Aug. 14, 2006 (71 FR 46540)

Monday, August 14, 2006 Part II Department of Education 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities; Final Rule VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46540 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301 RIN 1820–AB57 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities AGENCY : Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION : Final regulations. SUMMARY : The Secretary issues final regulations governing the Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program. These regulations are needed to implement changes made to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Act or IDEA). DATES : These regulations take effect on October 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Alexa Posny, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202–2641. Telephone: (202) 245– 7459, ext. 3. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay System (FRS) at 1– 800–877–8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : These regulations implement changes in the regulations governing the Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program necessitated by the reauthorization of the IDEA. With the issuance of these final regulations, part 301 has been removed and the regulations implementing the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program are included under subpart H of these final regulations. On June 21, 2005, the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (70 FR 35782) (NPRM) 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 Service Obligations under Special Education Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities. In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed, on pages 35783 through 35819, the changes proposed to the regulations for these programs; specifically, the amendments to 34 CFR part 300, the removal of 34 CFR part 301 and relocation of those provisions to subpart H of 34 CFR part 300, and the amendments to 34 CFR part 304. Final regulations for 34 CFR Part 304—Special Education-Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities were published in the Federal Register (71 FR 32396) on June 5, 2006, and became effective July 5, 2006. Major Changes in the Regulations The following is a summary of the major substantive changes in these final regulations from the regulations proposed in the NPRM (the rationale for each of these changes is discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this preamble): Subpart A—General Definitions •The definition of child with a disability in § 300.8 has been revised as follows: (1) Section 300.8(b) (Children aged three through nine experiencing developmental delays) has been changed to clarify that the use of the term ‘‘developmental delay’’ is subject to the conditions described in § 300.111(b). (2) The definition of other health impairment in § 300.8(c)(9)(i) has been changed to add ‘‘Tourette Syndrome’’ to the list of chronic or acute health problems. •The definition of excess costs in § 300.16 has been revised to clarify that the computation of excess costs may not include capital outlay and debt service. In addition, a new ‘‘Appendix A to Part 300—Excess Cost Calculation’’ has been added to provide a description (and an example) of how to calculate excess costs under the Act and these regulations. •The definition of highly qualified special education teacher in § 300.18 has been revised, as follows: (1) Section 300.18(b), regarding requirements for highly qualified special education teachers in general, has been modified to clarify that, when used with respect to any special education teacher teaching in a charter school, highly qualified means that the teacher meets the certification or licensing requirements, if any, set forth in the State’s public charter school law. (2) A new § 300.18(e), regarding separate ‘‘high objective uniform State standards of evaluation’’ (HOUSSE), has been added to provide that a State may develop a separate HOUSSE for special education teachers, provided that any adaptations of the State’s HOUSSE would not establish a lower standard for the content knowledge requirements for special education teachers and meets all the requirements for a HOUSSE for regular education teachers. This provision also clarifies that a State may develop a separate HOUSSE for special education teachers, which may include single HOUSSE evaluations that cover multiple subjects. (3) Section 300.18(g) (proposed § 300.18(f)) (‘‘Applicability of definition to ESEA requirements; and clarification of new special education teacher’’) has been revised as follows: (1) The heading has been revised, and (2) the language changed to clarify when a special education teacher is considered ‘‘new’’ for some purposes. (4) Section 300.18(h) (proposed § 300.18(g)) has been modified to clarify that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements also do not apply to private school teachers hired or contracted by LEAs to provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities under § 300.138. •The definition of Indian and Indian tribe in § 300.21 has been changed to clarify that nothing in the definition is intended to indicate that the Secretary of the Interior is required to provide services or funding to a State Indian tribe that is not listed in the Federal Register list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States, published pursuant to Section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a–1. •The definition of parent in § 300.30 has been revised to substitute ‘‘biological’’ for ‘‘natural’’ each time it appears in the definition, and to add language clarifying that to be considered a parent under this definition a ‘‘guardian’’ must be a person generally authorized to act as the child’s parent, or authorized to make educational decisions for the child. •The definition of related services in § 300.34 has been revised as follows: (1) Section 300.34(a) (General) has been modified to (A) add the statutory term ‘‘early identification and assessment of disabilities in children,’’ which was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM, (B) combine ‘‘school health services’’ and ‘‘school nurse services,’’ and (C) remove the clause relating to a free appropriate public education under VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46541 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘school nurse services’’ because it duplicates the clause in §300.34(c)(13). (2) Section 300.34(b) has been changed to (A) expand the title to read ‘‘Exception; services that apply to children with surgically implanted devices, including cochlear implants,’’ and (B) clarify, in new paragraph (b)(1), that related services do not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, the optimization of that device’s functioning (e.g., mapping), maintenance of that device, or the replacement of that device. (3) A new §300.34(b)(2) has been added to make clear that nothing in paragraph (b)(1) of §300.34 (A) limits the right of a child with a surgically implanted device (e.g., a cochlear implant) to receive related services, as listed in §300.34(a), that are determined by the IEP Team to be necessary for the child to receive FAPE; (B) limits the responsibility of a public agency to appropriately monitor and maintain medical devices that are needed to maintain the health and safety of the child, including breathing, nutrition, or operation of other bodily functions, while the child is transported to and from school or is at school; or (C) prevents the routine checking of an external component of a surgically- implanted device to make sure it is functioning properly, as required in §300.113(b). (4) The definition of interpreting services in §300.34(c)(4) has been changed to clarify that the term includes (A) transcription services, such as communication access real-time translation (CART), C-Print, and TypeWell for children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and (B) special interpreting services for children who are deaf-blind. (5) The definition of orientation and mobility services in §300.34(c)(7) has been changed to remove the term ‘‘travel training instruction.’’ The term is under the definition of special education, and is defined in §300.39(b)(4). (6) The definition of school nurse services in 300.34(c)(13) has been expanded and re-named school health services and school nurse services. The expanded definition clarifies that ‘‘school nurse services’’ are provided by a qualified school nurse, and ‘‘school health services’’ may be provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified person. •A definition of scientifically based research has been added in new §300.35 that incorporates by reference the definition of that term from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (ESEA). With the addition of the new definition in §300.35, the definitions in subpart A, beginning with the definition of secondary school, have been renumbered. •The definition of special education in §300.39 (proposed §300.38) has been revised to remove the definition of vocational and technical education that was included in proposed §300.38(b)(6). •The definition of supplementary aids and services in §300.42 (proposed §300.41) has been modified to specify that aids, services, and other supports are also provided to enable children with disabilities to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic settings. Subpart B—State Eligibility FAPE Requirements •Section 300.101(c) has been revised to clarify that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) must be available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services, even though the child has not failed or been retained in a course, and is advancing from grade to grade. •Section 300.102(a)(3), regarding exceptions to FAPE, has been changed to clarify that a regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or a general educational development credential (GED). •Section 300.105, regarding assistive technology and proper functioning of hearing aids, has been re-titled ‘‘Assistive technology,’’ and proposed paragraph (b), regarding the proper functioning of hearing aids, has been moved to new §300.113(a). •Section 300.107(a), regarding nonacademic services, has been revised to specify the steps each public agency must take, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities. •Proposed §300.108(a), regarding physical education services, has been revised to specify that physical education must be made available to all children with disabilities receiving FAPE, unless the public agency enrolls children without disabilities and does not provide physical education to children without disabilities in the same grades. •A new §300.113, regarding routine checking of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted medical devices, has been added, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of §300.113 requires each public agency to ensure that hearing aids worn in school by children with hearing impairments, including deafness, are functioning properly. (2) A new §300.113(b)(1) requires each public agency to ensure that the external components of surgically implanted medical devices are functioning properly. However, new §300.113(b)(2) has been added to make it clear that, for a child with a surgically implanted medical device who is receiving special education and related services, a public agency is not responsible for the post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of the medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of the surgically implanted medical device). Least Restrictive Environment •Section 300.116(b)(3) and (c) regarding placements, has been revised to remove the qualification ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise’’ from the requirements that (1) the child’s placement be as close as possible to the child’s home, and (2) the child is educated in the school he or she would attend if not disabled. •Section 300.117 (Nonacademic settings) has been changed to clarify that each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child’s individualized education program (IEP) Team to be appropriate and necessary for the child to participate with nondisabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools •Section 300.130 (definition of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities) has been revised to clarify that the term means children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private, including religious, schools or facilities, that meet the definition of elementary school in §300.13 or secondary school in §300.36. •A new §300.131(f), regarding child find for out-of-State parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, has been added to clarify that each LEA VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46542 