas served by those LEAs and ESAs.
3. Part 303--Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With
Disabilities
A few changes would be made to the Part 303 regulations to conform
to similar changes proposed for the Part 300 regulations. As indicated,
other changes to incorporate statutory changes made by the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 with regard to the Early Intervention Program for
Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities will be made at a later date as
technical changes.
In Sec. 303.18, the Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (b)
specifying that a State may provide that a foster parent qualifies as a
parent under Part 303 if certain specified standards are met. The note
following this section would be revised, consistent with the change to
the regulation. These changes would be consistent with changes proposed
in proposed Sec. 300.19.
In Sec. 303.403, the Secretary proposes to add a new subparagraph
(b)(4) to provide that prior notice to parents under this part includes
information about the State complaint procedures required by
Secs. 303.510--303.512, including how to file a complaint and the
timelines under the State complaint procedures. This change would
conform to proposed Sec. 300.503, concerning the content of prior
notice under Part 300. The Secretary believes that if parents know
about these procedures, they may use them as an alternative to the more
costly and formal mechanisms of due process and mediation.
In Sec. 303.510, the Secretary proposes to amend paragraph (b) to
specify that the lead agency's State complaint procedures must include
procedures for widely disseminating to parents and others the State's
complaint procedures. The Secretary intends, through this requirement
and the change proposed in Sec. 303.403, to insure that persons
interested in early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities in the State know that there are alternatives to resorting
to due process hearings that can be used to resolve disputes. A note
would be added following this section to explain that in resolving a
complaint alleging a failure to provide services in accordance with an
IFSP, a lead agency may award compensatory services as a remedy. These
changes would be consistent with changes proposed to Sec. 300.660.
In Sec. 303.511, the Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (c)
that would specify that complaints must be received by the public
agency within one year of the alleged violation, unless a longer period
is reasonable because the violation is continuing or the complainant is
requesting compensatory services for a violation that occurred not more
than three years prior to the date the complaint is received. The
Secretary believes that public agencies should not be required in the
future to use their resources to resolve complaints that do not involve
issues that are relevant to the current operation of the State's
program and that do not involve the possibility of remedy for
particular
[[Page 55054]]
children. A note would be added following this section to explain that
the lead agency must resolve any complaint that meets the requirements
of this section, even if it has been filed by an organization or
individual from another State. These changes would conform to changes
in proposed Sec. 300.662.
In Sec. 303.512, the Secretary proposes to delete the provision
from the current regulation regarding Secretarial review. This change
reflects a recommendation of the Department's Inspector General in his
report of August 1997 on the utility and efficiency of the Secretarial
review process under the IDEA. In that report, the Inspector General
noted that the Secretarial review process is diverting the Department's
limited resources to an activity that is providing minimal benefits to
children with disabilities and the program. The Secretary expects that
removing the Secretarial review provision will allow the Department to
spend more of its time and attention on evaluating States' systems for
ensuring compliance with program requirements, which will have benefit
for all parties interested in these programs. Two notes would be added
following this section. Note 1 would clarify that if a complaint raises
an issue that is also the subject of a due process hearing, or multiple
issues, some of which are also the subject of a due process hearing,
the State must set aside the issues in due process until the end of the
hearing, but resolve the remaining issues in the complaint within the
60-day complaint timeline. Note 2 would explain that if an issue raised
in a complaint previously had been the subject of a due process
hearing, the hearing decision would be binding, and the State would
satisfy its obligation under these procedures by informing the
complainant that the hearing decision is binding as to that issue. The
note would also explain that the State would have to resolve an alleged
failure to implement a due process hearing decision. These changes
would conform to changes in proposed Sec. 300.661.
In Sec. 303.520, a new paragraph (d) would be added that would
provide that a lead agency may not require parents, if they would incur
a financial cost, to use private insurance proceeds to pay for the
services that must be provided to an eligible child under this part.
The Department recognizes the important policy underlying this program
that requires States to use all available sources of funding for
providing services. Therefore, this new provision would permit States
to require families to use private insurance if the families would
incur no financial cost. Proposed paragraph (d) would incorporate the
Department's interpretation that requiring parents to use their private
insurance if that would result in a financial cost to the family is not
compatible with the statutory requirement that early intervention
services be at no cost except where Federal or State law provides for a
system of payments by families, including a schedule of sliding fees.
It would also identify what is meant by the term ``financial cost.'' A
note would be added following this section to explain how this applies
if families are covered by both private insurance and Medicaid.
As noted in the section of this preamble discussing the Part 300
regulations, the Secretary believes that the same basic principle would
be equally applicable to parents who are eligible for public insurance,
but that there is no current need to regulate on the public insurance
issue because there is no risk of financial loss to parents under
current public insurance programs such as Medicaid. The Secretary
invites comment on whether a policy on public insurance similar to the
proposed section on private insurance should be added to the final
regulation. A second note would be added to explain that if a State
cannot get parent consent to use public or private insurance for a
service, the agency may use funds under this part to pay for that
service. In addition, the note would explain that to avoid financial
cost to parents who otherwise would consent to the use of private
insurance, the lead agency may use funds under this part to pay the
costs of accessing the insurance, such as deductible or co-pay amounts.
In addition, the Secretary proposes to add a new paragraph (e) to
specify that proceeds from public or private insurance may not be
treated as program income for purposes of 34 CFR Sec. 80.25. That
section imposes limitations on how program income can be spent that
could lead to States returning reimbursements from public and private
insurance to the Federal government or requiring those funds be used
under this part, which could discourage States from using all the
resources available in paying for services under this part. Given the
current small percentage that Federal funds under this part are of
total funding for this program, and the fact that eligible infants and
toddlers with disabilities are guaranteed services under this part, the
Secretary believes that States should be given some flexibility in how
they use and account for funds received as reimbursements from other
sources. A note would be added after this section explaining the
consequences, under the nonsupplanting requirement, of various State
choices in accounting for these funds. These changes would be similar
to provisions in proposed Sec. 300.142.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new
partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain
information needed to achieve the goals.
These proposed regulations would address the following National
Education Goals:
* All children in America will start school ready to learn.
* The high school graduation rate will increase to at least
90 percent.
* All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having
demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter, including
English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history, and geography; and every school
in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well,
so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning,
and productive employment in our Nation's modern economy.
* United States students will be first in the world in
mathematics and science achievement.
* Every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and
exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
* Every school in the United States will be free of drugs,
violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and
will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
* The Nation's teaching force will have access to programs
for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the
opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and
prepare all American students for the next century.
* Every school will promote partnerships that will increase
parental involvement and participation in promoting the social,
emotional, and academic growth of children.
Executive Order 12866
1. Potential Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive
[[Page 55055]]
Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has assessed
the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
These proposed regulations implement changes made to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by the IDEA Amendments of
1997 and make other changes determined by the Secretary as necessary
for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 made a number of significant changes to
the law. While retaining the basic rights and protections that have
been in the law since 1975, the amendments strengthened the focus of
the law on improving results for children with disabilities. The
amendments accomplished this through changes that promote the early
identification of and provision of services to children with
disabilities, the development of individualized education programs that
enhance the participation of children with disabilities in the general
curriculum, the education of children with disabilities with
nondisabled children, higher expectations for children with
disabilities and accountability for their educational results, the
involvement of parents in their children's education, and reducing
unnecessary paperwork and other burdens to better direct resources to
improved teaching and learning.
All of these objectives are reflected in the proposed regulations,
which largely reflect the changes to the statute made by IDEA
Amendments of 1997.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations justify the
costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Burdens specifically associated with information collection
requirements are identified and explained elsewhere in this preamble
under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on
whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
This is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, and an economic analysis was conducted
consistent with section 6(a)(3)(C) of the Executive Order. Due to the
lack of data, the Secretary particularly request public comments to
assist in determining whether these regulations are economically
significant under the Executive Order.
Summary of Potential Benefits and Costs
Benefits and Costs of Statutory Changes: For the information of
readers, the following is an analysis of the costs and benefits of the
most significant statutory changes made by IDEA Amendments of 1997 that
are incorporated into the IDEA regulations. Based on this analysis, the
Secretary has concluded that the statutory changes included in this
regulation will not, in total, impose significant costs in any one
year, and may result in savings to State and local educational
agencies. An analysis of specific provisions follows:
Participation in Assessments
Proposed Sec. 300.138 incorporates statutory requirements relating
to the inclusion of children with disabilities in general State and
district-wide assessments and the conduct of alternate assessments for
children who cannot be appropriately included in general assessments.
Although children with disabilities have not been routinely
included in State and district-wide assessments, the requirement to
include children with disabilities in assessment programs in which they
can be appropriately included, with or without accommodations, does not
constitute a change in Federal law. Because the Secretary regards this
statutory change as a clarification, not a change, in the law, no cost
impact is assigned to this requirement, which is incorporated in
Sec. 300.138(a) requiring the participation of children with
disabilities in general assessments.
However, States were not previously required to conduct alternate
assessments for children who could not participate in the general
assessments. The statutory requirement to develop and conduct alternate
assessments beginning July 1, 2000, therefore, imposes a new cost for
States and districts.
The impact of this change will depend on the extent to which States
and districts administer general assessments, the number of children
who cannot appropriately participate in those assessments, the cost of
developing and administering alternate assessments, and the extent to
which children with disabilities are already participating in alternate
assessments.
In analyzing the impact of this requirement, the Secretary assumes
that alternate tests would be administered to children with
disabilities on roughly the same schedule as general assessments. This
schedule will vary considerably from State to State and within States,
depending on their assessment policy. In most States, this kind of
testing does not begin before the third grade. In many States and
districts, general assessments are not administered to children in all
grades, but rather at key transition points (typically grades 4, 8, and
11).
The extent to which States and districts will need to provide for
alternate assessments will also vary depending on how the general
assessments are structured. Based on the experience of States that have
implemented alternate assessments for children with disabilities, the
Secretary estimates that about one to two percent of the children in
any age cohort will be taking alternate assessments.
Based on this information, the Secretary predicts that about 18 to
36 million of the children who are expected to be enrolled in public
schools in school year 2000-2001 will be candidates for general
assessments. Of these, the Secretary estimates that approximately
200,000 to 700,000 will be children with disabilities who may require
alternate assessments.
The costs of developing and administering these assessments are
also difficult to gauge. In its report Educating One and All, the
National Research Council states that the estimated costs of
performance-based assessments programs range from less than $2 per
child to over $100 per student tested. The State of Maryland has
reported start-up costs of $191 per child for testing a child with a
disability and $31 per child for the ongoing costs of administering an
alternate assessment.
The cost impact of requiring alternate assessments will be reduced
to the extent that children with disabilities are already participating
in alternate assessments. Many children with disabilities are already
being assessed outside the regular assessment program in order to
determine their progress in meeting the objectives in their IEPs. In
many cases, these assessments might be adequate to meet the new
statutory requirement.
Based on all of this information, the Secretary has concluded that
the cost impact of this statutory change is not likely to be
significant, and will be
[[Page 55056]]
justified by the benefits of including all children in accountability
systems.
Incidental Benefits
The change made by section 613(a)(4) of the IDEA, incorporated in
proposed Sec. 300.235, generates savings by reducing the time that
would have been spent by special education personnel on maintaining
records on how their time is allocated in regular classrooms among
children with and without disabilities.
To calculate the impact of this change, one needs to estimate the
number of special education personnel who will be providing services to
children with and without disabilities in regular classrooms and the
amount and value of time that would have been required to document
their allocation of time between disabled and nondisabled children.
Based on State-reported data on placement, it appears that about 4
million children will spend part of their day in a regular classroom
this school year. It is difficult to predict the extent to which these
children will be receiving services in the regular classroom from a
special education teacher or related services provider. However, the
Secretary believes that this statutory change will not only eliminate
unnecessary paperwork in situations in which special education
personnel have been working in the regular classroom and documenting
their allocation of time, but will encourage the provision of special
education services in the regular classroom--a change that will benefit
children with disabilities.
Individualized Education Programs
The proposed regulations incorporate a number of statutory changes
in section 614(d) that relate to the IEP process and the content of the
IEP. With the exception of one requirement (the requirement to include
a regular education teacher in IEP meetings), the Secretary has
determined that, on balance, these changes will not increase the cost
of developing IEPs. Moreover, all the changes will produce significant
benefits for children and families. Key changes include:
Clarifying that the team must consider a number of special factors
to the extent they are applicable to the individual child. The
Secretary does not regard the statutory changes that are incorporated
in Sec. 300.346 as imposing a new burden on school districts because
the factors that are listed should have been considered, as
appropriate, under the IDEA before the enactment of IDEA Amendments of
1997. These include: behavioral interventions for a child whose
behavior impedes learning, language needs for a child with limited
English proficiency, Braille for a blind or visually impaired child,
the communication needs of the child, and the child's need for
assistive technology.
Strengthening the focus of the IEP on access to the general
curriculum in statements about the child's levels of performance and
services to be provided. The Secretary does not regard the statutory
changes that are incorporated in Sec. 300.347 relating to the general
curriculum as burdensome because the changes merely refocus the content
of statements that were already required to be included in the IEP on
enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general
curriculum.
Requiring an explanation of the extent to which a child will not be
participating with nondisabled children. This statutory requirement,
which is incorporated in Sec. 300.347(a)(4), does not impose a burden
because it replaces the requirement for a statement of the extent to
which the child will be able to participate in regular educational
programs.
Requiring the IEP to include a statement of any needed
modifications to enable a child to participate in an assessment, and,
in cases in which a child will not be participating in a State or
districtwide assessment, to include a statement regarding why the
assessment is not appropriate and how the child will be assessed. The
Secretary does not believe the inclusion of these statements, required
statute and incorporated in Sec. 300.447(a)(5), will be unduly
burdensome. Many school districts already include statements in the IEP
regarding assessments, including information about needed
accommodations.
Allowing the IEP team to establish benchmarks rather than short-
term objectives in each child's IEP. There is considerable variation
across States, districts, schools, and children in the amount of time
spent on developing and describing short-term objectives in each
child's IEP. While it would be difficult to estimate the impact of this
statutory change, contained in Sec. 300.347(a)(2), it clearly affords
schools greater flexibility and an opportunity to reduce paperwork in
those cases in which the team has previously included unnecessarily
detailed curriculum objectives in the IEP document.
Prior to the enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997, IDEA
required the participation of the ``child's teacher,'' typically read
as the child's special education teacher, but it did not explicitly
require a regular education teacher. The IDEA Amendments of 1997,
incorporated in Sec. 300.344(a)(2) of this proposed regulation require
the participation of the child's special education teacher and a
regular education teacher if the child is or may be participating in
the regular education classroom.
The impact of this change will be determined by the number of
children with disabilities who are or who may be participating in the
regular classroom in a given year, the number and length of IEP
meetings, the opportunity cost of the regular education teacher's
participation, and the extent to which regular education teachers are
already attending IEP meetings.
State-reported data for school year 1994-95 indicates that about
3.8 million children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 spend at least
40 percent of their day in a regular classroom (children reported as
placed in regular classes and resource rooms). The participation of the
regular education teacher would be required for all of these children
since these children are spending at least part of their day in the
regular classroom.
State data also show that an additional 1.2 million children were
served in separate classrooms. A regular education teacher's
participation will clearly be required for those children in separate
classes who are spending part of their school day in regular classes
(less than 40 percent of their day). Other children may be
participating with nondisabled children in some activities in the same
building. While a child's individual needs and prospects will determine
whether a regular education teacher would need to attend a child's IEP
meeting in those cases, the Secretary believes that some proportion of
these children are children for whom participation in regular
classrooms is a possibility, therefore requiring the participating of a
regular education teacher.
Although the prior statute did not require the participation of a
regular education teacher, it is not uncommon for States or school
districts to require a child's regular education teacher to attend IEP
meetings.
Based on all of this information, the Secretary estimates that the
participation of a regular education teacher may be required in an
additional 3.7 to 5.2 million IEP meetings in the next school year.
While the opportunity costs of including a regular education
teacher in these meetings will be significant because of the number of
meetings involved, the Secretary believes these costs will be more than
justified by the benefits to be realized by teachers,
[[Page 55057]]
schools, children, and families. Involving the regular education
teacher in the development of the IEP will not only provide the regular
education teacher with needed information about the child's disability,
performance, and educational needs, but will help ensure that a child
receives the supports the child needs in the regular classroom,
including services and modifications that will enable the child to
progress in the general curriculum.
Parentally-Placed Students in Private Schools
This statutory change, which is incorporated in Sec. 300.453, would
require school districts to spend a proportionate amount of the funds
received under Part B of the IDEA on services to children with
disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in private elementary
and secondary schools.
The change does not have an impact on most States because the
statute does not represent a change in the Department's interpretation
of the law as it was in effect prior to the enactment of IDEA
Amendments of 1997. However, prior to the change in the law in three
Federal circuits, the courts concluded that school districts generally
were responsible for paying for the total costs of special education
and related services needed by students with disabilities who have been
parentally placed in private schools. Therefore, this change does
produce potential savings for school districts in those 12 States
affected by these court decisions. The States are: Colorado,
Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York,
Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
To determine the impact of the change, one needs to estimate the
number of parentally placed children with disabilities that LEAs would
have been required to serve, but for this change. Using private school
enrollment data for school year 1993-94 and projected growth rates, the
Secretary estimates that approximately 1.2 million students will be
enrolled in private schools in these 12 States in this school year.
There is no reliable data on the number of children with
disabilities who are parentally placed in private schools. However, if
one assumes that children with disabilities are found in private
schools in the same proportion as they are found in public schools in
these States, or at least in the same proportion that children with
speech impairments and learning disabilities are found in public
schools, one would estimate that there are between 60,000 and 89,000
children with disabilities who are parentally placed in private
schools.
If one assumes that, on average, the cost of providing a free
appropriate education to these students would be approximately equal to
the average excess costs for educating students with disabilities--
$6,797 per child for school year 1997-98, the costs of providing FAPE
to these children would be significant.
Under the statutory change, public schools would still be required
to provide services to parentally-placed children in an amount
proportionate to their share of the total population of children with
disabilities. Therefore, in estimating the impact of this statutory
change, one needs to subtract the cost of the public school obligation
from the total projected savings. This amount will vary with the
proportion of children attending private schools and the size of the
Federal appropriation. While the precise amount of this obligation is
indeterminate, the Secretary has concluded that the total net savings
to the public sector attributable to the change in the law for these 12
States will be very significant.
Mediation
Proposed Sec. 300.506 reflects the new statutory provisions in
section 615(e) of the IDEA, which require States to establish and
implement mediation procedures that would make mediation available to
the parties whenever a due process hearing is requested. The Act
specifies how mediation is to be conducted.
The impact of this change will depend on the following factors: the
number of due process hearings that will be requested, the extent to
which the parties to those hearings will agree to participate in
mediation, the cost of mediation, the extent to which mediation would
have been used in the absence of this requirement to resolve
complaints, and the extent to which mediation obviates the need for a
due process hearing.
Data for previous years suggests one can expect about one complaint
for every 1000 children served or about 5,800 requests for due process
hearings during the next year. This projection probably overstates the
number of complaints because it does not take into account the effect
of IDEA Amendments of 1997, which, on balance, can be expected to
result in better implementation of the law and higher parental
satisfaction with the quality of services and compliance with the IDEA.
Many of these complaints would have been resolved through mediation
even without the statutory change. Over 39 States had mediation systems
in place prior to the enactment of IDEA Amendments of 1997. Data for
1992 indicate that, on average, States with mediation systems held
mediations in about 60 percent of the cases in which hearings were
requested. Nevertheless, the Secretary expects the number of mediations
to increase even in States that already have mediation systems.
Although most States report using mediation as a method of resolving
disputes, there have been considerable differences in its
implementation and use. In general, the extent to which mediation has
been used in States probably depends on the extent to which parents and
others were informed of its availability and possible benefits in
resolving their complaints and the extent to which the mediator was
perceived as a neutral third-party. The Secretary believes that the
changes made by IDEA Amendments of 1997 will eliminate some of the
differences in State mediation systems that have accounted for its
variable use and effectiveness.
The benefits of making mediation more widely available are expected
to be substantial, especially in relation to the costs. States with
well-established mediation systems conduct considerably fewer due
process hearings. For example, in California hearings were held in only
5 and 7 percent of the cases in which they were requested in 1994 and
1995, respectively. The average mediation appears to cost between $350
and $1,000, while a due process hearing can cost tens of thousands of
dollars. Based on the experience that many different States have had
with mediation, the Secretary estimates that hundreds of additional
complaints will be resolved through mediation. The benefits to school
districts and benefits to families are expected to be substantial.
Discipline
The proposed regulations (Secs. 300.121, 300.122, 300.520, and
300.521) incorporate a number of significant changes to the IDEA that
relate to the procedures for disciplining children with disabilities.
Some of the key changes contained in section 615(k) afford school
districts additional tools for responding to serious behavioral
problems, and in that regard, do not impose any burdens on schools or
districts.
The statutory change reflected in proposed Sec. 300.520 would give
school officials the authority to remove children who engaged in
misconduct involving weapons or illegal drugs.
[[Page 55058]]
Under prior law, school officials had the authority to remove children
who brought guns, but could not remove children who engaged in
misconduct involving other weapons or illegal drugs over the objection
of their parents unless they prevailed in a due process proceeding or
obtained a temporary restraining order from a court. The statutory
change reflected in proposed Sec. 300.521 would give school officials
the option of seeking relief from a hearing officer rather than a court
in the case of a child the school is seeking to remove because the
child poses a risk of injury to the child or others. In both cases, the
child would continue to receive services in an alternative educational
setting that is required to meet certain standards. It is difficult to
assess the impact of either of these statutory changes on schools
because there is virtually no information available on the extent to
which parents disagree with districts that propose to remove these
children. This new authority would only be used in those cases.
Nevertheless, the Secretary believes the benefits of this authority to
be substantial insofar as the changes help schools provide for a safe
environment for all children, while ensuring that any children with
disabilities who are moved to an alternative setting continue to
receive the services they need.
The statutory change reflected in proposed Sec. 300.520(b) will
require school officials to convene the IEP team in cases in which
removal for more than 10 school days is contemplated to develop an
assessment plan and behavioral interventions (or to review the child's
behavioral intervention plan if there is one). These would include all
cases in which a school is proposing to suspend a child for more than
10 days in a given year or to expel a child.
Because of the dearth of data on the number and length of
suspensions, it is difficult to estimate the impact of this change.
However, based on data collected by the Office for Civil Rights on the
number of children suspended each year, the Secretary estimates about
300,000 children with disabilities will be suspended for at least one
school day this year. Based on an analysis of data from selected
States, the Secretary estimates that this review may have to be
conducted for only a portion of these children since most of the
children who are suspended receive only short-term suspensions.
Although there will be a cost associated with convening the IEP team,
in many cases, this review will be conducted at the same time as the
required manifestation determination and much of the information needed
for that determination could be used in conducting this review.
Moreover, the benefits of this review are expected to be substantial.
The Secretary believes that the development and implementation of
appropriate behavioral interventions for children with disabilities
will reduce the need for disciplinary actions and all the concomitant
costs.
The requirement in section 612(a)(1)(A), incorporated in proposed
Sec. 300.121, that all children aged 3 through 21 must have made
available to them a free appropriate public education, including
children who have been suspended or expelled from school, does not
represent a change in the law as the law was interpreted by the
Department prior to the enactment of the IDEA Amendments of 1997. It
clarifies the Department's long-standing position that the IDEA
requires the continuation of special education and related services
even to children who have been expelled from school for conduct that
has been determined not to be a manifestation of their disability.
However, this statutory change does represent a change in the law
in two circuits in which Federal Circuit courts disagreed with the
Department's interpretation of the law--the 4th and 7th Circuits. The
affected States are: Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
To assess the impact of this change, one needs to estimate the
extent to which students would have been excluded from education, but
for this change in the statute, and the cost of providing the required
services to these students during the period they are expected to be
excluded from their regular school due to a long-term suspension or
expulsion.
There is a paucity of data available on disciplinary actions, and
very little for the States in the 4th and 7th circuits. Using data
collected by the Office for Civil Rights for school year 1994, the
Secretary estimates that approximately 60,000 students aged 6 through
21 will be suspended during this school year. But to determine the
impact of the prohibition on ceasing services in these States, one
needs to know the number of suspensions each student received and their
duration--information that is not provided by OCR data. However, more
detailed data compiled by a few States would suggest that a relatively
small percentage of students who are suspended receive suspensions of
greater than 10 days at a time and a much smaller number of students
are expelled.
No information is available on the cost of providing services in an
alternative setting for a student who has been suspended temporarily or
expelled from school. However, it is reasonable to assume that the cost
probably would be no greater than the average daily total costs of
serving children with disabilities and no less than the cost of
providing instruction in a Home or Hospital setting, or between $29 and
$70 per day.
While this statutory change will have a cost impact on the States
in the fourth and seventh circuits, the Secretary believes the costs
for these States will be justified by the benefits of continuing
educational services for children who are the least likely to succeed
without the help they need.
The statutory change reflected in proposed Sec. 300.122 could
generate potential savings for all States by removing the obligation to
provide educational services to individuals 18 years old or older who
were incarcerated in adult prisons and who were not previously
identified as disabled. We have no information on the number of
prisoners with disabilities who were not previously identified.
Triennial Evaluation
The existing regulations require a school district to conduct an
evaluation of each child served under the IDEA every three years to
determine, among other things, whether the child is still eligible for
special education. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 change this requirement
to reduce unnecessary testing and therefore reduce costs. Specifically,
section 614(c) of the IDEA, incorporated in proposed Sec. 300.533,
allows the evaluation team to dispense with tests to determine the
child's continued eligibility if the team concludes this information is
not needed. However, these tests must be conducted if the parents so
request.
The savings resulting from this change will depend on the following
factors: the number of children for whom an evaluation is conducted
each year to comply with the requirement for a triennial evaluation,
the cost of the evaluation, and an estimate of the extent to which
testing will be reduced because it is determined by the IEP team to be
unnecessary and is not requested by the parents.
Based on an analysis of State-reported data, the Secretary
estimates that approximately 1.4 million children will be eligible for
triennial evaluations in school year 1997-98 or roughly 25 percent of
the children to be served.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 make it clear that districts no longer
need to conduct testing to determine whether a
[[Page 55059]]
child still has a disability, if the evaluation team determines this
information is not needed and the parent agrees. However, while the
regulation permits the team to dispense with unneeded testing to
determine whether the child still has a disability, the team still has
an obligation to meet to review any existing evaluation data and to
identify what additional data are needed to determine whether the child
is still eligible for special education and related services, the
present levels of performance of the child, and whether any
modifications in the services are needed. In view of these
requirements, the Secretary assumes that there will be some cost
associated with conducting the triennial evaluation even in those cases
in which both the team and the parents agree to dispense with testing.
The Secretary estimates that the elimination of unnecessary testing
could reduce the personnel costs by as much as 25 to 75 percent. While
there is no national data on the average cost of conducting a triennial
evaluation under the current regulations, the Secretary believes that a
triennial evaluation has typically required the participation of
several professionals for several hours and has cost as much as $1000.
If one assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that savings are
achievable in roughly half of the triennial evaluations that will be
conducted and that elimination of unnecessary testing could reduce
personnel costs by at least 25 percent, one would project substantial
savings for LEAs that are attributable to this change.