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations in which private (including religious) elementary schools and secondary schools are located must include parentally-placed private school children who reside in a State other than the State in which the private schools that they attend are located. •Section 300.133, regarding expenditures for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, has been revised, as follows: (1) A new §300.133(a)(2)(ii), has been added to clarify that children aged three through five are considered to be parentally-placed private school children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private, including religious, elementary schools, if they are enrolled in a private school that meets the definition of elementary school in §300.13. (2) A new §300.133(a)(3) has been added to specify that, if an LEA has not expended for equitable services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities all of the applicable funds described in §300.133(a)(1) and (a)(2) by the end of the fiscal year for which Congress appropriated the funds, the LEA must obligate the remaining funds for special education and related services (including direct services) to parentally- placed private school children with disabilities during a carry-over period of one additional year. •Section 300.136, regarding compliance related to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, has been revised to remove the requirement that private school officials must submit complaints to the SEA using the procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. •Section 300.138(a), regarding the requirement that services to parentally- placed private school children with disabilities must be provided by personnel meeting the same standards as personnel providing services in the public schools, has been modified to clarify that private elementary school and secondary school teachers who are providing equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities do not have to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements in §300.18. •Section 300.140, regarding due process complaints and State complaints, has been revised to make the following changes: (1) Section 300.140(b)(1) (proposed §300.140(a)(2)), regarding child find complaints, has been changed to clarify that the procedures in §§300.504 through 300.519 apply to complaints that an LEA has failed to meet the child find requirements in §300.131, including the requirements in §§300.301 through 300.311. (2) A new paragraph (b)(2) has been added to provide that any due process complaint regarding the child find requirements (as described in §300.140(b)(1)) must be filed with the LEA in which the private school is located and a copy of the complaint must be forwarded to the SEA. (3) A new §300.140(c), regarding State complaints by private school officials, has been added to clarify that (A) any complaint that an SEA or LEA has failed to meet the requirements in §§300.132 through 300.135 and 300.137 through 300.144 must be filed in accordance with the procedures described in §§300.151 through 300.153, and (B) a complaint filed by a private school official under §300.136(a) must be filed with the SEA in accordance with the procedures in §300.136(b). Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools When FAPE Is at Issue Section 300.148 Placement of Children by Parents if FAPE Is at Issue •A new §300.148(b), regarding disagreements about FAPE, has been added (from current §300.403(b)) to clarify that disagreements between a parent and a public agency regarding the availability of a program appropriate for a child with a disability, and the question of financial reimbursement, are subject to the due process procedures in §§300.504 through 300.520. State Complaint Procedures •Section 300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed paragraph (a)(3)(B)) has been revised to clarify that each SEA’s complaint procedures must provide the public agency with an opportunity to respond to a complaint filed under §300.153, including, at a minimum, an opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily engage in mediation consistent with §300.506. •Section 300.152(b)(1)(ii), regarding time extensions for filing a State complaint, has been revised to clarify that it would be permissible to extend the 60-day timeline if the parent (or individual or organization if mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution is available to the individual or organization under State procedures) and the public agency agree to engage in mediation or to engage in other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. •Section 300.152(c), regarding complaints filed under §300.152 and due process hearings under §300.507 and §§300.530 through 300.532, has been revised to clarify that if a written complaint is received that is also the subject of a due process hearing under §§300.507 or 300.530 through 300.532, or contains multiple issues of which one or more are part of a due process hearing, the State must set aside any part of the complaint that is being addressed in the due process hearing until the conclusion of the hearing. However, any issue in the complaint that is not part of the due process hearing must be resolved using the time limit and procedures described elsewhere in the State complaint procedures. A new paragraph (c)(3) also has been added to require SEAs to resolve complaints alleging a public agency’s failure to implement a due process hearing. This is the same requirement in current §300.661(c)(3). •Section 300.153(c), regarding the one year time limit from the date the alleged violation occurred and the date the complaint is received in accordance with §300.151, has been revised by removing the exception clause related to complaints covered under §300.507(a)(2). Methods of Ensuring Services •Section 300.154(d), regarding children with disabilities who are covered by public benefits or insurance, has been revised to clarify that the public agency must (1) obtain parental consent each time that access to the parent’s public benefits or insurance is sought, and (2) notify parents that refusal to allow access to their public benefits or insurance does not relieve the public agency of its responsibility to ensure that all required services are provided at no cost to the parents. Additional Eligibility Requirements •Section 300.156(e), regarding personnel qualifications, has been revised (1) to add ‘‘or a class of students,’’ to clarify that a judicial action on behalf of a class of students may not be filed for failure of a particular SEA or LEA employee to be highly qualified, and (2) to substitute the word ‘‘employee’’ for ‘‘staff person,’’ to be more precise in the rule of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)). •Section 300.160 (participation in assessments) has been removed, and the section has been designated as ‘‘Reserved.’’ Participation in assessments is the subject of a new notice of proposed rulemaking issued on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74624) to amend the regulations governing programs under Title I of the ESEA and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46543 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Part B of the IDEA regarding additional flexibility for States to measure the achievement of children with disabilities based on modified achievement standards. Other Provisions Required for State Eligibility •Section 300.172, regarding access to instructional materials, has been revised: (1) To make clear that States must adopt the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS), published as Appendix C to these final regulations; (2) to establish a definition of ‘‘timely manner,’’ for purposes of §300.172(b)(2) and (b)(3) if the State is not coordinating with the National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC), or §300.172(b)(3) and (c)(2) if the State is coordinating with the NIMAC; (3) to add a new §300.172(b)(4) to require SEAs to ensure that all public agencies take all reasonable steps to provide instructional materials in accessible formats to children with disabilities who need those instructional materials at the same time as other children receive instructional materials; and (4) to add a new §300.172(e)(2) to clarify, that all definitions in §300.172(e)(1) apply to each State and LEA, whether or not the State or LEA chooses to coordinate with the NIMAC. •A new §300.177 has been added to include a provision regarding ‘‘States’ sovereign immunity.’’ That provision, which has been added to incorporate the language in section 604 of the Act, makes clear that a State that accepts funds under Part B of the Act waives its immunity under the 11th amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of Part B of the Act. Subpart D—Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements Parental Consent •Section 300.300, regarding parental consent, has been revised, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of §300.300, regarding consent for initial evaluation, has been changed to provide that the public agency proposing to conduct an initial evaluation to determine if a child qualifies as a child with a disability must, after providing notice consistent with §§300.503 and 300.504, obtain informed consent, consistent with §300.9, from the parent of the child before conducting the evaluation. A new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) has been added to require a public agency to make reasonable efforts to obtain the informed consent from the parent for an initial evaluation. (2) Section 300.300(a)(3), regarding a parent’s failure to provide consent for initial evaluation, has been changed to clarify, in a new paragraph (a)(3)(ii), that the public agency does not violate its obligation under §300.111 and §§300.301 through 300.311 if it declines to pursue the evaluation. (3) Section 300.300(b), regarding parental consent for services, has been modified by a new paragraph (b)(2) that requires a public agency to make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent for the initial provision of special education and related services. (4) Section 300.300(c)(1), regarding parental consent for reevaluations, has been modified to clarify that if a parent refuses to consent to a reevaluation, the public agency may, but is not required to, pursue the reevaluation by using the consent override procedures in §300.300(a)(3), and the public agency does not violate its obligation under §300.111 and §§300.301 through 300.311 if it declines to pursue the evaluation or reevaluation. (5) A new §300.300(d)(4) has been added to provide that if a parent of a child who is home schooled or placed in a private school by the parent at the parent’s expense, does not provide consent for an initial evaluation or a reevaluation, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide consent, the public agency (A) may not use the consent override procedures (described elsewhere in §300.300), and (B) is not required to consider the child eligible for services under the requirements relating to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities (§§300.132 through 300.144). (6) A new §300.300(d)(5) has been added to clarify that in order for a public agency to meet the reasonable efforts requirement to obtain informed parental consent for an initial evaluation, initial services, or a reevaluation, a public agency must document its attempts to obtain parental consent using the procedures in §300.322(d). Additional Procedures for Evaluating Children With Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) •Section 300.307 (Specific learning disabilities) has been revised, as follows: (1) Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of §300.307, which allowed a State to prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining if a child has an SLD, has been removed, and proposed paragraph (a)(2) of §300.307 has been redesignated as paragraph (a)(1). (2) Section 300.307(a)(2) (proposed paragraph (a)(3)) has been changed to clarify that the criteria adopted by the State must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. •Section 300.308 (Group members) has been changed to require the eligibility group for children suspected of having SLD to include the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals, which must include the child’s regular teacher (or if the child does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of his or her age) or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the SEA to teach a child of his or her age; and at least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech- language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher. These are the same requirements in current §300.540. •Section 300.309 (Determining the existence of a specific learning disability) has been revised, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of §300.309 has been changed (A) to clarify that the group described in 300.306 may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of eight areas (e.g., oral expression, basic reading skill, etc.), when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards; and (B) to add ‘‘limited English proficiency’’ to the other five conditions that could account for the child’s learning problems, and that the group considers in determining whether the child has an SLD. (2) Section 300.309(b) has been changed to clarify (A) that, in order to ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having an SLD is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§300.304 through 300.306, data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel, and (B) to replace (in paragraph (b)(1)) the term ‘‘high quality research-based instruction’’ with ‘‘appropriate instruction.’’ (3) Section 300.309(c) has been changed to provide that the public agency must promptly request parental VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46544 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations consent to evaluate a child suspected of having an SLD who has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided appropriate instruction, and whenever a child is referred for an evaluation. •Section 300.310, regarding Observation, has been revised, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of proposed §300.310 has been revised (A) to remove the phrase ‘‘trained in observation, and (B) to specify that the public agency must ensure that the child is observed in the child’s learning environment. (2) A new §300.310(b) has been added to require the eligibility group to decide to (A) use information obtained from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance that was done before the child was referred for an evaluation, or (B) have at least one member of the group described in §300.306(a)(1) conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parental consent is obtained. Paragraph (b) of proposed §300.310 has been redesignated as new §300.310(c). •Section 300.311 (Written report) has been renamed ‘‘Specific documentation for the eligibility determination,’’ and has been revised, as follows: (1) Section 300.311(a)(5), regarding whether the child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age, has been modified and expanded to add whether the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(1), and (A) the child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or to meet State- approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(i), or (B) the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(ii). (2) Proposed §300.311(a)(6), regarding whether there are strengths or weaknesses or both in performance or achievement or both relative to intellectual development, has been removed. (3) A new §300.311(a)(6) has been added to clarify that the documentation must include a statement of the determination of the group concerning the effects of visual, hearing, or motor disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency on the child’s achievement level. (4) A new §300.311(a)(7) has been added to provide that if the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, the documentation must include the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected, and documentation that the child’s parents were notified about (A) the State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided, (B) strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning, and (C) the parents’ right to request an evaluation. Individualized Education Programs •Section 300.320 (Definition of IEP) has been revised in paragraph (a)(5) to replace ‘‘regular education environment’’ with ‘‘regular class,’’ in order to be consistent with the language in the Act. •Section 300.321(e), regarding attendance at IEP Team meetings, has been revised to clarify that the excusal of IEP Team members from attending an IEP Team meeting under certain circumstances, refers to the IEP Team members in §300.320(a)(2) through (a)(5). •Section 300.322, regarding parent participation, has been revised to: (1) Include, in §300.322(d), examples of the records a public agency must keep of its attempts to involve the parents in IEP meetings; (2) add a new §300.322(e), which requires the public agency to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English; and (3) redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) accordingly. •Section 300.323(d) has been revised to require public agencies to ensure that each regular teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for the implementation of a child’s IEP, is informed of his or her specific responsibilities related to implementing the child’s IEP and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the child’s IEP. These are the same requirements in current §300.342(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii). •Section 300.323(e), regarding IEPs for children who transfer public agencies, has been revised to: (1) Divide the provision into three separate paragraphs (§300.323(e), (f), and (g)) for purposes of clarity and improved readability (e.g., transfers within the same State, transfers from another State, and transmittal of records); (2) adopt ‘‘school year’’ in lieu of ‘‘academic year’’ as the term commonly used by parents and public agencies; and (3) adopt other modifiers (e.g., ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘previous’’) to distinguish between States and public agencies that are involved in transfers by children with disabilities. •Section 300.324(a)(4), regarding changes to an IEP after the annual IEP meeting for a school year, has been restructured into two paragraphs, and a new paragraph (a)(4)(ii) has been added to require the public agency to ensure that, if changes are made to a child’s IEP without an IEP meeting, that the child’s IEP Team is informed of the changes. •Section 300.324(b), regarding the review and revision of IEPs, has been changed to include a new paragraph (b)(2), to clarify that, in conducting a review of a child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider the same special factors it considered when developing the child’s IEP. Subpart E—Procedural Safeguards •Section 300.502, regarding independent educational evaluations, has been revised, as follows: (1) A new §300.502(b)(5) has been added to make clear that a parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees. (2) Section 300.502(c) has been changed to clarify that if a parent obtains an independent evaluation at public expense or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the public agency must consider the evaluation, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child. •Section 300.504 (Procedural safeguards notice) has been revised, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a)(2) of §300.504 has been changed to add that a copy of the procedural safeguards notice must be given upon receipt of the first due process complaint under §300.507 in a school year, as well as upon receipt of the first State complaint under §300.151 through 300.153. (2) A new §300.504(a)(3) has been added to provide that the notice must be given to the parents of a child with a disability in accordance with the discipline procedures in §300.530(h). VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46545 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations •Section 300.506(b), regarding the requirements for mediation, has been revised by (1) removing the provision about the ‘‘confidentiality pledge,’’ in proposed paragraph (b)(9), because it is no longer required under the Act, and (2) changing paragraph (b)(8), regarding the prohibition against using discussions that occur in the mediation process, to clarify that ‘‘civil proceedings’’ includes any Federal court or State court of a State receiving assistance under this part. •Section 300.509, regarding model forms to assist parents and public agencies in filing due process complaints and parents and other parties in filing State complaints, has been revised to add, with respect to due process complaints, ‘‘public agencies,’’ and with respect to State complaints, ‘‘other parties,’’ as well as parents, and to clarify that (1) while each SEA must develop model forms, the SEA or LEA may not require the use of the forms, and (2) parents, public agencies, and other parties may either use the appropriate model form, or another form or other document, so long as the form or document meets, as appropriate, the requirements for filing a due process complaint or a State complaint. •Section 300.510 (Resolution process) has been revised, as follows: (1) Section 300.510(b)(1), regarding the resolution period, has been changed to state that a due process hearing ‘‘may occur’’ (in lieu of ‘‘must occur’’) by the end of the resolution period, if the parties have not resolved the dispute that formed the basis for the due process complaint. (2) A new §300.510(b)(3) has been added to provide that, except where the parties have jointly agreed to waive the resolution process or to use mediation (notwithstanding §300.510(b)(1) and (2)), the failure of a parent filing a due process complaint to participate in the resolution meeting will delay the timelines for the resolution process and due process hearing until the meeting is held. (3) A new §300.510(b)(4) has been added to provide that if an LEA is unable to obtain the participation of the parent in the resolution meeting after reasonable efforts have been made, and documented using the procedures in §300.322(d), the LEA may, at the conclusion of the 30-day resolution period, request that a hearing officer dismiss the parent’s due process complaint. (4) A new paragraph (b)(5) of §300.510 has been added to provide that, if the LEA fails to hold the resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of a parent’s due process complaint or fails to participate in the resolution meeting, the parent may seek the intervention of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timelines. (5) A new §300.510(c) (Adjustments to the 30-day resolution period) has been added that specifies exceptions to the 30-day resolution period (e.g., (A) both parties agree in writing to waive the resolution meeting; (B) after either the mediation or resolution meeting starts but before the end of the 30-day period, the parties agree in writing that no agreement is possible; or (C) if both parties agree in writing to continue the mediation at the end of the 30-day resolution period, but later, the parent or public agency withdraws from the mediation process). Subsequent paragraphs have been renumbered accordingly. (6) Paragraph (d)(2) of §300.510 (proposed paragraph(c)(2)), regarding the enforceability of a written settlement agreement in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States, has been expanded to add the SEA, if the State has other mechanisms or procedures that permit parties to seek enforcement of resolution agreements, pursuant to a new §300.537. •Section 300.513(a) (Decision of hearing officer) has been revised by (1) changing the paragraph title to read ‘‘Decision of hearing officer on the provision of FAPE,’’ and (2) clarifying that a hearing officer’s determination of whether a child received FAPE must be based on substantive grounds. •Section 300.515(a), regarding timelines and convenience of hearings and reviews, has been revised to include a specific reference to the adjusted time periods described in §300.510(c). •Section 300.516(b), regarding the 90-day time limitation from the date of the decision of the hearing to file a civil action, has been revised to provide that the 90-day period begins from the date of the decision of the hearing officer or the decision of the State review official. •Section 300.518 (Child’s status during proceedings) has been revised by adding a new paragraph (c), which provides that if a complaint involves an application for initial services under this part from a child who is transitioning from Part C of the Act to Part B and is no longer eligible for Part C services because the child has turned 3, the public agency is not required to provide the Part C services that the child had been receiving. If the child is found eligible for special education and related services under Part B and the parent consents to the initial provision of special education and related services under §300.300(b), then the public agency must provide those special education and related services that are not in dispute between the parent and the public agency. •Section 300.520(b), regarding a special rule about the transfer of parental rights at the age of majority, has been revised to