Benefits and Costs of Proposed Non-statutory Regulatory Changes:
The following is an analysis of the benefits and costs of the
nonstatutory proposed regulatory changes that includes consideration of
the special effects these proposals may have for small entities.
The proposed regulations primarily affect State and local
educational agencies, which are responsible for carrying out the
requirements of Part B of the IDEA as a condition of receiving Federal
financial assistance under that Act. Some of the proposed changes also
affect children attending private schools and consequently indirectly
affect private schools.
For purposes of this analysis as it relates to small entities, the
Secretary has focused on local educational agencies because these
proposed regulations most directly affect local school districts. The
Secretary proposes to use a definition of small school district
developed by the National Center for Education Statistics for purposes
of its recent publication, ``Characteristics of Small and Rural School
Districts.'' In that publication, NCES defines a small district as
``one having fewer students in membership than the sum of (a) 25
students per grade in the elementary grades it offers (usually K-8) and
(b) 100 students per grade in the secondary grades it offers (usually
9-12)''. Using this definition, approximately 34 percent of the
Nation's school districts would be considered small and serve about 2.5
percent of the Nation's students. NCES reports that approximately 12
percent of these students have IEPs.
Both small and large districts will experience economic impacts
from this proposed rule. Little data are available that would permit a
separate analysis of how the proposed changes affect small districts in
particular. Therefore, the Secretary specifically invites comments on
the differential effects of the proposed regulations on small
districts.
For purposes of this analysis, the Secretary assumes that the
effect of the proposed regulations on small entities would be roughly
proportional to the number of children with disabilities served by
those districts.
For school year 1997-98, we estimate that approximately 50 million
children will be enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools.
Using the NCES definition and assuming all districts grew at the same
rate between school year 1993-94 and 1997-98, the Secretary estimates
that approximately 1.25 million children are enrolled in small
districts. Applying the NCES estimate of 12 percent, we estimate that
these districts serve approximately 150,000 children with disabilities
of the 5.806 million children with disabilities served nationwide.
There are many changes in the proposed regulations that are
expected to result in economic impacts--both positive and negative. For
purposes of this analysis, we estimated the impact of those non-
statutory changes that were not required by changes that were made in
the statute by the IDEA amendments.
The following is a summary of the estimated economic and non-
economic impact of the key changes in this proposed regulation:
Section 300.12--Definition of ``General Curriculum''--This proposed
regulation does not limit flexibility or impose any burden. Its
inclusion helps to clarify what is intended by this term.
Sections 300.19(b) and 303.18(b)--Definition of ``Parent''--
Proposed paragraph (b), which defines the circumstances under which a
State may treat a foster parent as a parent for purposes of IDEA, does
not impose any burden on State or local agencies. The proposed
definition is intended to promote the appropriate involvement of foster
parents consistent with the best interests of the child by ensuring
that those who best know the child are involved in decisions about the
child's education. To the extent there is any economic impact of this
proposal, it should reduce costs on States and local agencies that they
would otherwise incur for training and appointing surrogate parents for
children whose educational interests under this proposal could
appropriately be represented by their foster parents.
Section 300.24(b)(3)--Definition of ``Specially-designed
instruction''--Proposed paragraph (b)(3) defines ``specially-designed
instruction'' in order to give more definition to the term ``special
education,'' which is defined in this section as ``specially-designed
instruction.'' The definition is intended to clarify that the purpose
of adapting the content, methodology or delivery of instruction is to
address the child's unique needs and to ensure access to the general
curriculum. This provision increases the potential of children with
disabilities to participate more effectively in the general curriculum.
Section 300.121--Continuation of Services--Proposed section 300.121
would add the statutory provision that the right to a free appropriate
public education extends to children with disabilities who have been
suspended or expelled from school. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
define children who have been suspended or expelled from school to mean
children who have been removed from their current educational placement
for more than 10 school days in a given school year. Proposed paragraph
(c) would clarify that in providing FAPE to these children an agency
shall meet the requirements provided in the statute for interim
alternative educational settings for children removed for possessing
weapons or drugs or if they are likely to injure themselves or others
if they remain in their current placement.
In determining whether and how to regulate on this issue, the
Secretary considered the impact of various alternatives on small and
large school districts and children with disabilities and their
families, and tried to strike an appropriate balance between the
educational needs of students and the burden on schools.
Many of the comments received in response to the Department's
notice published in July expressed concern that the statute may be read
to require school districts to continue to provide services to a child
who has been suspended regardless of the duration of the suspension.
School districts argue
[[Page 55060]]
that if the statute is interpreted to require these services, this will
impose a significant burden on schools and interfere with their ability
to ensure a safe and orderly environment for all children.
Some will argue that the statute could and should be read to give
schools the flexibility they had under IDEA before it was amended not
to provide services to children suspended for fewer than 10 school days
at a time, regardless of the cumulative effect, as long as there is no
pattern of exclusion that warrants treating an accumulation that
exceeds 10 school days as a change in placement.
While it is difficult to quantify the cost of requiring schools to
provide services to all children who are suspended for one or more
school days, the Secretary agrees that the burden for schools districts
could be substantial. Based on data collected by the Office for Civil
Rights for school year 1992 and data on the number of children who are
currently being served under the IDEA, the Secretary estimates that
approximately 300,000 children with disabilities will be suspended for
at least one school day during the next school year. Many of these
children will be suspended on more than one occasion for one or more
days. Because of the differences among the children who are expected to
be suspended and the range of their service needs, the costs of and the
burden associated with providing individualized services in an
alternative setting to every child who is suspended for one or more
school days could be substantial, especially for small districts, who
are expected to suspend about 8,000 children with disabilities during
this school year.
At the same time, the Secretary is concerned about the adverse
educational impact on a child who has been suspended for more than a
few days and on more than one occasion. In balancing these concerns,
the Secretary proposes an alternative that takes into account both
impacts. Schools will be relieved of the potential obligation to
provide services for a significant population of children who are
briefly suspended a few times during the course of the school year, and
required to anticipate possible service needs of children with chronic
or more serious behavioral problems who are repeatedly excluded from
school.
Section 300.122(a)(3)--Exception to right to FAPE (Graduation)--
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) provides that a student's right to FAPE ends
when the student has graduated with a regular high school diploma, but
not if the student graduates with some other certificate, such as a
certificate of attendance, or a certificate of completion. Given the
importance of a regular high school diploma for a student's post-school
experiences, including work and further education, the Secretary
believes that there is a significant benefit to children protected by
the Act to make clear that the expectation for children with
disabilities is the same as for nondisabled children. The impact of
this proposal, however, is difficult to assess. Many States, including
most of those that report a high number of children with disabilities
leaving school with a certificate of completion or some other
certificate that is not a regular high school diploma, indicate that
students with disabilities have the right to continue to work to earn a
regular high school diploma after receiving that certificate. Little
information is available to evaluate how many students who now can
return to school after receiving some other certificate of completion
do so, or how many would return to school under this proposal, although
several State directors of special education indicated that relatively
few students who now can return, do so. The Secretary anticipates that
there may be some small impact on small districts, but does not expect
it to be substantial, because of the likely small number of students
who would return and could not do so now.
Section 300.139--Reporting on Assessments--Proposed 300.139 would
require SEA reports on wide-scale assessments to include children with
disabilities in aggregated results for all children to better ensure
accountability for results for all children. This proposed regulation
is expected to have a minimal impact on the cost of reporting
assessment results. It could increase the number of data elements
reported depending on whether States continue to report trend data for
a student population that does not include children with disabilities
to the extent required by section 300.138. There will be no impact on
small (or large) school districts since this requirement applies to
reports that are prepared by the State educational agency.
Sections 300.142(f) and 303.520(e)--Program Income--These
provisions would specify that proceeds from public and private
insurance will not be treated by the Department as ``program income''
under other regulations that limit how program income can be used.
Therefore, this proposal increases flexibility for State and local
agencies in using the proceeds from insurance.
Section 300.156(b)--Annual Description of Part B Set-aside Funds--
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that if a State's plans for the use of
its State level or State agency funds do not differ from those for the
prior year the State may submit a letter to that effect instead of
submitting a description of how the funds would be used. The effect of
this proposed regulation is inconsequential because it implements the
Department's long-standing interpretation that a letter is sufficient
in this case.
Section 300.232(a)--Exception to the LEA Maintenance of Effort--
Proposed paragraph (a) makes it clear that an LEA may only reduce
expenditures associated with departing personnel if those personnel are
replaced by qualified, lower-salaried personnel. Congress made its
intent clear in this regard in the Committee Report, which is quoted,
in part, in a Note following this proposed regulation. Allowing LEAs to
reduce their expenditures by not replacing departing personnel would
violate congressional intent and diminish special education services in
those districts.
Section 300.342(c)--Use of IFSP--Proposed paragraph (c) would
require school districts to obtain written informed consent from
parents before using an IFSP instead of an IEP, which is based on an
explanation of the differences between the two documents. The proposed
regulation would impose a cost burden on districts in those States that
elect to allow parents to opt for the use of an IFSP instead of an IEP.
However, once a form is developed that explains the differences between
an IFSP and an IEP, the cost of providing this form to parents and
obtaining written consent are probably minimal, and are justified by
the benefits of ensuring that parents understand the role of the IEP in
providing access to the general education curriculum.
Section 300.342(d)--Effective Date of IEP Requirements--Proposed
paragraph (d) would provide that IEPs are to meet the requirements of
the statute by July 1, 1998, which is the statutory effective date for
the new IEP requirements. Given the potential benefits to families and
schools of complying with these requirements, the Secretary believes
that implementation of these requirements should not depend on parents
exercising their rights or vary within and across districts and States.
The impact of this proposal is difficult to estimate because the cost
of complying includes both the one-time cost of providing all affected
parties with the information, training, and materials needed to
implement the new requirements appropriately and the
[[Page 55061]]
annual costs of complying with new IEP requirements such as including
the regular education teacher on the IEP team. The impact of these
costs on State and local agencies is increased the sooner these costs
are incurred.
The Secretary anticipates some impact on small districts, but does
not expect it to be substantial because of the number of children
involved--about 150,000 children with disabilities in total.
Section 300.344(b)--Including the Child in the IEP Meeting--
Proposed paragraph (b) would require the school to invite students to
participate in IEP meetings if the meeting will include consideration
of transition services needs or transition services. The effect of this
provision is to give 14- and 15-year-olds, and in some cases, younger
students the opportunity to participate. The existing regulations have
required schools to invite students to meetings in which transition
services were to be discussed. These would include all students aged 16
years and older, and in some cases, younger students. The law has also
given other children when appropriate the opportunity to participate in
the IEP meeting. Therefore, in some cases, 14- and 15-year-olds may be
already participating. The Secretary believes that the costs of
notifying students about a meeting or trying to ensure that the
students' interests and preferences are accommodated are more than
justified by the benefits of including students in a discussion of
their own transition needs, including their planned course of study in
secondary school.
Section 300.501(b)--Parental Access to Meetings--Proposed paragraph
(b) of section 300.501 would define when and how to provide notice to
parents of meetings in which they are entitled to participate. It would
further define what is meant by the term ``meeting.'' The Secretary
believes these proposed regulations impose the minimal requirements
necessary to implement the statute. The language in paragraph (b)(1)
helps to clarify what is required to provide parents with a meaningful
opportunity to attend meetings while the language in (b)(2) is designed
to reduce unnecessary burden by clarifying what constitutes a
``meeting.''
Section 300.501(c)--Placement Meetings--Paragraph (c) of 300.501
specifies that the procedures used to be to meet the new statutory
requirement of parental involvement in placement decisions. It provides
that the procedures used for parental involvement in IEP meetings also
be used for placement meetings. These include specific requirements
relating to notice, methods for involving parents in the meeting, and
recordkeeping of attempts to ensure their participation. Because in
many cases placement decisions will be made as part of IEP meetings, as
is already the case in most jurisdictions, the Secretary believes the
impact of this proposed regulation will be minimal. In those cases in
which placement meetings are conducted separately from the IEP
meetings, the Secretary believes the benefits of making substantial
efforts to secure the involvement of parents and provide for their
meaningful participation in any meeting to discuss their child's
placement more than justify the costs.
Section 300.502(b) and (c)--Right to an Independent Evaluation--
Proposed paragraph (b) would clarify language from the current
regulations that make it clear that if a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation (IEE), the agency must either initiate a due
process hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or provide
for an IEE at public expense. The Secretary interprets the provision
permitting parents to request an IEE to require the agency to take
action. This requirement at most represents a small burden for school
districts because if the agency did not take action, parents would be
free to request due process to compel action.
Proposed paragraph (c) provides that a public agency may not impose
conditions or timelines related to obtaining an independent evaluation.
The Secretary believes that this requirement, which arguably limits the
flexibility of school districts, is critical to ensuring that school
districts do not find ways to circumvent the right provided by the IDEA
to parents to obtain an independent evaluation.
Sections 300.503(b)(8) and 303.403(b)(4)--Notice to Parents
Regarding Complaint Procedures--These provisions require that the
required prior written notice to parents include information about how
to file a complaint under State complaint procedures. Because districts
are already required to provide a written notice to parents, the
Secretary estimates that the additional cost of adding this information
will be one-time and minimal. The burden on small districts could be
minimized if each SEA were to provide its LEAs with appropriate
language describing the State procedures for inclusion in the parental
notices. Making parents award of a low cost and less adversarial
mechanism that they can use to resolve disputes with school districts
should result in cost savings and more cooperative relationships
between parents and districts.
Section 300.505 (a)(1)(iii) and (c)(2)--Parental Consent for
Reevaluation--Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would clarify that the new
statutory right of parents to consent to a reevaluation of their child
means parental consent prior to the administration of any test that is
needed as a part of a reevaluation. The Secretary does not believe that
the intent of this change was to require school districts to obtain
parental consent before reviewing existing data about the child and the
child's performance, an activity that school districts, as a matter of
good practice, should be engaged in on an on-going basis. That
interpretation would impose a significant burden on school districts
with little discernable benefit to the children served under these
regulations.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would use the procedures that are in
current regulations dealing with inviting parents to IEP meetings as a
basis for defining what it means to undertake ``reasonable measures''
in obtaining parental consent. The intent of the proposal is to
meaningfully operationalize the statutory right of parents to consent
to a reevaluation of their child. Given the importance of parental
involvement in all parts of the process, the Secretary believes that
any burden imposed by the proposed recordkeeping requirements is
justified by the benefits of securing parental consent to the
reevaluation.
Section 300.506(c)--Impartial Mediation--Proposed paragraph (c)
would interpret the statutory requirement that mediation be conducted
by an impartial mediator to mean that a mediator may not be an employee
of an LEA or a State agency that is providing direct services to the
child and must not have a personal or professional conflict of
interest. The Secretary believes that, by definition, parents would not
regard an employee of the other party to the dispute to be impartial or
a person who has a personal or professional conflict of interest. The
Secretary believes providing for impartiality would help promote the
use of mediation, which is voluntary, and improve its overall
effectiveness in resolving disagreements. The impact of disallowing
these individuals from serving as mediators is not likely to have a
significant impact on States, given current practices. Many States
contract with private organizations to conduct their mediations. Others
use employees of the State educational agency, which, in most cases, is
not the agency providing direct services. Given
[[Page 55062]]
the significant benefits to children, families, and school districts of
expeditiously resolving disagreements without resort to litigation, the
Secretary concluded that benefits of this proposal easily justify any
cost or inconvenience to States.
Section 300.506(d)(2)--Failure to Participate in Meeting--Proposed
paragraph (d)(2) would specify that a parent's failure to participate
in a meeting at which a disinterested person explains the benefits of
and encourages the use of mediation could not be used as a reason to
deny or delay the parent's right to a due process hearing. This change
is not likely to limit the benefits to school districts of mediation as
the Secretary believes that it is extremely unlikely that parents who
are unwilling to participate in such a meeting with a disinterested
person would be willing to engage in the voluntary mediation provided
for in the statute.
Section 300.507(c)(4)--Failure to Provide Notice--Proposed
paragraph (c)(4) makes it clear that failure by parents to provide the
notice required by the statute cannot be used by a school district to
delay or deny the parents' right to due process. This proposed
regulation would eliminate the possibility that public agencies will
delay a due process hearing pending receipt of a notice that they deem
to be acceptable. This regulation does not impose any cost on school
districts and would help ensure that parents are afforded appropriate
and timely access to due process.
Section 300.513(b)--Attorneys' Fees--Proposed paragraph (b) would
provide that funds provided under Part B of IDEA could not be used to
pay attorneys' fees. This proposal does not increase the burden on
school districts or otherwise substantially affect the ability of
school districts to pay attorneys' fees that are awarded under the Act
or to pay for their own attorneys. It merely establishes that
attorneys' fees must be paid by a source of funding other than Part B
based on the Department's position that limited Federal resources not
be used for these costs. The Secretary does not expect this proposal to
have a cost impact on small (or large) districts because all districts
have non-Federal sources of funding that are significantly greater than
the funding provided under IDEA. Currently, funds provided to States
under the IDEA represent about eight percent of special education
expenditures.
Section 300.514(c)--Hearing Officer Decisions--Proposed 300.514(c)
would clarify that if a hearing officer in a due process hearing or a
review official in a State level review agrees with the parents that a
change in placement is appropriate, the child's placement must be
treated in accordance with that agreement. It is difficult to assess
the impact of this proposal because the statutory language is
ambiguous. If paragraph (c) were not included in the regulation. In
some cases, parents can be expected to successfully argue, as they have
in the past, that the hearing officer's decision to change the
placement of a child be implemented. In other cases, as was the case in
Board of Education Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland (9th
Cir., 1994), a change to the placement initially sought by the parents
and approved by the hearing officer may not occur until all appeals
have been exhausted. The cost impact of this proposal is also
indeterminate because in some cases implementation of the hearing
officer's decision will result in moving children to more costly
placements and, in other cases, to less costly placements. In either
case, the Secretary concluded that the benefits to the child of
securing an appropriate placement justify any potential increase in
costs or other burdens to the school district.
The Secretary estimates that the effect of this proposal on small
districts will be minimal. The Secretary estimates that no more than
2000 due process hearings will be conducted during the next school
year, of which only a small proportion are expected to involve small
districts (fewer than 60). Not all of these will involve disputes about
placement and the hearing officer or State review official can be
expected to agree with the parents in only a portion of the cases.
Section 300.520 (b) and (c)--Behavioral Interventions--Proposed
paragraph (b) of this section would specify that the IEP team meeting
to consider behavioral interventions occur within 10 business days of
the behavior that leads to discipline rather than 10 calendar days, and
would clarify that, if the child does not have a behavior intervention
plan, the purpose of the meeting is to develop an assessment plan and
appropriate behavioral interventions to address that behavior. In
proposing the business day alternative, the Secretary determined that
it would minimize the burden on school districts and would not have a
significant impact on children with disabilities, in light of other
regulatory proposals in the discipline area. The change to clarify that
the IEP meeting develop appropriate behavioral interventions to address
the child's behavior may impose some additional burden on school
districts, but the Secretary determined that burden was justified by
the benefit to the child, the child's teacher, and the educational
process as a whole if appropriate behavioral intervention strategies
are implemented without delay to address the behavior that led to
discipline.
Proposed paragraph (c) of section 300.520 makes it clear that if a
child is removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days
or fewer in a given year, the school is not required to convene the IEP
team to develop an assessment plan and behavioral interventions. (A
school would be required to do so if a child were suspended for more
than 10 school days in a given school year.) In determining whether to
regulate on this issue, the Secretary considered the potential benefits
of providing behavioral interventions to children who need them and the
impact on school districts of convening the IEP team to develop
behavioral interventions if children are suspended.
Based on consideration of the costs and benefits to children and
schools, the Secretary concluded that the IEP team should not be
required to meet and develop or review behavioral interventions for a
child unless the child was engaged in repeated or significant
misconduct. The Secretary determined that the costs and burden of
convening the team the first time a child is suspended outweigh any
potential benefits to the child if the child is receiving a short-term
suspension for an infraction. However, the Secretary also considered
the significant benefits that early intervention can produce for
students and schools by effectively addressing behavioral problems. The
Secretary concluded that if a child is engaged in behavior that
warrants removal for more than 10 school days in a given year,
intervention is in order.
The Secretary believes that this proposal may reduce costs for
school districts because, in the absence of a regulation on this issue,
the statute will be read by some to require that the IEP team be
convened to develop an assessment plan the first time a child is
suspended, regardless of the duration of the suspension or the child's
disciplinary record. Alternatively, the statute could be read, in the
absence of regulation, to require the IEP team to be convened only for
suspensions that exceed 10 school days at a time.
Little data are available that would permit the Secretary to assess
the economic impact of this proposal on school districts or the number
of children who will benefit. Based on data collected by the Office for
Civil Rights, the Secretary estimates that
[[Page 55063]]
approximately 300,000 children with disabilities will be suspended
during the next school year for at least one school day. Based on an
analysis of State-reported data from selected States, we estimate that
most of the children who are suspended receive only short-term
suspensions, but we have no information on the length or frequency of
individual suspensions.
Section 300.521--Due Process Hearing for Removal--Proposed 300.521
specifies that a hearing officer is to make the determination
authorized by section 615(k)(2) of the IDEA (regarding whether a
child's current educational placement is substantially likely to result
in injury to self or others) in a due process hearing.
The Secretary concluded that a hearing that meets the requirement
for a due process hearing is the most appropriate forum for
expeditiously and fairly determining whether the district has
demonstrated by substantial evidence (defined by statute as ``beyond a
preponderance of the evidence'') that maintaining the current placement
is substantially likely to result in injury and to consider the
appropriateness of the child's current placement and the efforts of the
district to minimize the risk of harm.
The Secretary believes that the cost impact of this proposed
regulation on large and small districts will be minimal because of the
limited number of cases in which school districts and parents will
disagree about the proposed removal of a dangerous child. (If the
parents agree to removing a child, a school district may do so without
the approval of a hearing officer.) In those few cases in which there
is disagreement, the Secretary believes that the benefits of conducting
a due process hearing justify the costs.
Section 300.523--Manifestation Determination--Proposed paragraph
(b) would make it clear that if a child was removed for 10 or fewer
school days in a given school year, and no further disciplinary action
is contemplated, the school is not required to conduct a manifestation
review. As was the case in considering section 300.520(c), the
Secretary considered the potential benefits to the child and impact on
districts of convening the IEP team if children are suspended.
The Secretary similarly concluded that the IEP team should not be
required to meet and determine whether the child's behavior was a
manifestation of the disability unless the child was engaged in
repeated or significant misconduct. The cost of convening the team,
whether to develop a behavioral assessment or to conduct a
manifestation review, outweigh the potential benefits to a child who
has been briefly suspended a few times. However, in proposing this
regulation, the Secretary also considered the adverse impact on the
child if the child is repeatedly suspended without any effort to
determine whether the child should be punished for his or her behavior.
One of the primary purposes of the manifestation review is to determine
whether the child's disability has impaired his or her ability to
understand the impact and consequences of his or her behavior and
whether the child's disability has impaired the child's ability to
control the behavior subject to discipline. Conducting this review,
along with the behavioral assessment, will help ensure that the
district responds appropriately to the child's behavior.
The Secretary believes that this proposal may reduce costs for
school districts to the extent the statute is being read by some to
require a manifestation review every time a child is suspended.
Alternatively, this proposal may limit flexibility to the extent the
statute could be read not to require a review for any single suspension
that is fewer than 10 school days.
Section 300.528--Procedures for an Expedited Due Process Hearing--
Proposed 300.528 defines what an expedited due process hearing to
remove a dangerous child must entail. As discussed, the Secretary does
not believe the requirement for the hearing officer to conduct a due
process hearing to have a substantial cost impact because of the small
number of cases involved. In proposing this regulation, the Secretary
attempted to provide some flexibility to the States in establishing
timelines and procedures in order to accommodate the interests of
school officials in obtaining an expeditious decision. However, the
Secretary has little basis for projecting the cost of hearings
conducted in accordance with the proposed regulations in comparison to
other appropriate procedures.
Section 300.587--Procedures for Enforcement--This proposal would
clarify the types of notice and hearing that the Department would
provide before taking an enforcement action under Part B of the IDEA.
Providing clarity about the applicable procedures for the various types
of enforcement actions will benefit potential subjects of enforcement
actions and the Department by ensuring that time and resources are not
spent on unnecessary disputes about procedures or needless process.
Section 300.589--Waiver Procedures--This proposal describes the
procedures to be used by the Secretary in considering a request from an
SEA of a waiver of the supplement, not supplant and maintenance of
effort requirements in IDEA. This proposed regulation does not impose
any cost on local school districts. The proposed procedures will affect
any State requesting a waiver under Part B. While the Secretary
believes the benefits of the proposed process to children with
disabilities justify any possible cost or burden for State educational
agencies, the Secretary welcomes public comment on the impact of this
proposal and alternative ways for the Secretary to implement these
statutory provisions.
Section 300.624--Capacity-building Subgrants--This proposal would
make it clear that States could establish priorities in awarding these
subgrants. This proposal, which provides permissive authority to be
used at the discretion of each State, clarifies the intent of the
statutory change and imposes no burden on State agencies. Allowing
States to use these funds to foster State-specific improvements should
lead to improving educational results for children with disabilities.
Sections 300.660(b) and 303.510(b)--Information about State
Complaint Procedures--Proposed paragraph (b) would require States to
widely disseminate their complaint procedures. While this proposed
requirement would increase costs for those State educational agencies
that have not established procedures for widely disseminating this
information, the Secretary could have prescribed specific mechanisms
for this dissemination but chooses not to, in order to give SEAs
flexibility in determining how to accomplish this. The requirement
would not have any direct impact on small districts and would benefit
parents who believe that a public agency is violating a requirement of
these regulations, by providing them the information they would need to
get an official resolution of their issue without having to resort to a
more formal, and generally more costly, dispute resolution mechanism.
Sections 300.661 and 303.512--Secretarial Review--This proposal
would delete the provision providing for Secretarial review of
complaints filed under State complaint procedures. The effect of this
proposal on small (and large) districts would be inconsequential
because of the small number of requests for these reviews. This
proposal was developed in recognition of the report of the Department's
Inspector General of August 1997, that noted that this procedure
provides very limited benefits to children with disabilities or
[[Page 55064]]
to the IDEA programs and involves a considerable expenditure of the
resources of the Office of Special Education Programs and other offices
of the Department. The Inspector General's report concluded that
greater benefit to the programs and individuals covered by the IDEA
would be achieved if the Department eliminated the Secretarial review
process and focused on improving State procedures for resolving
complaints and implementing the IDEA programs. This change, and the
changes proposed in Secs. 300.660(b) and 300.503(b)(8) and
Secs. 303.510(b) and 303.403(b)(4) that would require greater public
notice about the State complaint procedures, would implement those
recommendations.
Sections 300.662 and 303.511--State Reviews--This proposal would
relieve States of the requirement to review complaints about violations
that occurred more than three years before the complaint. This proposed
limitation on the age of the complaints is expected to reduce the cost
to SEAs of investigating and reviewing complaints. There is no reason
to believe this proposal would adversely affect small districts. There
is also no reason to expect that this proposal would have a significant
negative impact on individuals or entities submitting complaints under
these procedures as it is unlikely that complaints alleging a violation
that occurred more than three years in the past and that do not allege
a continuing violation or request compensatory services would result in
an outcome that puts the protected individuals under these regulations
in a better position than they would have been in if no complaint had
been filed. On the other hand, allowing States to focus their complaint
resolution procedures on issues that are relevant to the current
operation of the State's special education program may serve to improve
services for these children.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms
or other wording that interfere with their clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the
proposed regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol
``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 300.2 Applicability
to State, local, and private agencies.) (4) Is the description of the
proposed regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
this preamble helpful in understanding the proposed regulations? How
could this description be more helpful in making the proposed
regulations easier to understand? (5) What else could the Department do
to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (room 5121, FB-10), Washington,
DC 20202-2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are small local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving
Federal funds under this program. However, the regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on the small LEAs affected because
the regulations would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or
require unnecessary Federal supervision. The regulations would impose
minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 300.110, 300.121, 300.123-300.130, 300.133, 300.135-
300.137, 300.141-300.145, 300.155-300.156, 300.180, 300.192, 300.220-
300.221, 300.240, 300.280-300.281, 300.284, 300.341, 300.343, 300.345,
300.347, 300.380-300.382, 300.402, 300.482-300.483, 300.503-300.504,
300.506, 300.508, 300.510-300.511, 300.532, 300.535, 300.543, 300.561-
300.563, 300.565, 300.569, 300.571-300.572, 300.574-300.575, 300.589,
300.600, 300.653, 300.660-300.662, 300.750-300.751, 300.754, 303.403,
303.510-303.512, and 303.520 contain information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of
these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review.
Collection of Information: Assistance for Education of All Children
with Disabilities: Complaint Procedures, Secs. 300.600-300.662 and
303.510-303.512. Each SEA is required to adopt written procedures for
resolving any complaint that meets the requirements in these proposed
regulations.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 10 hours to issue a written
decision to a complaint. There is an estimated average annual total of
1079 complaints submitted for processing. Thus, the total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to
be 10,790 hours.
Collection of Information: Assistance for Education of All Children
with Disabilities: State Eligibility, Secs. 300.110, 300.121, 300.123-
300.130, 300.133, 300.135-300.137, 300.141-300.145, 300.155-300.156,
300.280-300.281, 300.284, 300.380-300.382, 300.402, 300.482-300.483,
300.510-300.511, 300.589, 300.600, 300.653, 303.403, and 303.520. Each
State must have on file with the Secretary policies and procedures to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the State meets
the specified conditions for assistance under this part. In the past,
States were required to submit State plans every three years with one-
third of the entities submitting plans to the Secretary each year. With
the new statute, States will no longer be required to submit State
plans. Rather, the policies and procedures currently approved by, and
on file with, the Secretary that are not inconsistent with the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 will remain in effect unless amended.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 30 hours for each response for 58
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is
estimated to be 1740 hours.
Collection of Information: Assistance for Education of All Children
with Disabilities: LEA Eligibility, Secs. 300.180, 300.192, 300.220-
300.221, 300.240, 300.341, 300.343, 300.345, 300.347, 500.503-300.504,
300.532, 300.535, 300.543, 300.561-300.563, 300.565, 300.569, 300.571-
300.572, and 300.574-300.575. Each local educational agency (LEA) and
each State agency must have on file with the State educational agency
(SEA) information to demonstrate that the agency meets the specified
requirements for assistance under this part. In the past, each LEA
[[Page 55065]]
was required to submit a periodic application to the SEA in order to
establish its eligibility for assistance under this part. Under the new
statutory changes, LEAs are no longer required to submit such
applications. Rather, the policies and procedures currently approved
by, and on file with, the SEA that are not inconsistent with the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 will remain in effect unless amended.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 2 hours for each response for
15,376 respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Thus, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated to be 30,752 hours. The Secretary invites
comment on the estimated time it wills take for LEAs to meet this
reporting and recordkeeping requirement.
Collection of Information: Assistance for Education of All Children
with Disabilities: List of Hearing Officers and Mediators,
Secs. 300.506 and 300.508. Each State must maintain a list of
individuals who are qualified mediators and knowledgeable in laws and
regulations relating to the provision of special education and related
services. Each public agency must, also, keep a list of the persons who
serve as hearing officers.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 25 hours for each response for 58
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is
estimated to be 3050 hours.
Collection of Information: Assistance for Education of All Children
with Disabilities: Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities
Receiving Special Education, Secs. 300.750-300.751, and 300.754. Each
SEA must submit an annual report of children served.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 262 hours for each response for 58
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is
estimated to be 15,196 hours.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in--
* Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
* Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
* Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
Anyone may also view this document, as well as all other Department
of Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://gcs.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and procedure, Education of individuals
with disabilities, Elementary and secondary education, Equal
educational opportunity, Grant programs--education, Privacy, Private
schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 301
Education of individuals with disabilities, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Infants and children,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 303
Education of individuals with disabilities, Grant programs--
education, Infants and children, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.027 Assistance
for the Education of All Children with Disabilities, 84.173
Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, and 84.181 Early
Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities)
[[Page 55066]]
Dated: October 6, 1997.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising parts 300, 301, and 303 as follows:
1. Part 300 is revised to read as follows:
PART 300--ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
Subpart A--General
Purposes, Applicability, and Regulations That Apply to This Program
Sec.
300.1 Purposes.
300.2 Applicability to State, local, and private agencies.
300.3 Regulations that apply.
300.4 Act.
300.5 Assistive technology device.
300.6 Assistive technology service.
300.7 Child with a disability.
300.8 Day.
300.9 Educational service agency.
300.10 Equipment.
300.11 Free appropriate public education.
300.12 General curriculum.
300.13 Include.
300.14 Individualized education program.
300.15 Individualized education program team.
300.16 Individualized family service plan.
300.17 Local educational agency.
300.18 Native language.
300.19 Parent.
300.20 Public agency.
300.21 Qualified.
300.22 Related services.
300.23 Secondary school.
300.24 Special education.
300.25 State.
300.26 Supplementary aids and services.
300.27 Transition services.
300.28 Definitions in EDGAR.
Subpart B--State and Local Eligibility--General
State Eligibility--General
300.110 Condition of assistance.
300.111 Exception for prior State policies and procedures on file
with the Secretary.
300.112 Amendments to State policies and procedures.
300.113 Approval by the Secretary.
State Eligibility--Specific Conditions
300.121 Free appropriate public education (FAPE).
300.122 Exception to FAPE for certain ages.
300.123 Full educational opportunity goal (FEOG).
300.124 FEOG--timetable.
300.125 Child find.
300.126 Procedures for evaluation and determination of eligibility.
300.127 Confidentiality of personally identifiable information.
300.128 Individualized education programs.
300.129 Procedural safeguards.
300.130 Least restrictive environment.
300.131 [Reserved]
300.132 Transition of children from Part C to preschool programs.
300.133 Children in private schools.
300.134 [Reserved]
300.135 Comprehensive system of personnel development.
300.136 Personnel standards.
300.137 Performance goals and indicators.
300.138 Participation in assessments.
300.139 Reports relating to assessments.
300.140 [Reserved]
300.141 SEA responsibility for general supervision.
300.142 Methods of ensuring services.
300.143 SEA implementation of procedural safeguards.
300.144 Hearings relating to LEA eligibility.
300.145 Recovery of funds for misclassified children.
300.146 Suspension and expulsion rates.
300.147 Additional information if SEA provides direct services.
300.148 Public participation.
300.149 [Reserved]
300.150 State advisory panel.
300.151 [Reserved]
300.152 Prohibition against commingling.
300.153 State-level nonsupplanting.
300.154 Maintenance of State financial support.
300.155 Policies and procedures for use of Part B funds.
300.156 Annual description of use of Part B funds.
LEA and State Agency Eligibility--General
300.180 Condition of assistance.
300.181 Exception for prior LEA or State agency policies and
procedures on file with the SEA.
300.182 Amendments to LEA policies and procedures.
300.183 [Reserved]
300.184 Excess cost requirement.
300.185 Meeting the excess cost requirement.
300.186-300.189 [Reserved]
300.190 Joint establishment of eligibility.
300.191 [Reserved]
300.192 Requirements for establishing eligibility.
300.193 [Reserved]
300.194 State agency eligibility.
300.195 [Reserved]
300.196 Notification of LEA or State agency in case of
ineligibility.
300.197 LEA and State agency compliance.
LEA Eligibility--Specific Conditions
300.220 Consistency with State policies.
300.221 LEA and State agency implementation of CSPD.
300.222-300.229 [Reserved]
300.230 Use of amounts.
300.231 Maintenance of effort.
300.232 Exception to maintenance of effort.
300.233 Treatment of federal funds in certain fiscal years.
300.234 Schoolwide programs under title I of the ESEA.
300.235 Permissive use of funds.
300.236-300.239 [Reserved]
300.240 Information for SEA.
300.241 Treatment of charter schools and their students.
300.242 Public information.
300.243 [Reserved]
300.244 Coordinated services system.
300.245 School-based improvement plan.
300.246 Plan requirements.
300.247 Responsibilities of the LEA.
300.248 Limitation.
300.249 Additional requirements.
300.250 Extension of plan.
Secretary of the Interior--Eligibility
300.260 Submission of information.
300.261 Public Participation.
300.262 Use of Part B funds.
300.263 Plan for coordination of services.
300.264 Definitions.
300.265 Establishment of advisory board.
300.266 Annual reports.
300.267 Applicable regulations.
Public Participation
300.280 Public hearings before adopting State policies and
procedures.
300.281 Notice.
300.282 Opportunity to participate; comment period.
300.283 Review of public comments before adopting policies and
procedures.
300.284 Publication and availability of approved policies and
procedures.
Subpart C--Services
Free Appropriate Public Education
300.300 Provision of FAPE.
300.301 FAPE--methods and payments.
300.302 Residential placement.
300.303 Proper functioning of hearing aids.
300.304 Full educational opportunity goal.
300.305 Program options.
300.306 Nonacademic services.
300.307 Physical education.
300.308 Assistive technology.
300.309 Extended school year services.
300.310 [Reserved]
300.311 FAPE requirements for students with disabilities in adult
prisons.
Evaluations and Reevaluations 300.320 Initial evaluations.
300.321 Reevaluations.
300.322-300.324 [Reserved]
Individualized Education Programs
300.340 Definitions.
300.341 SEA responsibility.
300.342 When IEPs must be in effect.
300.343 IEP Meetings.
300.344 IEP team.
300.345 Parent participation.
300.346 Development, review, and revision of IEP.
300.347 Content of IEP.
300.348 Agency responsibilities for transition services.
300.349 Private school placements by public agencies.
300.350 Children with disabilities in religiously-affiliated or
other private schools.
300.351 Individualized education program--accountability.
Direct Services by SEA
300.360 Use of LEA allocation for direct services.
[[Page 55067]]
300.361 Nature and location of services.
300.362-300.369 [Reserved]
300.370 Use of State agency allocations.
300.371 [Reserved]
300.372 Applicability of nonsupplanting requirement.
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development
300.380 General.
300.381 Adequate supply of qualified personnel.
300.382 Improvement strategies.
300.383-300.387 [Reserved]
Subpart D--Children in Private Schools
Children with Disabilities in Private Schools Placed or Referred by
Public Agencies
300.400 Applicability of Secs. 300.400--300.402.
300.401 Responsibility of State educational agency.
300.402 Implementation by State educational agency.
300.403 Placement of children by parents if FAPE is at issue.
Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools
300.450 Definition of ``private school children with
disabilities.''
300.451 Child find for private school children with disabilities.
300.452 Basic requirement--services.
300.453 Expenditures.
300.454 Services determined.
300.455 Services provided.
300.456 Location of services.
300.457 Complaints.
300.458 Separate classes prohibited.
300.459 Requirement that funds not benefit a private school.
300.460 Use of public school personnel.
300.461 Use of private school personnel.
300.462 Requirements concerning property, equipment and supplies
for the benefit of private school children with disabilities.
Procedures for By-Pass
300.480 By-pass--general.
300.481 Provisions for services under a by-pass.
300.482 Notice of intent to implement a by-pass.
300.483 Request to show cause.
300.484 Show cause hearing.
300.485 Decision.
300.486 Filing requirements.
300.487 Judicial review.
Subpart E--Procedural Safeguards
Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children
300.500 General responsibility of public agencies; definitions.
300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in
meetings.
300.502 Independent educational evaluation.
300.503 Prior notice by the public agency; content of notice.
300.504 Procedural safeguards notice.
300.505 Parental consent.
300.506 Mediation.
300.507 Impartial due process hearing; parent notice; disclosure.
300.508 Impartial hearing officer.
300.509 Hearing rights.
300.510 Finality of decision; appeal; impartial review.
300.511 Timelines and convenience of hearings and reviews.
300.512 Civil action.
300.513 Attorneys' fees.
300.514 Child's status during proceedings.
300.515 Surrogate parents.
300.516 [Reserved]
300.517 Transfer of parental rights at age of majority.
Discipline Procedures
300.520 Authority of school personnel.
300.521 Authority of hearing officer.
300.522 Determination of setting.
300.523 Manifestation determination review.
300.524 Determination that behavior was not manifestation of
disability.
300.525 Parent appeal.
300.526 Placement during appeals.
300.527 Protections for children not yet eligible for special
education and related services.
300.528 Expedited due process hearings.
300.529 Referral to and action by law enforcement and judicial
authorities.
Procedures for Evaluation and Determination of Eligibility
300.530 General.
300.531 Initial evaluation.
300.532 Evaluation procedures.
300.533 Determination of needed evaluation data.
300.534 Determination of eligibility.
300.535 Procedures for determining eligibility and placement.
300.536 Reevaluation.
Additional Procedures for Evaluating Children With Specific Learning
Disabilities
300.540 Additional team members.
300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific
learning disability.
300.542 Observation.
300.543 Written report.
Least Restrictive Environment
300.550 General.
300.551 Continuum of alternative placements.
300.552 Placements.
300.553 Nonacademic settings.
300.554 Children in public or private institutions.
300.555 Technical assistance and training activities.
300.556 Monitoring activities.
Confidentiality of Information
300.560 Definitions.
300.561 Notice to parents.
300.562 Access rights.
300.563 Record of access.
300.564 Records on more than one child.
300.565 List of types and locations of information.
300.566 Fees.
300.567 Amendment of records at parent's request.
300.568 Opportunity for a hearing.
300.569 Result of hearing.
300.570 Hearing procedures.
300.571 Consent.
300.572 Safeguards.
300.573 Destruction of information.
300.574 Children's rights.
300.575 Enforcement.
300.576 Disciplinary information.
300.577 Department use of personally identifiable information.
Department Procedures
300.580 Determination by the Secretary that a State is eligible.
300.581 Notice and hearing before determining that a State is not
eligible.
300.582 Hearing official or panel.
300.583 Hearing procedures.
300.584 Initial decision; final decision.
300.585 Filing requirements.
300.586 Judicial review.
300.587 Enforcement.
300.588 [Reserved]
300.589 Waiver of requirement regarding supplementing and not
supplanting with Part B funds.
Subpart F--State Administration; General
300.600 Responsibility for all educational programs.
300.601 Relation of Part B to other Federal programs.
300.602 State-level activities.
Use of Funds
300.620 Use of funds for State administration.
300.621 Allowable costs.
300.622 Subgrants to LEAs for capacity-building and improvement.
300.623 Amount required for subgrants to LEAs.
300.624 State discretion in awarding subgrants.
State Advisory Panel
300.650 Establishment of advisory panels.
300.651 Membership.
300.652 Advisory panel functions.
300.653 Advisory panel procedures.
State Complaint Procedures
300.660 Adoption of State complaint procedures.
300.661 Minimum State complaint procedures.
300.662 Filing a complaint.
Subpart G--Allocation of Funds; Reports
Allocations
300.700 Special definition of the term ``State.''
300.701 Grants to States.
300.702 Definitions.
300.703 Allocations to States.
300.704-300.705 [Reserved]
300.706 Permanent formula.
300.707 Increase in funds.
300.708 Limitation.
300.709 Decrease in funds.
300.710 Allocation for State in which by-pass is implemented for
private school children with disabilities.
300.711 Subgrants to LEAs.
300.712 Allocations to LEAs.
300.713 Former Chapter 1 State agencies.
[[Page 55068]]
300.714 Reallocation of LEA funds.
300.715 Payments to the Secretary of the Interior for the education
of Indian children.
300.716 Payments for education and services for Indian children
with disabilities aged 3 through 5.
300.717 Outlying areas and freely associated States.
300.718 Outlying area--definition.
300.719 Limitation for freely associated States.
300.720 Special rule.
300.721 [Reserved]
300.722 Definition.
Reports
300.750 Annual report of children served--report requirement.
300.751 Annual report of children served--information required in
report.
300.752 Annual report of children served--certification.
300.753 Annual report of children served--criteria for counting
children.
300.754 Annual report of children served--other responsibilities of
the State education agency.
300.755 Disproportionality.
300.756 Acquisition of equipment; construction or alteration of
facilities.
Appendix A to Part 300--[Reserved]
Appendix B to Part 300--[Reserved]
Appendix C to Part 300--Notice of Interpretation
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411-1420, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
Purposes, Applicability, and Regulations That Apply to This Program
Sec. 300.1 Purposes.
The purposes of this part are--
(a) To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to
them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special
education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and
prepare them for employment and independent living;
(b) To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and
their parents are protected;
(c) To assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and
Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with
disabilities; and
(d) To assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate
children with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1400 note)
Note: With respect to paragraph (a) of this section (related to
preparing children with disabilities for employment and independent
living, section 701 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 describes the
philosophy of independent living as including a philosophy of
consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal
access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the
leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of
individuals with disabilities, and the integration and full
inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of
American society.
Sec. 300.2 Applicability to State, local, and private agencies.
(a) States. This part applies to each State that receives payments
under Part B of the Act.
(b) Public agencies within the State. The provisions of this part
apply to all political subdivisions of the State that are involved in
the education of children with disabilities. These political
subdivisions include--
(1) The State educational agency;
(2) LEAs and educational service agencies;
(3) Other State agencies and schools (such as Departments of Mental
Health and Welfare and State schools for students with deafness or
students with blindness); and
(4) State and local juvenile and adult correctional facilities.
(c) Private schools and facilities. Each public agency in the State
is responsible for ensuring that the rights and protections under Part
B of the Act are given to children with disabilities
(1) Referred to or placed in private schools and facilities by that
public agency, or
(2) Placed in private schools by their parents under the provisions
of Sec. 300.403(c).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412)
Note: The requirements of this part are binding on each public
agency that has direct or delegated authority to provide special
education and related services in a State that receives funds under
Part B of the Act, regardless of whether that agency is receiving
funds under Part B.
Sec. 300.3 Regulations that apply.
The following regulations apply to this program:
(a) 34 CFR part 76 (State-Administered Programs) except for
Secs. 76.125-76.137 and 76.650-76.662.
(b) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions).
(c) 34 CFR part 79 (Intergovernmental Review of Department of
Education Programs and Activities).
(d) 34 CFR part 80 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments).
(e) 34 CFR part 81 (General Education Provisions Act--Enforcement).
(f) 34 CFR part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying).
(g) 34 CFR part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants)).
(h) The regulations in this part--34 CFR part 300 (Assistance for
Education of Children with Disabilities).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Definitions
Note 1: Definitions of terms that are used throughout these
regulations are included in this Subpart. Other terms are defined in
the specific subparts in which they are used. A list of those terms
and the specific sections in which they are defined:
Appropriate professional requirements in the State
(Sec. 300.136(a)(1))
Average per-pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary
schools in the United States (Sec. 300.702)
Base year (Sec. 300.706(b)(1))
Comparable quality (Sec. 300.455(c))
Consent (Sec. 300.500(b)(1))
Controlled Substance (Sec. 300.520(d)(1))
Destruction (Sec. 300.560)
Direct services (Sec. 300.370(b)(1))
Education records (Sec. 300.560)
Evaluation (Sec. 300.500(b)(2))
Excess costs (Sec. 300.184(b))
Extended school year services (Sec. 300.309(b))
Financial costs (Sec. 300.142(e)(2))
Freely associated States (Sec. 300.722)
Highest requirements in the State applicable to a specific
profession or discipline (Sec. 300.136(a)(2))
Illegal drug (Sec. 300.520(d)(2))
Independent educational evaluation (Sec. 300.503(a)(3)(i))
Indian (Sec. 300.264(a))
Indian tribe (Sec. 300.264(b))
Outlying area (Sec. 300.718)
Participating agency, as used in the IEP requirements in
Secs. 300.347 and 300.348 (Sec. 300.340(b))
Participating agency, as used in the confidentiality requirements in
Secs. 300.560-300.576(Sec. 300.340(b))
Party or parties (Sec. 300.583(a))
Personally identifiable (Sec. 300.500(b)(3))
Private school children with disabilities (Sec. 300.450)
Profession or discipline (Sec. 300.136(a)(3))
Public expense (Sec. 300.502(a)(3)(ii))
Revoke consent at any time (Sec. 300.500 note)
State, special definition (Sec. 300.700)
State-approved or recognized certification, licensing, registration,
or other comparable requirements (Sec. 300.136(a)(4))
Substantial evidence (Sec. 300.521(e))
Support services (Sec. 300.370(b)(2))
Weapon (Sec. 300.520(d)(3))
Note 2: The following abbreviations for selected terms are used
throughout these regulations: ``CSPD'' means ``comprehensive system
of personnel development.''
``ESA'' means ``education service agency.''
``FAPE'' means ``free appropriate public education.''
``IDEA'' means ``Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.''
``IEP'' means ``individualized education program.''
``IFSP'' means ``individualized family service plan.''
``LEA'' means ``Local educational agency.''
[[Page 55069]]
``LRE'' means ``least restrictive environment.''
``SEA'' means ``State educational agency.''
Each abbreviation is used interchangeably with its
nonabbreviated term.
Sec. 300.4 Act.
As used in this part, Act means the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, as amended (IDEA).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1400(a))
Sec. 300.5 Assistive technology device.
As used in this part, Assistive technology device means any item,
piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially
off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase,
maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a
disability.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(1))
Sec. 300.6 Assistive technology service.
As used in this part, Assistive technology service means any
service that directly assists a child with a disability in the
selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. The
term includes--
(a) The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability,
including a functional evaluation of the child in the child's customary
environment;
(b) Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition
of assistive technology devices by children with disabilities;
(c) Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying,
maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices;
(d) Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or
services with assistive technology devices, such as those associated
with existing education and rehabilitation plans and programs;
(e) Training or technical assistance for a child with a disability
or, if appropriate, that child's family; and
(f) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including
individuals providing education or rehabilitation services), employers,
or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise
substantially involved in the major life functions of that child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(2))
Note: The Act's definitions of ``Assistive technology device''
and ``Assistive technology service'' are substantially identical to
the definitions of these terms used in the Technology-Related
Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988.
Sec. 300.7 Child with a disability.
(a) (1) As used in this part, the term child with a disability
means a child evaluated in accordance with Secs. 300.530-300.536 as
having mental retardation, a hearing impairment including deafness, a
speech or language impairment, a visual impairment including blindness,
serious emotional disturbance (hereafter referred to as emotional
disturbance), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury,
an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-
blindness, or a multiple disability, and who because of that impairment
needs special education and related services.
(2) The term child with a disability for children aged 3 through 9
may include a child--
(i) Who is experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the
State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and
procedures, in one or more of the following areas: physical
development, cognitive development, communication development, social
or emotional development, or adaptive development;
(ii) Who, for that reason, needs special education and related
services; and
(iii) If the State adopts the term for children of this age range
(or a subset of that range) and the LEA chooses to use the term.
(b) The terms used in this definition are defined as follows:
(1) Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting
verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally
evident before age 3, that adversely affects a child's educational
performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are
engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements,
resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and
unusual responses to sensory experiences. The term does not apply if a
child's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because
the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (b)(4)
of this section.
(2) Deaf-blindness means concomitant hearing and visual
impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication
and other developmental and educational problems that they cannot be
accommodated in special education programs solely for children with
deafness or children with blindness.
(3) Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the
child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing,
with or without amplification, that adversely affects a child's
educational performance.
(4) Emotional disturbance is defined as follows:
(i) The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the
following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked
degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual,
sensory, or health factors.
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers.
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances.
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated
with personal or school problems.
(ii) The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to
children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that
they have an emotional disturbance.
(5) Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether
permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child's educational
performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness
in this section.
(6) Mental retardation means significantly subaverage general
intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in
adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that
adversely affects a child's educational performance.
(7) Multiple disability means concomitant impairments (such as
mental retardation-blindness, mental retardation-orthopedic impairment,
etc.), the combination of which causes such severe educational problems
that the problems cannot be accommodated in special education programs
solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-
blindness.
(8) Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that
adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes
impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g., clubfoot, absence of
some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis,
bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (e.g.,
cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause
contractures).
(9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality
or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problems such as a heart
condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle
cell anemia, hemophilia,
[[Page 55070]]
epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes, that adversely affects
a child's educational performance.
(10) Specific learning disability is defined as follows:
(i) General. The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to
listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical
calculations, including such conditions as perceptual disabilities,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia.
(ii) Disorders not included. The term does not include learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
(11) Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder,
such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a
voice impairment, that adversely affects a child's educational
performance.
(12) Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain
caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial
functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that
adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term applies
to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more
areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning;
abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and
motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information
processing; and speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that
are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth
trauma.
(13) Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in
vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's
educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and
blindness.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(3) (A) and (B); 1401(26))
Note 1: If a child manifests characteristics of the disability
category ``autism'' after age 3, that child still could be diagnosed
as having ``autism'' if the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section are satisfied.
Note 2: As used in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the phrase
``at the discretion of the State and LEA'' means that if the State
adopts the term ``developmental delay'' for children aged 3 through
9, or for a subset of that age range (e.g., children aged 3 through
5, etc.), LEAs that choose to use ``developmental delay,'' rather
than identify these children as being in a particular disability
category, must conform to the State's definition of the term.
However, a State may not require an LEA to use ``developmental
delay'' for this age range. LEAs in a State that does not adopt the
term ``developmental delay'' for children in this age range, or for
a sub-set of this age range, cannot independently use
``developmental delay'' as a basis for establishing a child's
eligibility.
Note 3: With respect to paragraph (a)(2) of this section
(relating to ``developmental delay''), the House Committee Report on
Pub. L. 105-17 includes the following statement:
The Committee believes that, in the early years of a child's
development, it is often difficult to determine the precise nature
of the disability. Use of ``developmental delay'' as part of a
unified approach will allow the special education and related
services to be directly related to the child's needs and prevent
locking the child into an eligibility category which may be
inappropriate or incorrect, and could actually reduce later
referrals of children with disabilities to special education. (H.
Rep. No. 105-95, p. 86 (1997))
Note 4: With respect to paragraph (b)(4) of this section
(relating to using the term ``emotional disturbance'' instead of
``serious emotional disturbance''), the House Committee Report on
Pub. L. 105-17 includes the following statement:
The committee wants to make clear that changing the terminology
from ``serious emotional disturbance'' to ``serious emotional
disturbance (hereinafter referred to as `emotional disturbance')''
in the definition of a ``child with a disability'' is intended to
have no substantive or legal significance. It is intended strictly
to eliminate the pejorative connotation of the term ``serious.'' It
should in no circumstances be construed to change the existing
meaning of the term under 34 CFR 300.7(b)(9) as promulgated
September 29, 1992 (H. Rep. No. 105-95, p. 86 (1997))
Note 5: A child with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be eligible
under Part B of the Act if the child's condition meets one of the
disability categories described in Sec. 300.7, and because of that
disability the child needs special education and related services.
Some children with ADD or ADHD who are eligible under Part B of the
Act meet the criteria for ``other health impairments'' (see
paragraph (b)(9) of this section). Those children would be
classified as eligible for services under the ``other health
impairments'' category if (1) the ADD or ADHD is determined to be a
chronic health problem that results in limited alertness, that
adversely affects educational performance, and (2) special education
and related services are needed because of the ADD or ADHD. The term
``limited alertness'' includes a child's heightened alertness to
environmental stimuli that results in limited alertness with respect
to the educational environment.
Other children with ADD or ADHD may be eligible under Part B of
the Act because they satisfy the criteria applicable to other
disability categories in Sec. 300.7(b). For example, children with
ADD or ADHD would be eligible for services under the ``specific
learning disability category'' if they meet the criteria in
paragraph (b)(10) of this section, or under the ``emotional
disturbance'' category if they meet the criteria in paragraph
(b)(4). Even if a child with ADD or ADHD is found to be not eligible
for services under Part B of the Act, the requirements of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing
regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 may still be applicable.
Sec. 300.8 Day.
As used in this part, the term day means calendar day unless
otherwise indicated as school day or business day.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Sec. 300.9 Educational service agency.
As used in this part, the term educational service agency--
(a) Means a regional public multiservice agency--
(1) Authorized by State law to develop, manage, and provide
services or programs to LEAs; and
(2) Recognized as an administrative agency for purposes of the
provision of special education and related services provided within
public elementary and secondary schools of the State; and
(b) Includes any other public institution or agency having
administrative control and direction over a public elementary or
secondary school.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(4))
Sec. 300.10 Equipment.
As used in this part, the term equipment means--
(a) Machinery, utilities, and built-in equipment and any necessary
enclosures or structures to house the machinery, utilities, or
equipment; and
(b) All other items necessary for the functioning of a particular
facility as a facility for the provision of educational services,
including items such as instructional equipment and necessary
furniture; printed, published and audio-visual instructional materials;
telecommunications, sensory, and other technological aids and devices;
and books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(6))
Sec. 300.11 Free appropriate public education.
As used in this part, the term free appropriate public education
means special education and related services that--
[[Page 55071]]
(a) Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without charge;
(b) Meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of
this part;
(c) Include preschool, elementary school, or secondary school
education in the State; and
(d) Are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the
requirements of Secs. 300.340-300.351.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(8))
Sec. 300.12 General curriculum.
As used in this part, the term general curriculum means the
curriculum adopted by an LEA, schools within the LEA, or where
applicable, the SEA for all children from preschool through secondary
school.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401)
Note: The term ``general curriculum'', as defined in this
section, relates to the content of the curriculum and not to the
setting in which it is used. Thus, to the extent applicable to an
individual child with a disability and consistent with the LRE
provisions under Secs. 300.500--300.553, the general curriculum
could be used in any educational environment along a continuum of
alternative placements described under Sec. 300.551.
Sec. 300.13 Include.
As used in this part, the term include means that the items named
are not all of the possible items that are covered, whether like or
unlike the ones named.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Sec. 300.14 Individualized education program.
As used in this part, the term individualized education program or
IEP has the meaning given the term in Sec. 300.340.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(11))
Sec. 300.15 Individualized education program team.
As used in this part, the term individualized education program
team or IEP team means a group of individuals described in Sec. 300.344
that is responsible for developing, reviewing, or revising an IEP for a
child with a disability.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Note: The IEP team may also serve as the placement team.
Sec. 300.16 Individualized family service plan.
As used in this part, the term individualized family service plan
or IFSP has the meaning given the term in 34 CFR 303.340(b).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(12))
Sec. 300.17 Local educational agency.
(a) As used in this part, the term local educational agency means a
public board of education or other public authority legally constituted
within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to
perform a service function for, public elementary or secondary schools
in a city, county, township school district, or other political
subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or
counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for
its public elementary or secondary schools.
(b) The term includes--
(1) An educational service agency, as defined in Sec. 300.9; and
(2) Any other public institution or agency having administrative
control and direction of a public elementary or secondary school.
(c) The term includes an elementary or secondary school funded by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the extent that the inclusion
makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility
is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the
school does not have a student population that is smaller than the
student population of the LEA receiving assistance under this Act with
the smallest student population, except that the school may not be
subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA other than the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(15))
Note: A public charter school that meets the definition of
``LEA'' is eligible to receive Part B funds as an LEA. If a public
charter school receives Part B funds it must comply with the
requirements of this part that apply to LEAs.
Sec. 300.18 Native language.
As used in this part, the term native language, if used with
reference to an individual of limited English proficiency, means the
language normally used by that individual, or, in the case of a child,
the language normally used by the parents of the child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(16))
Note: The term ``native language'' is used in the prior notice,
procedural safeguards notice, and evaluation sections:
Sec. 300.503(c), Sec. 300.504(c) and Sec. 300.532(a)(2). In using
the term, the Act does not prevent the following means of
communication:
(1) In all direct contact with a child (including evaluation of
the child), communication would be in the language normally used by
the child and not that of the parents, if there is a difference
between the two.
(2) For individuals with deafness or blindness, or for
individuals with no written language, the mode of communication
would be that normally used by the individual (such as sign
language, braille, or oral communication).
Sec. 300.19 Parent.
(a) As used in this part, the term parent means a parent, a
guardian, a person acting as a parent of a child, or a surrogate parent
who has been appointed in accordance with Sec. 300.515. The term does
not include the State if the child is a ward of the State.
(b) State law may provide that a foster parent qualifies as a
parent under Part B of the Act if--
(1) The natural parents' authority to make educational decisions on
the child's behalf has been extinguished under State law;
(2) The foster parent has an ongoing, long-term parental
relationship with the child;
(3) The foster parent is willing to participate in making
educational decisions in the child's behalf; and
(4) The foster parent has no interest that would conflict with the
interests of the child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(19))
Note: The term ``parent'' is defined to include persons acting
in the place of a parent, such as a grandparent or stepparent with
whom a child lives, as well as persons who are legally responsible
for a child's welfare, and at the discretion of the State, a foster
parent who meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
Sec. 300.20 Public agency.
As used in this part, the term public agency includes the SEA,
LEAs, ESAs, and any other political subdivisions of the State that are
responsible for providing education to children with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(1)(A), (a)(11))
Sec. 300.21 Qualified.
As used in this part, the term qualified means that a person has
met SEA-approved or -recognized certification, licensing, registration,
or other comparable requirements that apply to the area in which he or
she is providing special education or related services.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Sec. 300.22 Related services.
(a) As used in this part, the term related services means
transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive
services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit
from special education, and includes speech-language pathology and
audiology services, psychological services, physical and occupational
therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early
[[Page 55072]]
identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling
services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility
services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes.
The term also includes school health services, social work services in
schools, and parent counseling and training.
(b) The terms used in this definition are defined as follows:
(1) Audiology includes--
(i) Identification of children with hearing loss;
(ii) Determination of the range, nature, and degree of hearing
loss, including referral for medical or other professional attention
for the habilitation of hearing;
(iii) Provision of habilitative activities, such as language
habilitation, auditory training, speech reading (lip-reading), hearing
evaluation, and speech conservation;
(iv) Creation and administration of programs for prevention of
hearing loss;
(v) Counseling and guidance of pupils, parents, and teachers
regarding hearing loss; and
(vi) Determination of the child's need for group and individual
amplification, selecting and fitting an appropriate aid, and evaluating
the effectiveness of amplification.
(2) Counseling services means services provided by qualified social
workers, psychologists, guidance counselors, or other qualified
personnel.
(3) Early identification and assessment of disabilities in children
means the implementation of a formal plan for identifying a disability
as early as possible in a child's life.
(4) Medical services means services provided by a licensed
physician to determine a child's medically related disability that
results in the child's need for special education and related services.
(5) Occupational therapy includes --
(i) Improving, developing or restoring functions impaired or lost
through illness, injury, or deprivation;
(ii) Improving ability to perform tasks for independent functioning
if functions are impaired or lost; and
(iii) Preventing, through early intervention, initial or further
impairment or loss of function.
(6) Orientation and mobility services means services provided to
blind or visually impaired students by qualified personnel to enable
those students to attain systematic orientation to and safe movement
within their environments in school, home, and community, including --
(i) Teaching students spatial and environmental concepts and use of
information received by the senses (such as sound, temperature and
vibrations) to establish, maintain, or regain orientation and line of
travel (for example, using sound at a traffic light to cross the
street);
(ii) Teaching students to use the long cane, as appropriate, to
supplement visual travel skills or as a tool for safely negotiating the
environment for students with no available travel vision;
(iii) Teaching students to understand and use remaining vision and
distance low vision aids, as appropriate; and
(iv) Other concepts, techniques, and tools, as determined
appropriate.
(7) Parent counseling and training means assisting parents in
understanding the special needs of their child and providing parents
with information about child development.
(8) Physical therapy means services provided by a qualified
physical therapist.
(9) Psychological services includes --
(i) Administering psychological and educational tests, and other
assessment procedures;
(ii) Interpreting assessment results;
(iii) Obtaining, integrating, and interpreting information about
child behavior and conditions relating to learning;
(iv) Consulting with other staff members in planning school
programs to meet the special needs of children as indicated by
psychological tests, interviews, and behavioral evaluations;
(v) Planning and managing a program of psychological services,
including psychological counseling for children and parents; and
(vi) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention
strategies.
(10) Recreation includes --
(i) Assessment of leisure function;
(ii) Therapeutic recreation services;
(iii) Recreation programs in schools and community agencies; and
(iv) Leisure education.
(11) Rehabilitation counseling services means services provided by
qualified personnel in individual or group sessions that focus
specifically on career development, employment preparation, achieving
independence, and integration in the workplace and community of a
student with a disability. The term also includes vocational
rehabilitation services provided to a student with disabilities by
vocational rehabilitation programs funded under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended.
(12) School health services means services provided by a qualified
school nurse or other qualified person.
(13) Social work services in schools includes --
(i) Preparing a social or developmental history on a child with a
disability;
(ii) Group and individual counseling with the child and family;
(iii) Working with those problems in a child's living situation
(home, school, and community) that affect the child's adjustment in
school;
(iv) Mobilizing school and community resources to enable the child
to learn as effectively as possible in his or her educational program;
and
(v) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention
strategies.
(14) Speech-language pathology services includes--
(i) Identification of children with speech or language impairments;
(ii) Diagnosis and appraisal of specific speech or language
impairments;
(iii) Referral for medical or other professional attention
necessary for the habilitation of speech or language impairments;
(iv) Provision of speech and language services for the habilitation
or prevention of communicative impairments; and
(v) Counseling and guidance of parents, children, and teachers
regarding speech and language impairments.
(15) Transportation includes--
(i) Travel to and from school and between schools;
(ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and
(iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses,
lifts, and ramps), if required to provide special transportation for a
child with a disability.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(22))
Note 1: All related services may not be required for each
individual child. The list of related services is not exhaustive and
may include other developmental, corrective, or supportive services
(such as artistic and cultural programs, art, music, and dance
therapy, travel training, nutrition services, and independent living
services), if they are required to assist a child with a disability
to benefit from special education in order for the child to receive
FAPE.
There are certain kinds of services that might be provided by
persons from varying professional backgrounds and with a variety of
operational titles, depending upon requirements in individual
States. For example, counseling services might be provided by social
workers, psychologists, or guidance counselors, and psychological
testing might be done by qualified psychological examiners,
psychometrists, or psychologists, depending upon State standards.
Each related service defined under Part B of the Act may include
appropriate administrative and supervisory activities that are
necessary for program planning, management, and evaluation.
[[Page 55073]]
Note 2: While ``orientation and mobility services'' was added to
the list of examples of related services in recognition of its
critical importance to children who are blind or have visual
impairments, children with other disabilities may also need to be
taught the skills they need to navigate their environments (e.g.
``travel training''). The House Committee Report on Public Law 105-
17 states:
* * *it is important to keep in mind that children with other
disabilities may also need instruction in traveling around their
school, or to and from school. A high school aged child with a
mental disability, for example, might need to be taught how to get
from class to class so that he can participate in his inclusive
program. The addition of orientation and mobility services to the
list of identified related services is not intended to result in the
denial of appropriate services for children with disabilities who do
not have visual impairments or blindness. (H. Rep. No. 105-95, p.86
(1997))
In addition, travel training is important to enable students to
attain systematic orientation to and safe movement within their
environment in school, home, at work, and in the community.
Note 3: With respect to paragraph (b) of this section, nothing
in this part prohibits the use of paraprofessionals to assist in the
provision of services described under this section, if doing so is
consistent with Sec. 300.136(f).
Note 4: It should be assumed that most children with
disabilities receive the same transportation services as nondisabled
children. For some children with disabilities, integrated
transportation may be achieved by providing needed accommodations
such as lifts and other equipment adaptations on regular school
transportation vehicles.
Sec. 300.23 Secondary school.
As used in this part, the term secondary school means a nonprofit
institutional day or residential school that provides secondary
education, as determined under State law, except that it does not
include any education beyond grade 12.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(23))
Sec. 300.24 Special education.
(a) (1) As used in this part, the term special education means
specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the
unique needs of a child with a disability, including--
(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in
hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and
(ii) Instruction in physical education.
(2) The term includes speech-language pathology services, or any
other related service, if the service consists of specially-designed
instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a
child with a disability, and is considered special education rather
than a related service under State standards.
(3) The term also includes vocational education if it consists of
specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the
unique needs of a child with a disability.
(b) The terms in this definition are defined as follows:
(1) At no cost means that all specially-designed instruction is
provided without charge, but does not preclude incidental fees that are
normally charged to nondisabled students or their parents as a part of
the regular education program.
(2) Physical education is defined as follows:
(i) The term means the development of--
(A) Physical and motor fitness;
(B) Fundamental motor skills and patterns; and
(C) Skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and
sports (including intramural and lifetime sports).
(ii) The term includes special physical education, adaptive
physical education, movement education, and motor development.
(3) Specially-designed instruction means adapting content,
methodology or delivery of instruction--
(i) To address the unique needs of an eligible child under this
part that result from the child's disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so
that he or she can meet the educational standards within the
jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
(4) Vocational education means organized educational programs that
are directly related to the preparation of individuals for paid or
unpaid employment, or for additional preparation for a career requiring
other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(25))
Note: The definition of special education is a particularly
important one under these regulations, since a child does not have a
disability under Part B of the Act unless he or she needs special
education. (See the definition of child with a disability in
Sec. 300.7). The definition of related services (Sec. 300.22) also
depends on this definition, since to be a related service, a service
must be necessary for a child to benefit from special education.
Therefore, if a child does not need special education, there can be
no related services, and the child is not a child with a disability
and is therefore not covered under the Act. A related services
provider may be a provider of specially-designed instruction if
under State law the person is qualified to provide such instruction.
Sec. 300.25 State.
As used in this part, the term State means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of
the outlying areas.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(27))
Sec. 300.26 Supplementary aids and services.
As used in this part, the term supplementary aids and services
means, aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular
education classes or other education-related settings to enable
children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to
the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with Secs. 300.550-
300.556.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(29))
Sec. 300.27 Transition services.
As used in this part, transition services means a coordinated set
of activities for a student with a disability that--
(a) Is designed within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes
movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary
education, vocational training, integrated employment (including
supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services,
independent living, or community participation;
(b) Is based on the individual student's needs, taking into account
the student's preferences and interests; and
(c) Includes--
(1) Instruction;
(2) Related services;
(3) Community experiences;
(4) The development of employment and other post-school adult
living objectives; and
(5) If appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and
functional vocational evaluation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(30))
Note: Transition services for students with disabilities may be
special education, if they are provided as specially designed
instruction, or related services, if they are required to assist a
student with a disability to benefit from special education. The
list of activities in paragraph (c) of this section is not intended
to be exhaustive.
Sec. 300.28 Definitions in EDGAR.
The following terms used in this part are defined in 34 CFR 77.1:
Application
Award
Contract
Department
EDGAR
Fiscal year
Grant
Project
Secretary
Subgrant
[[Page 55074]]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Subpart B--State and Local Eligibility--General State Eligibility--
General
Sec. 300.110 Condition of assistance.
A State is eligible for assistance under Part B of the Act for a
fiscal year if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the State has in effect policies and procedures to
ensure that it meets the conditions in Secs. 300.121-300.156.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a))
Sec. 300.111 Exception for prior State policies and procedures on file
with the Secretary.
If a State has on file with the Secretary policies and procedures
approved by the Secretary that demonstrate that the State meets any
requirement of Sec. 300.110, including any policies and procedures
filed under Part B of the Act as in effect before June 4, 1997, the
Secretary considers the State to have met the requirement for purposes
of receiving a grant under Part B of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(c)(1))
Sec. 300.112 Amendments to State policies and procedures.
(a) Modifications made by a State. (1) Subject to paragraph (b) of
this section, policies and procedures submitted by a State in
accordance with this subpart remain in effect until the State submits
to the Secretary the modifications that the State decides are
necessary.
(2) The provisions of this subpart apply to a modification to a
State's policies and procedures in the same manner and to the same
extent that they apply to the State's original policies and procedures.
(b) Modifications required by the Secretary. The Secretary may
require a State to modify its policies and procedures, but only to the
extent necessary to ensure the State's compliance with this part, if--
(1) After June 4, 1997, the provisions of the Act or the
regulations in this part are amended;
(2) There is a new interpretation of this Act or regulations by a
Federal court or a State's highest court; or
(3) There is an official finding of noncompliance with Federal law
or regulations.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(c) (2) and (3))
Sec. 300.113 Approval by the Secretary.
(a) General. If the Secretary determines that a State is eligible
to receive a grant under Part B of the Act, the Secretary notifies the
State of that determination.
(b) Notice and hearing before determining a State is not eligible.
The Secretary does not make a final determination that a State is not
eligible to receive a grant under Part B of the Act until after
providing the State reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing
in accordance with the procedures in Secs. 300.581-300.587.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(d))
Secs. 300.114-300.120 [Reserved]
State Eligibility--Specific Conditions
Sec. 300.121 Free appropriate public education.
(a) General. Each State must have on file with the Secretary
information that shows that, subject to Sec. 300.122, the State has in
effect a policy that ensures that all children with disabilities aged 3
through 21 residing in the State have the right to FAPE, including
children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from
school.
(b) Required information. The information described in paragraph
(a) of this section must--
(1) Include a copy of each State statute, court order, State
Attorney General opinion, and other State documents that show the
source of the State's policy relating to FAPE; and
(2) Show that the policy--
(i) Applies to all public agencies in the State; and
(ii) Applies to all children with disabilities, including children
who have been suspended or expelled from school.
(c) FAPE for children suspended or expelled from school.
(1) For the purposes of this section, the term ``children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school'' means
children with disabilities who have been removed from their current
educational placement for more than 10 school days in a given school
year.
(2) The right to FAPE for children with disabilities who have been
suspended or expelled from school begins on the eleventh school day in
a school year that they are removed from their current educational
placement.
(3) In providing FAPE to children with disabilities who have been
suspended or expelled from school, a public agency shall meet the
requirements of Sec. 300.522.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1))
Note 1: With respect to paragraph (a) of this section, a public
agency's obligation to make FAPE available to each eligible child
means that the obligation begins no later than the child's third
birthday. Thus, an IEP or an IFSP must be in effect for the child by
that date, in accordance with Sec. 300.342. The IEP would specify
the special education and related services that are needed in order
to ensure that the child receives FAPE, including any extended
school year services, if appropriate. If a child who is receiving
early intervention services under Part C of the Act will be
participating in a preschool program under Part B of the Act, the
transition requirements of Sec. 300.132 would apply.
Note 2: School districts are not relieved of their obligation to
provide appropriate special education and related services to
individual disabled students who need them even though they are
advancing from grade to grade. The decision whether a student with a
disability who is advancing from grade to grade is eligible for
services under this part must be determined on an individual basis
by the child's IEP team.
Sec. 300.122 Exception to FAPE for certain ages.
(a) General. The obligation to make FAPE available to all children
with disabilities does not apply with respect to--
(1) Children aged 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, or 21 in a State to the
extent that its application to those children would be inconsistent
with State law or practice, or the order of any court, respecting the
provision of public education to children in one or more of those age
groups;
(2) Students aged 18 through 21 to the extent that State law does
not require that special education and related services under Part B of
the Act be provided to students with disabilities who, in the last
educational placement prior to their incarceration in an adult
correctional facility--
(i) Were not actually identified as being a child with a disability
under Sec. 300.7; and
(ii) Did not have an IEP under Part B of the Act.
(3)(i) Students with disabilities who have graduated from high
school with a regular high school diploma.
(ii) The exception in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section does not
apply to students who have graduated but have not been awarded a
regular high school diploma.
(b) Documents relating to exceptions. The State must have on file
with the Secretary--
(1)(i) Information that describes in detail the extent that the
exception in paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies to the State; and
(ii) A copy of each State law, court order, and other documents
that provide a basis for the exception; and
(2) With respect to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a copy of the
State law that excludes from service under Part B of the Act certain
students who are
[[Page 55075]]
incarcerated in an adult correctional facility.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(B))
Note 1: Under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a student's
eligibility for FAPE ceases upon graduation from high school with a
regular high school diploma. Under Part B of the Act, graduation is
considered to be a change in placement, and would require that prior
written notice, in accordance with Sec. 300.503, be given to the
parents and the student, if appropriate. The notice would inform the
parents and the student of this fact and of their right to challenge
the student's pending graduation (through the due process procedures
in Sec. 300.507), if they believe that the student has not met the
requirements for graduation with a regular high school diploma.
Since graduation changes a student's eligibility status, a
reevaluation would be required under Sec. 300.534(c).
In a small number of cases, a school district may be awarding a
special certificate to some children with disabilities. If a high
school awards a student with a disability certificate of attendance
or other certificate of graduation instead of a regular high school
diploma, the student would still be entitled to FAPE until the
student reaches the age at which eligibility ceases under the age
requirements within the State or has earned a regular high school
diploma.
Note 2: With respect to paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
(relating to certain students with disabilities in adult prisons),
the House Committee Report on Pub. L. 105-17 includes the following
statement:
The bill provides that a State may also opt not to serve
individuals who, in the educational placement prior to their
incarceration in adult correctional facilities, were not actually
identified as a child with a disability under section 602(3) or did
not have an IEP under Part B of the Act. The Committee means to * *
* make clear that services need not be provided to all children who
were at one time determined to be eligible under Part B of the Act.
The Committee does not intend to permit the exclusion from services
under part B of children who had been identified as children with
disabilities and had received services under an IEP, but who had
left school prior to their incarceration. In other words, if a child
had an IEP in his or her last educational placement, the child has
an IEP for purposes of this provision. The Committee added language
to make clear that children with disabilities aged 18 through 21,
who did not have an IEP in their last educational setting but who
had actually been identified should not be excluded from
services.(H. Rep. No. 105-95, p. 91 (1997))
Sec. 300.123 Full educational opportunity goal.
The State must have on file with the Secretary detailed policies
and procedures through which the State has established a goal of
providing full educational opportunity to all children with
disabilities aged birth through 21.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(2))
Sec. 300.124 FEOG--timetable.
The State must have on file with the Secretary a detailed timetable
for accomplishing the goal of providing full educational opportunity
for all children with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(2))
Sec. 300.125 Child find.
(a) General requirement. The State must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that--
(1) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including
children with disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the
severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education
and related services are identified, located, and evaluated; and
(2) A practical method is developed and implemented to determine
which children are currently receiving needed special education and
related services.
(b) Documents relating to child find. The State must have on file
with the Secretary the policies and procedures described in paragraph
(a) of this section, including--
(1) The name of the State agency (if other than the SEA)
responsible for coordinating the planning and implementation of the
policies and procedures under paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) The name of each agency that participates in the planning and
implementation of the child find activities and a description of the
nature and extent of its participation;
(3) A description of how the policies and procedures under
paragraph (a) of this section will be monitored to ensure that the SEA
obtains--
(i) The number of children with disabilities within each disability
category that have been identified, located, and evaluated; and
(ii) Information adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of those
policies and procedures; and
(4) A description of the method the State uses to determine which
children are currently receiving special education and related
services.
(c) Construction. Nothing in the Act requires that children be
classified by their disability so long as each child who has a
disability listed in Sec. 300.7 and who, by reason of that disability,
needs special education and related services is regarded as a child
with a disability under Part B of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(3) (A) and (B))
Note 1: Collection and use of data are subject to the
confidentiality requirements of Secs. 300.560-300.577.
Note 2: The services and placement needed by each child with a
disability to receive FAPE must be based upon the child's unique
needs and may not be determined or limited based upon a category of
disability.
Note 3: Under both Parts B and C of the Act, States are
responsible for identifying, locating, and evaluating infants and
toddlers from birth through 2 years of age who have disabilities or
who are suspected of having disabilities. In States where the SEA
and the State's lead agency for the Part C program are different and
the Part C lead agency will be participating in the child find
activities described in paragraph (a) of this section, the nature
and extent of the Part C lead agency's participation must, under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, be provided. With the SEA's
agreement, the Part C lead agency's participation may include the
actual implementation of child find activities for infants and
toddlers. The use of an interagency agreement or other mechanism for
providing for the Part C lead agency's participation would not alter
or diminish the responsibility of the SEA to ensure compliance with
all child find requirements, including the requirement in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section that all children with disabilities who are
in need of special education and related services are evaluated.
Note 4: Each State has an obligation to ensure that State and
local child find responsibilities under Part B of the Act extend to
highly mobile children (such as migrant and homeless children).
Sec. 300.126 Procedures for evaluation and determination of
eligibility.
The State must have on file with the Secretary policies and
procedures that ensure that the requirements of Secs. 300.530-300.536
are met.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) (6)(B), (7))
Sec. 300.127 Confidentiality of personally identifiable information.
(a) The State must have on file in detail the policies and
procedures that the State has undertaken in order to ensure the
protection of the confidentiality of any personally identifiable
information, collected, used, or maintained under Part B of the Act.
(b) The Secretary uses the criteria in Secs. 300.560-300.577 to
evaluate the policies and procedures of the State under paragraph (a)
of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(8))
Note: The regulations implementing the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act are in 34 CFR Part 99. Those regulations are
incorporated in Secs. 300.560-300.577.
Sec. 300.128 Individualized education programs.
(a) General. The State must have on file with the Secretary
information that shows that an IEP, or IFSP that meets the requirements
of section 636(d) of the Act, is developed, reviewed, and revised for
each child with a disability in accordance with Secs. 300.340-300.351.
[[Continued on page 55076]]