more clearly state that a State must establish procedures for appointing the parent of a child with a disability, or if the parent is not available, another appropriate individual, to represent the educational interests of the child throughout the child’s eligibility under Part B of the Act if, under State law, a child who has reached the age of majority, but has not been determined to be incompetent, can be determined not to have the ability to provide informed consent with respect to the child’s educational program. Discipline Procedures •Section 300.530(d)(1)(i), regarding services, has been revised to be consistent with section 615(k)(1)(D)(i) of the Act, by adding a reference to the FAPE requirements in §300.101(a). •Section 300.530(d)(4), regarding the removal of a child with a disability from the child’s current placement for 10 school days in the same school year, has been revised to remove the reference to school personnel, in consultation with at least one of the child’s teachers, determining the location in which services will be provided. •Section 300.530(d)(5), regarding removals that constitute a change of placement under §300.536, has been revised to remove the reference to the IEP Team determining the location in which services will be provided. •A new §300.530(e)(3), has been added to provide that, if the LEA, the parent, and members of the child’s IEP Team determine that the child’s behavior was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the child’s IEP, the LEA must take immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies. •Section 300.530(h), regarding notification, has been changed to specify that, on the date on which a decision is made to make a removal that constitutes a change in the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA must notify the parents of that decision, and provide the parents the procedural safeguards notice described in §300.504. •Section 300.532 (Appeal) has been revised, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of §300.532, regarding the conditions in which the parent of a child with a disability or an LEA may request a hearing, has been VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46546 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations modified to clarify that the hearing is requested by filing a complaint pursuant to §§300.507 and 300.508(a) and (b). (2) Section 300.532(b)(3) has been changed to more definitively provide that if the LEA believes that returning the child to his or her original placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. (3) Section 300.532(c)(3), regarding an expedited due process hearing, has been adjusted to provide that unless the parents and an LEA agree in writing to waive a resolution meeting, or agree to use the mediation process described in §300.506, the resolution meeting must occur within seven days of receiving notice of the due process complaint, and the hearing may proceed within 15 days of receipt of the due process complaint unless the matter has been resolved to satisfaction of both parties. (4) Proposed §300.532(c)(4), regarding the two-day timeframe for disclosing information to the opposing party prior to an expedited due process hearing, has been removed. •Section 500.536(a)(2)(ii) (proposed §300.536(b)(2)) has been revised to remove the requirement that a child’s behavior must have been a manifestation of the child’s disability before determining that a series of removals constitutes a change in placement under §300.536. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) has also been amended to reference the child’s behavior in ‘‘previous’’ incidents that resulted in the series of removals. •A new §300.536(b) has been added to clarify that the public agency (subject to review through the due process and judicial proceedings) makes the determination, on a case-by-case basis, whether a pattern of removals constitutes a change in placement and that the determination is subject to review through due process and judicial determinations. •A new §300.537 (State enforcement mechanisms) has been added to clarify that notwithstanding §300.506(b)(7) and §300.510(c)(2), which provide for judicial enforcement of a written agreement reached as a result of a mediation or resolution meeting, nothing in this part would prevent the SEA from using other mechanisms to seek enforcement of that agreement, provided that use of those mechanisms is not mandatory and does not delay or deny a party the right to seek enforcement of the written agreement in a State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. Subpart F—Monitoring, Enforcement, Confidentiality, and Program Information Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement •Section 300.600 (State monitoring and enforcement) has been revised, as follows: (1) Section 300.600(a) has been amended to require the State to enforce Part B of the Act in accordance with §300.604(a)(1) and (a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(v), and (c)(2). (2) A new paragraph (d) has been added, which provides that the State must monitor the LEAs located in the State, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas, including: (A) Provision of FAPE in the least restrictive environment; (B) State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, and a system of transition services as defined in §300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9); and (C) disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification. •A new §300.601(b)(2), regarding State use of targets and reporting, has been added to specify that, if permitted by the Secretary, if a State collects data on an indicator through State monitoring or sampling, the State must collect data on the indicator at least once during the period of the State performance plan. •A new §300.608(b), regarding State enforcement, has been added to specify that States are not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to them to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B of the Act. Confidentiality of Information •Section 300.622 (Consent) has been restructured and revised to more accurately reflect the Department’s policy regarding when parental consent is required for disclosures of personally identifiable information, as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of §300.622 has been changed to provide that parental consent must be obtained before personally identifiable information is disclosed to parties other than officials of participating agencies, unless the information is contained in education records, and the disclosure is authorized without parental consent under the regulations for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 34 CFR part 99). (2) A new §300.622(b)(1) has been added to clarify that parental consent is not required before personally identifiable information is released to officials of participating agencies for purposes of meeting a requirement of Part B of the Act or these regulations. (3) A new §300.622(b)(2) has been added to provide that parental consent must be obtained before personally identifiable information is released to officials of participating agencies that provide or pay for transition services. (4) A new paragraph (b)(3) has been added to require that, with respect to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, parental consent must be obtained before any personally identifiable information is released between officials in the LEA where the private school is located and the LEA of the parent’s residence. (5) Proposed §300.622(c), regarding the requirement to provide policies and procedures for use in the event that a parent refuses to consent, has been removed because it is covered elsewhere in these regulations. Subpart G—Authorization, Allotment, Use of Funds, and Authorization of Appropriations Allotments, Grants, and Use of Funds •Section 300.701(a)(1)(ii)(A), regarding the applicable requirements of Part B of the Act that apply to freely associated States, has been revised by removing the five listed requirements because those requirements did not include all requirements that apply to freely associated States. This change clarifies that freely associated States must meet the applicable requirements that apply to States under Part B of the Act. •Section 300.704(c)(3)(i), regarding the requirement to develop, annually review, and revise (if necessary) a State plan for the high cost fund, has been revised to add a new paragraph (F) that requires that if the State elects to reserve funds for supporting innovative and effective ways of cost sharing, it must describe in its State plan how these funds will be used. •Section 300.706 (Allocation for State in which by-pass is implemented for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities) has been removed because it is no longer applicable. The section has been redesignated as ‘‘Reserved.’’ Secretary of the Interior •Section 300.707 (Use of amounts by Secretary of the Interior) has been changed, as follows: VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46547 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations (1) The definition of Tribal governing body of a school has been replaced with the definition of tribal governing body from 25 U.S.C. 2021(19). (2) Section 300.707(c), regarding an additional requirement under ‘‘Use of amounts by Secretary of the Interior,’’ has been revised to clarify that, with respect to all other children aged 3 to 21, inclusive, on reservations, the SEA of the State in which the reservation is located must ensure that all the requirements of Part B of the Act are met. •Section 300.713 (Plan for coordination of services) has been revised to require (1) in §300.713(a), the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a plan for the coordination of services for all Indian children with disabilities residing on reservations served by elementary schools and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by the Secretary of the Interior, and (2) in §300.713(b), the plan to provide for the coordination of services benefiting these children from whatever source covered by the plan, including SEAs, and State, local, and tribal juvenile and adult correctional facilities. Analysis of Comments and Changes Introduction In response to the invitation in the NPRM, more than 5,500 parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM immediately follows this introduction. The perspectives of parents, individuals with disabilities, teachers, related services providers, State and local officials, members of Congress, and others were very important in helping us to identify where changes to the proposed regulations were necessary, and in formulating many of the changes. In light of the comments received, a number of significant changes are reflected in these final regulations. We discuss substantive issues under the subpart and section to which they pertain. References to subparts in this analysis are to those contained in the final regulations. The analysis generally does not address— (a) Minor changes, including technical changes made to the language published in the NPRM; (b) Suggested changes the Secretary is not legally authorized to make under applicable statutory authority; and (c) Comments that express concerns of a general nature about the Department or other matters that are not directly relevant to these regulations, such as requests for information about innovative instructional methods or matters that are within the purview of State and local decision-makers. Subpart A—General Definitions Used in This Part Applicability of This Part to State and Local Agencies (§300.2) Comment: None. Discussion: Section §300.2(c)(2) contains an incorrect reference to §300.148(b). The correct reference should be to §300.148. Changes: We have removed the reference to §300.148(b) and replaced it with a reference to §300.148. Assistive Technology Device (§300.5) Comment: Some commenters opposed the exclusion of surgically implanted medical devices in the definition of assistive technology device. Another commenter recommended limiting the definition of assistive technology device to a device that is needed to achieve educational outcomes, rather than requiring local educational agencies (LEAs) to pay for any assistive technology device that increases, maintains, or improves any functional need of the child. Discussion: The definition of assistive technology device in §300.5 incorporates the definition in section 602(1)(B) of the Act. We do not believe the definition should be changed in the manner suggested by the commenters because the changes are inconsistent with the statutory definition. The definition in the Act specifically refers to any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the child and specifically excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted or the replacement of such device. Accordingly, we continue to believe it is appropriate to exclude surgically implanted medical devices from this definition. In response to the second comment, §300.105(a) requires each public agency to ensure that assistive technology devices (or assistive technology services, or both) are made available to a child with a disability if required as part of the child’s special education, related services, or supplementary aids and services. This provision ties the definition to a child’s educational needs, which public agencies must meet in order to ensure that a child with a disability receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that an assistive technology device is not synonymous with an augmentative communication device. A few commenters recommended including recordings for the blind and dyslexic playback devices in the definition of assistive technology devices. Some commenters recommended including language in the regulations clarifying that medical devices used for breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions are assistive technology devices. Discussion: The definition of assistive technology device does not list specific devices, nor would it be practical or possible to include an exhaustive list of assistive technology devices. Whether an augmentative communication device, playback devices, or other devices could be considered an assistive technology device for a child depends on whether the device is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability, and whether the child’s individualized education program (IEP) Team determines that the child needs the device in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). However, medical devices that are surgically implanted, including those used for breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions, are excluded from the definition of an assistive technology device in section 602(1)(B) of the Act. The exclusion applicable to a medical device that is surgically implanted includes both the implanted component of the device, as well as its external components. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters asked whether the definition of assistive technology device includes an internet- based instructional program, and what the relationship is between internet- based instructional programs and specially-designed instruction. Discussion: An instructional program is not a device, and, therefore, would not meet the definition of an assistive technology device. Whether an internet- based instructional program is appropriate for a particular child is determined by the child’s IEP Team, which would determine whether the program is needed in order for the child to receive FAPE. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended including the proper functioning of hearing aids in the definition of assistive technology device. Discussion: We believe that the provision requiring public agencies to ensure that hearing aids worn in school are functioning properly is more appropriately included in new §300.113 VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46548 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations (proposed §300.105(b)). As noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section discussing subpart B, we have added a new §300.113 to address the routine checking (i.e., making sure they are turned on and working) of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted devices. Changes: None. Assistive Technology Service (§300.6) Comment: One commenter requested clarifying ‘‘any service’’ in the definition of assistive technology service. Discussion: We believe the definition is clear that an assistive technology service is any service that helps a child with a disability select an appropriate assistive technology device, obtain the device, or train the child to use the device. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that services necessary to support the use of playback devices for recordings for the blind and dyslexic should be added to the definition of assistive technology service. Discussion: A service to support the use of recordings for the blind and dyslexic on playback devices could be considered an assistive technology service if it assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of the device. If so, and if the child’s IEP Team determines it is needed for the child to receive FAPE, the service would be provided. The definition of assistive technology service does not list specific services. We do not believe it is practical or possible to include an exhaustive list of assistive technology services, and therefore, decline to add the specific assistive technology service recommended by the commenter to the definition. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended evaluating all children with speech or hearing disabilities to determine if they can benefit from the Federal Communications Commission’s specialized telephone assistive services for people with disabilities. Discussion: Evaluations under section 614 of the Act are for the purpose of determining whether a child has a disability and because of that disability needs special education and related services, and for determining the child’s special education and related services needs. It would be inappropriate under the Act to require evaluations for other purposes or to require an evaluation for telephone assistive services for all children with speech and hearing disabilities. However, if it was determined that learning to use telephone assisted services, was an important skill for a particular child (e.g., as part of a transition plan), it would be appropriate to conduct an evaluation of that particular child to determine if the child needed specialized instruction in order to use such services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the definition of assistive technology service specifically exclude a medical device that is surgically implanted, the optimization of device functioning, maintenance of the device, and the replacement of the device. Discussion: The definition of related services in §300.34(b) specifically excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted, the optimization of device functioning, maintenance of the device, or the replacement of that device. In addition, the definition of assistive technology device in §300.5 specifically excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted and the replacement of that device. We believe it is unnecessary to repeat these exclusions in the definition of assistive technology service. Changes: None. Charter School (§300.7) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we include in the regulations the definitions of terms that are defined in other statutes. For example, one commenter requested including the definition of charter school in the regulations. Discussion: Including the actual definitions of terms that are defined in statutes other than the Act is problematic because these definitions may change over time (i.e., through changes to statutes that establish the definitions). In order for these regulations to retain their accuracy over time, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) would need to amend the regulations each time an included definition that is defined in another statute changes. The Department believes that this could result in significant confusion. However, we are including the current definition of charter school in section 5210(1) of the ESEA here for reference. The term charter school means a public school that: 1. In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this paragraph [the paragraph that sets forth the Federal definition]; 2. Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction; 3. Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school’s developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency; 4. Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both; 5. Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution; 6. Does not charge tuition; 7. Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; 8. Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that admits students on the basis of a lottery, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; 9. Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such requirements are specifically waived for the purpose of this program [the Public Charter School Program]; 10. Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements; 11. Operates in accordance with State law; and 12. Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school. Changes: None. Child With a Disability (§300.8) General (§300.8(a)) Comment: Several commenters stated that many children with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) do not receive special education and related services and recommended adding a disability category for children with FAS to help solve this problem. Discussion: We believe that the existing disability categories in section VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46549 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 602(3) of the Act and in these regulations are sufficient to include children with FAS who need special education and related services. Special education and related services are based on the identified needs of the child and not on the disability category in which the child is classified. We, therefore, do not believe that adding a separate disability category for children with FAS is necessary to ensure that children with FAS receive the special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs resulting from FAS. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the definition of child with a disability be changed to ‘‘student with a disability’’ and that the word ‘‘student,’’ rather than ‘‘child,’’ be used throughout the regulations because students over the age of 18 are not children. Discussion: Section 602(3) of the Act defines child with a disability, not student with a disability. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to change the definition as requested by the commenters. The words ‘‘child’’ and ‘‘student’’ are used throughout the Act and we generally have used the word ‘‘child’’ or ‘‘children,’’ except when referring to services and activities for older students (e.g., transition services, postsecondary goals). Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters supported §300.8(a)(2), which states that if a child needs only a related service and not special education, the child is not a child with a disability under the Act. Another commenter recommended a single standard for the provision of a related service as special education, rather than allowing States to determine whether a related service is special education. Discussion: Section 300.8(a)(2)(i) states that if a child has one of the disabilities listed in §300.8(a)(1), but only needs a related service, the child is not a child with a disability under the Act. However, §300.8(a)(2)(ii) provides that, if a State considers a particular service that could be encompassed by the definition of related services also to be special education, then the child would be determined to be a child with a disability under the Act. We believe it is important that States have the flexibility to determine whether, consistent with the definition of the term special education in section 602(29) of the Act and new §300.39 (proposed §300.38), such a service should be regarded as special education and to identify a child who needs that service as a child with a disability. States are in the best position to determine whether a service that is included in the definition of related services should also be considered special education in that State. Changes: None. Comment: None. Discussion: Section §300.8(a)(2)(ii) contains an incorrect reference to §300.38(a)(2). The correct reference should be to §300.39(a)(2). Changes: We have removed the reference to §300.38(a)(2) and replaced it with a reference to §300.39(a)(2). Children Aged Three Through Nine Experiencing Developmental Delays (§300.8(b)) Comment: Several commenters expressed support for allowing LEAs to select a subset of the age range from three through nine for their definition of developmental delay. A few commenters recommended clarifying that States, not the LEAs, define the age range of children eligible under this category of developmental delay. Discussion: Section 300.8(b) states that the use of the developmental delay category for a child with a disability aged three through nine, or any subset of that age range, must be made in accordance with §300.111(b). Section 300.111(b) gives States the option of adopting a definition of developmental delay, but does not require an LEA to adopt and use the term. However, if an LEA uses the category of developmental delay, the LEA must conform to both the State’s definition of the term and the age range that has been adopted by the State. If a State does not adopt the category of developmental delay, an LEA may not use that category as the basis for establishing a child’s eligibility for special education and related services. Based on the comments, it appears that §300.8(b) has been misinterpreted as stating that LEAs are allowed to establish the age range for defining developmental delay independent of the State. We believe it is important to avoid such confusion and, therefore, will modify §300.8(b) to clarify the provision. Changes: For clarity, we have removed the phrase, ‘‘at the discretion of the State and LEA in accordance with §300.111(b)’’ and replaced it with ‘‘subject to the conditions in §300.111(b).’’ Deafness (§300.8(c)(3)) Comment: One commenter stated that children who are hard of hearing are often denied special education and related services because the definition of deafness includes the phrase, ‘‘adversely affects a child’s educational performance,’’ which school district personnel interpret to mean that the child must be failing in school to receive special education and related services. Discussion: As noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section discussing subpart B, we have clarified in §300.101(c) that a child does not have to fail or be retained in a course or grade in order to be considered for special education and related services. However, in order to be a child with a disability under the Act, a child must have one or more of the impairments identified in section 602(3) of the Act and need special education and related services because of that impairment. Given the change in §300.101(c), we do not believe clarification in §300.8(c)(3) is necessary. Changes: None. Emotional Disturbance (§300.8(c)(4)) Comment: Numerous commenters requested defining or eliminating the term ‘‘socially maladjusted’’ in the definition of emotional disturbance stating that there is no accepted definition of the term, and no valid or reliable instruments or methods to identify children who are, or are not, ‘‘socially maladjusted.’’ Some commenters stated that children who need special education and related services have been denied these services, or have been inappropriately identified under other disability categories and received inappropriate services because the definition of emotional disturbance excludes children who are socially maladjusted. One commenter stated that using the term ‘‘socially maladjusted’’ contributes to the negative image of children with mental illness and does a disservice to children with mental illness and those who seek to understand mental illness. One commenter stated that emotional disturbance is one of the most misused and misunderstood disability categories and is often improperly used to protect dangerous and aggressive children who violate the rights of others. The commenter stated that the definition of emotional disturbance is vague and offers few objective criteria to differentiate an emotional disability from ordinary development, and requires the exclusion of conditions in which the child has the ability to control his or her behavior, but chooses to violate social norms. One commenter recommended adding autism to the list of factors in §300.8(c)(4)(i)(A) that must be ruled out before making an eligibility determination based on emotional disturbance. The commenter stated that VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46550 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations many children with autism are inappropriately placed in alternative educational programs designed for children with serious emotional and behavioral problems. Discussion: Historically, it has been very difficult for the field to come to consensus on the definition of emotional disturbance, which has remained unchanged since 1977. On February 10, 1993, the Department published a ‘‘Notice of Inquiry’’ in the Federal Register (58 FR 7938) soliciting comments on the existing definition of serious emotional disturbance. The comments received in response to the notice of inquiry expressed a wide range of opinions and no consensus on the definition was reached. Given the lack of consensus and the fact that Congress did not make any changes that required changing the definition, the Department recommended that the definition of emotional disturbance remain unchanged. We reviewed the Act and the comments received in response to the NPRM and have come to the same conclusion. Therefore, we decline to make any changes to the definition of emotional disturbance. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations include a process to identify children who are at risk for having an emotional disturbance. Discussion: We decline to include a process to identify children who are at risk for having an emotional disturbance. A child who is at risk for having any disability under the Act is not considered a child with a disability under §300.8 and section 602(3) of the Act and, therefore, is not eligible for services under the Act. Changes: None. Mental Retardation (§300.8(c)(6)) Comment: One commenter suggested using the term ‘‘intellectual disability’’ in place of ‘‘mental retardation’’ because ‘‘intellectual disability’’ is a more acceptable term. The commenter also stated that the definition of mental retardation is outdated, and should, instead, address a child’s functional limitations in specific life areas. Discussion: Section 602(3)(A) of the Act refers to a ‘‘child with mental retardation,’’ not a ‘‘child with intellectual disabilities,’’ and we do not see a compelling reason to change the term. However, States are free to use a different term to refer to a child with mental retardation, as long as all children who would be eligible for special education and related services under the Federal definition of mental retardation receive FAPE. We do not believe the definition of mental retardation needs to be changed because it is defined broadly enough in §300.8(c)(6) to include a child’s functional limitations in specific life areas, as requested by the commenter. There is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would prevent a State from including ‘‘functional limitations in specific life areas’’ in a State’s definition of mental retardation, as long as the State’s definition is consistent with these regulations. Changes: None. Multiple Disabilities (§300.8(c)(7)) Comment: One commenter asked why the category of multiple disabilities is included in the regulations when it is not in the Act. Discussion: The definition of multiple disabilities has been in the regulations since 1977 and does not expand eligibility beyond what is provided for in the Act. The definition helps ensure that children with more than one disability are not counted more than once for the annual report of children served because States do not have to decide among two or more disability categories in which to count a child with multiple disabilities. Changes: None. Orthopedic Impairment (§300.8(c)(8)) Comment: One commenter requested that the examples of congenital anomalies in the definition of orthopedic impairment in current §300.7(c)(8) be retained. Discussion: The examples of congenital anomalies in current §300.7(c)(8) are outdated and unnecessary to understand the meaning of orthopedic impairment. We, therefore, decline to include the examples in §300.8(c)(8). Changes: None. Other Health Impairment (§300.8(c)(9)) Comment: We received a significant number of comments requesting that we include other examples of specific acute or chronic health conditions in the definition of other health impairment. A few commenters recommended including children with dysphagia because these children have a swallowing and feeding disorder that affects a child’s vitality and alertness due to limitations in nutritional intake. Other commenters recommended including FAS, bipolar disorders, and organic neurological disorders. Numerous commenters requested including Tourette syndrome disorders in the definition of other health impairment because children with Tourette syndrome are frequently misclassified as emotionally disturbed. A number of commenters stated that Tourette syndrome is a neurological disorder and not an emotional disorder, yet children with Tourette syndrome continue to be viewed as having a behavioral or conduct disorder and, therefore, do not receive appropriate special education and related services. Discussion: The list of acute or chronic health conditions in the definition of other health impairment is not exhaustive, but rather provides examples of problems that children have that could make them eligible for special education and related services under the category of other health impairment. We decline to include dysphagia, FAS, bipolar disorders, and other organic neurological disorders in the definition of other health impairment because these conditions are commonly understood to be health impairments. However, we do believe that Tourette syndrome is commonly misunderstood to be a behavioral or emotional condition, rather than a neurological condition. Therefore, including Tourette syndrome in the definition of other health impairment may help correct the misperception of Tourette syndrome as a behavioral or conduct disorder and prevent the misdiagnosis of their needs. Changes: We have added Tourette syndrome as an example of an acute or chronic health problem in §300.8(c)(9)(i). Comment: A few commenters expressed concern about determining a child’s eligibility for special education services under the category of other health impairment based on conditions that are not medically determined health problems, such as ‘‘central auditory processing disorders’’ or ‘‘sensory integration disorders.’’ One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that ‘‘chronic or acute health problems’’ refer to health problems that are universally recognized by the medical profession. Discussion: We cannot make the change requested by the commenters. The determination of whether a child is eligible to receive special education and related services is made by a team of qualified professionals and the parent of the child, consistent with §300.306(a)(1) and section 614(b)(4) of the Act. The team of qualified professionals and the parent of the child must base their decision on careful consideration of information from a variety of sources, consistent with §300.306(c). There is nothing in the Act that requires the team of qualified professionals and the parent to consider only health problems that are VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46551 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations universally recognized by the medical profession, as requested by the commenters. Likewise, there is nothing in the Act that would prevent a State from requiring a medical evaluation for eligibility under other health impairment, provided the medical evaluation is conducted at no cost to the parent. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the category of other health impairment is one of the most rapidly expanding eligibility categories because the definition is vague, confusing, and redundant. The commenter noted that the definition of other health impairment includes terms such as ‘‘alertness’’ and ‘‘vitality,’’ which are difficult to measure objectively. Discussion: We believe that the definition of other health impairment is generally understood and that the group of qualified professionals and the parent responsible for determining whether a child is a child with a disability are able to use the criteria in the definition and appropriately identify children who need special education and related services. Therefore, we decline to change the definition. Changes: None. Specific Learning Disability (§300.8(c)(10)) Comment: One commenter recommended changing the definition of specific learning disability to refer to a child’s response to scientific, research- based intervention as part of the procedures for evaluating children with disabilities, consistent with §300.307(a). A few commenters recommended aligning the definition of specific learning disability with the requirements for determining eligibility in §300.309. One commenter recommended using the word ‘‘disability,’’ instead of ‘‘disorder,’’ and referring to specific learning disabilities as a ‘‘disability in one or more of the basic psychological processes.’’ A few commenters stated that the terms ‘‘developmental aphasia’’ and ‘‘minimal brain dysfunction’’ are antiquated and should be removed from the definition. A few commenters questioned using ‘‘imperfect ability’’ in the definition because it implies that a child with minor problems in listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or calculating math could be determined to have a specific learning disability. Discussion: The definition of specific learning disability is consistent with the procedures for evaluating and determining the eligibility of children suspected of having a specific learning disability in §§300.307 through 300.311. We do not believe it is necessary to repeat these procedures in the definition of specific learning disability. Section 602(30) of the Act refers to a ‘‘disorder’’ in one or more of the basic psychological processes and not to a ‘‘disability’’ in one or more of the basic psychological processes. We believe it would be inconsistent with the Act to change ‘‘disorder’’ to ‘‘disability,’’ as recommended by one commenter. We do not believe that the terms ‘‘developmental aphasia’’ and ‘‘minimal brain dysfunction’’ should be removed from the definition. Although the terms may not be as commonly used as ‘‘specific learning disability,’’ the terms continue to be used and we see no harm in retaining them in the definition. We do not agree that the phrase ‘‘imperfect ability’’ implies that a child has a minor problem and, therefore, decline to change this phrase in the definition of specific learning disability. Changes: None. Comment: We received several requests to revise the definition of specific learning disability to include specific disabilities or disorders that are often associated with specific learning disabilities, including Aspergers syndrome, FAS, auditory processing disorders, and nonverbal learning disabilities. Discussion: Children with many types of disabilities or disorders may also have a specific learning disability. It is not practical or feasible to include all the different disabilities that are often associated with a specific learning disability. Therefore, we decline to add these specific disorders or disabilities to the definition of specific learning disability. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters suggested clarifying the word ‘‘cultural’’ in §300.8(c)(10)(ii) to clarify that cultural disadvantage or language cannot be the basis for determining that a child has a disability. Discussion: We believe the term ‘‘cultural’’ is generally understood and do not see a need for further clarification. We also do not believe that it is necessary to clarify that language cannot be the basis for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. Section 300.306(b)(1)(iii), consistent with section 614(b)(5)(C) of the Act, clearly states that limited English proficiency cannot be the basis for determining a child to be a child with a disability under any of the disability categories in §300.8. Changes: None. Consent (§300.9) Comment: Numerous commenters noted that the regulations include the terms ‘‘consent,’’ ‘‘informed consent,’’ ‘‘agree,’’ and ‘‘agree in writing’’ and asked whether all the terms have the same meaning. Discussion: These terms are used throughout the regulations and are consistent with their use in the Act. The definition of consent requires a parent to be fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. The definition also requires a parent to agree in writing to an activity for which consent is sought. Therefore, whenever consent is used in these regulations, it means that the consent is both informed and in writing. The meaning of the terms ‘‘agree’’ or ‘‘agreement’’ is not the same as consent. ‘‘Agree’’ or ‘‘agreement’’ refers to an understanding between the parent and the public agency about a particular question or issue, which may be in writing, depending on the context. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended adding a requirement to the definition of consent that a parent be fully informed of the reasons why a public agency selected one activity over another. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include the additional requirement recommended by the commenter. The definition of consent already requires that the parent be fully informed of all the information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department address situations in which a child is receiving special education services and the child’s parent wants to discontinue services because they believe the child no longer needs special education services. A few commenters stated that public agencies should not be allowed to use the procedural safeguards to continue to provide special education and related services to a child whose parent withdraws consent for the continued provision of special education and related services. Discussion: The Department intends to propose regulations to permit parents who previously consented to the initiation of special education services, to withdraw their consent for their child to receive, or continue to receive, special education services. Because this is a change from the Department’s longstanding policies and was not proposed in the NPRM, we will provide the public the opportunity to comment VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46552 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations on this proposed change in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking. Changes: None. Core Academic Subjects (§300.10) Comment: A few commenters suggested adding the definition of core academic subjects from the ESEA to the regulations and including any additional subjects that are considered core academic subjects for children in the State in which the child resides. Discussion: The definition of core academic subjects in §300.10, consistent with section 602(4) of the Act, is the same as the definition in section 9101 of the ESEA. We believe it is unnecessary to change the definition to include additional subjects that particular States consider to be core academic subjects. However, there is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would prevent a State from including additional subjects in its definition of ‘‘core academic subjects.’’ Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested clarifying the definition of core academic subjects for a secondary school student when the student is functioning significantly below the secondary level. Discussion: The definition of core academic subjects does not vary for secondary students who are functioning significantly below grade level. The Act focuses on high academic standards and clear performance goals for children with disabilities that are consistent with the standards and expectations for all children. As required in §300.320(a), each child’s IEP must include annual goals to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to enable the child to be involved and make progress in the general education curriculum. It would, therefore, be inconsistent and contrary to the purposes of the Act for the definition of core academic subjects to be different for students who are functioning below grade level. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked that the core content area of ‘‘science’’ apply to social sciences, as well as natural sciences. Discussion: We cannot change the regulations in the manner recommended by the commenter because the ESEA does not identify ‘‘social sciences’’ as a core academic subject. Neither does it identify ‘‘social studies’’ as a core academic subject. Instead, it identifies specific core academic areas: History, geography, economics, and civics and government. The Department’s nonregulatory guidance on ‘‘Highly Qualified Teachers, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants’’ (August 3, 2005) explains that if a State issues a composite social studies license, the State must determine in which of the four areas (history, geography, economics, and civics and government), if any, a teacher is qualified. (see question A–20 in the Department’s nonregulatory guidance available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/ teacherqual/legislation.html#guidance). Changes: None. Day; Business Day; School Day (§300.11) Comment: A few commenters stated that a partial day should be considered a school day only if there is a safety reason for a shortened day, such as a two hour delay due to snow, and that regularly scheduled half days should not be considered a school day for funding purposes. One commenter stated that many schools count the time on the bus, recess, lunch period, and passing periods as part of a school day for children with disabilities, and recommended that the regulations clarify that non-instructional time does not count against a child’s instructional day unless such times are counted against the instructional day of all children. One commenter recommended the definition of school day include days on which extended school year (ESY) services are provided to children with disabilities. Discussion: The length of the school day and the number of school days do not affect the formula used to allocate Part B funds to States. School day, as defined in §300.11(c)(1), is any day or partial day that children are in attendance at school for instructional purposes. If children attend school for only part of a school day and are released early (e.g., on the last day before summer vacation), that day would be considered to be a school day. Section 300.11(c)(2) already defines school day as having the same meaning for all children, including children with and without disabilities. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the regulations to clarify that non-instructional time (e.g., recess, lunch) is not counted as instructional time for a child with a disability unless such times are counted as instructional time for all children. Consistent with this requirement, days on which ESY services are provided cannot be counted as a school day because ESY services are provided only to children with disabilities. Changes: None. Educational Service Agency (§300.12) Comment: One commenter questioned the accuracy of the citation, 20 U.S.C. 1401(5), as the basis for including ‘‘intermediate educational unit’’ in the definition of educational service agency. Discussion: The definition of educational service agency is based on the provisions in section 602(5) of the Act. The definition was added by the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997, Pub. L. 105–17, to replace the definition of ‘‘intermediate educational unit’’ (IEU) in section 602(23) of the Act, as in effect prior to June 4, 1997. Educational service agency does not exclude entities that were considered IEUs under prior law. To avoid any confusion about the use of this term, the definition clarifies that educational service agency includes entities that meet the definition of IEU in section 602(23) of the Act as in effect prior to June 4, 1997. We believe the citation for IEU is consistent with the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that the reference to the definition of educational service agency in the definition of local educational agency or LEA in §300.28 means that educational service agencies (ESAs) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools have full responsibility and rights as LEAs under all provisions of the Act, including §300.226 (early intervening services). Discussion: With respect to ESAs, we believe that the provisions in §300.12 and §300.28 clarify that ESAs have full responsibility and rights as LEAs, including the provisions in §300.226 related to early intervening services. However, the commenter’s request regarding BIA schools is inconsistent with the Act. The definition of local educational agency in §300.28 and section 602(19) of the Act, including the provision on BIA funded schools in section 602(19)(C) of the Act and in §300.28(c), states that the term ‘‘LEA’’ includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the BIA, ‘‘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 the Act with the smallest student population.’’ Therefore, BIA schools do not have full responsibility and rights as LEAs under all provisions of the Act. Changes: None. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46553 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Excess Costs (§300.16) Comment: One commenter stated that an example on calculating excess costs would be a helpful addition to the regulations. Discussion: We agree with the commenter and will include an example of calculating excess costs in Appendix A to Part 300—Excess Costs Calculation. In developing the example, we noted that while the requirements in §300.202 exclude debt service and capital outlay in the calculation of excess costs, the definition of excess costs in §300.16 does not mention this exclusion. We believe it is important to include this exclusion in the definition of excess costs and will add language in §300.16 to make this clear and consistent with the requirements in §300.202. Changes: We have revised §300.16(b) to clarify that the calculation of excess costs may not include capital outlay or debt service. We have also added Appendix A to Part 300—Excess Costs Calculation that provides an example and an explanation of how to calculate excess costs under the Act. A reference to Appendix A has been added in §300.16(b). Free Appropriate Public Education or FAPE (§300.17) Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements in §§300.103 through 300.112 (Other FAPE Requirements) should be included in the definition of FAPE. Discussion: The other FAPE requirements in §§300.103 through 300.112 are included in subpart B of these regulations, rather than in the definition of FAPE in subpart A, to be consistent with the order and structure of section 612 of the Act, which includes all the statutory requirements related to State eligibility. The order and structure of these regulations follow the general order and structure of the provisions in the Act in order to be helpful to parents, State and LEA personnel, and the public both in reading the regulations, and in finding the direct link between a given statutory requirement and the regulation related to that requirement. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters stated that the definition of FAPE should include special education services that are provided in conformity with a child’s IEP in the least restrictive environment (LRE), consistent with the standards of the State educational agency (SEA). Discussion: The definition of FAPE in §300.17 accurately reflects the specific language in section 602(9) of the Act. We believe it is unnecessary to change the definition of FAPE in the manner recommended by the commenters because providing services in conformity with a child’s IEP in the LRE is implicit in the definition of FAPE. Consistent with §300.17(b), FAPE means that special education and related services must meet the standards of the SEA and the requirements in Part B of the Act, which include the LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.118. Additionally, §300.17(d) provides that FAPE means that special education and related services are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements in section 614(d) of the Act. Consistent with section 614(d)(1)(i)(V) of the Act, the IEP must include a statement of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular education class. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended removing ‘‘including the requirements of this part’’ in §300.17(b) because this phrase is not included in the Act, and makes every provision in Part B of the Act a component of FAPE. Discussion: Section 300.17 is the same as current §300.13, which has been in the regulations since 1977. We do not believe that §300.17 makes every provision of this part applicable to FAPE. Changes: None. Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers (§300.18) Comment: One commenter requested including the definition of ‘‘highly qualified teacher,’’ as defined in the ESEA, in the regulations. Discussion: The ESEA defines ‘‘highly qualified’’ with regard to any public elementary or secondary school teacher. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not adding definitions from other statutes to these regulations. However, we will include the current definition here for reference. The term ‘‘highly qualified’’— (A) When used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school teacher teaching in a State, means that— (i) The teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public charter school law; and (ii) The teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; (B) When used with respect to— (i) An elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher— (I) Holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and (II) Has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous State test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum (which may consist of passing a State- required certification or licensing test or tests in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum); or (ii) A middle or secondary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree and has demonstrated a high level of competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches by— (I) Passing a rigorous State academic subject test in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches (which may consist of a passing level of performance on a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches); or (II) Successful completion, in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches, of an academic major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, or advanced certification or credentialing; and (C) When used with respect to an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession, means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree and— (i) Has met the applicable standard in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B), which includes an option for a test; or (ii) Demonstrates competence in all the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation that— (I) Is set by the State for both grade appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills; (II) Is aligned with challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators; (III) Provides objective, coherent information about the teacher’s attainment of core content knowledge in VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46554 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations the academic subjects in which a teacher teaches; (IV) Is applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and the same grade level throughout the State; (V) Takes into consideration, but not be based primarily on, the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic subject; (VI) Is made available to the public upon request; and (VII) May involve multiple, objective measures of teacher competency. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended defining the term ‘‘special education teacher.’’ Other commenters recommended that States define highly qualified special education teachers and providers. One commenter stated that the regulations should define the role of the special education teacher as supplementing and supporting the regular education teacher who is responsible for teaching course content. One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that a special education teacher who is certified as a regular education teacher with an endorsement in special education meets the requirements for a highly qualified special education teacher. Another commenter recommended changing the definition of a highly qualified special education teacher so that States cannot provide a single certification for all areas of special education. One commenter requested clarification regarding the highly qualified special education teacher standards for special education teachers with single State endorsements in the area of special education. A few commenters recommended clarifying that when a State determines that a teacher is fully certified in special education, this means that the teacher is knowledgeable and skilled in the special education area in which certification is received. One commenter recommended that teacher qualifications and standards be consistent from State to State. Discussion: Section 300.18(b), consistent with section 602(10)(B) of the Act, provides that a highly qualified special education teacher must have full State special education certification (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or have passed the State special education teacher licensing examination and hold a license to teach in the State; have not had special education certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; and hold at least a bachelor’s degree. Except to the extent addressed in §300.18(c) and (d), special education teachers who teach core academic subjects must, in addition to meeting these requirements, demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of the core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches. States are responsible for establishing certification and licensing standards for special education teachers. Each State uses its own standards and procedures to determine whether teachers who teach within that State meet its certification and licensing requirements. Teacher qualifications and standards are consistent from State to State to the extent that States work together to establish consistent criteria and reciprocity agreements. It is not the role of the Federal government to regulate teacher certification and licensure. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that LEAs must train special education teachers because most special education teachers are not highly qualified upon graduation from a college program. A few commenters recommended that the regulations encourage SEAs to require coursework for both special education and general education teachers in the areas of behavior management and classroom management. One commenter recommended that the requirements for special education teachers include competencies in reading instruction and in properly modifying and accommodating instruction. Another commenter supported training in special education and related services for general education teachers. One commenter expressed support for collaboration between special education and regular education teachers. Some commenters recommended requiring a highly qualified general education teacher teaching in a self-contained special education classroom to work in close collaboration with the special education teacher assigned to those children. Another commenter stated that the definition of a highly qualified special education teacher will be meaningless if the training for teachers is not consistent across States. Discussion: Personnel training needs vary across States and it would be inappropriate for the regulations to require training on specific topics. Consistent with §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act, each State is responsible for ensuring that teachers, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, and other personnel serving children with disabilities under Part B of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained and have the content knowledge and skills required to serve children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations include standards for highly qualified special education paraprofessionals, similar to the requirements under the ESEA. Discussion: Section §300.156(b) specifically requires the qualifications for paraprofessionals to be consistent with any State-approved or State- recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services. In addition, the ESEA requires that paraprofessionals, including special education paraprofessionals who assist in instruction in title I-funded programs, have at least an associate’s degree, have completed at least two years of college, or meet a rigorous standard of quality and demonstrate, through a formal State or local assessment, knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instruction in reading, writing, and mathematics, reading readiness, writing readiness, or mathematics readiness, as appropriate. Paraprofessionals in title I schools do not need to meet these requirements if their role does not involve instructional support, such as special education paraprofessionals who solely provide personal care services. For more information on the ESEA requirements for paraprofessionals, see 34 CFR 200.58 and section 1119 of the ESEA, and the Department’s nonregulatory guidance, Title I Paraprofessionals (March 1, 2004), which can be found on the Department’s Web site at: http:// www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ paraguidance.pdf. We believe these requirements are sufficient to ensure that children with disabilities receive services from paraprofessionals who are appropriately and adequately trained. Therefore, we decline to include additional standards for paraprofessionals. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters requested clarification as to whether early childhood and preschool special education teachers must meet the highly qualified special education teacher standards. Several commenters stated that requiring early childhood and preschool special education teachers to meet the highly qualified special education teacher standards would exceed statutory authority and exacerbate the shortage of special education teachers. A few commenters supported allowing States to decide VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46555 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations whether the highly qualified special education teacher requirements apply to preschool teachers. Discussion: The highly qualified special education teacher requirements apply to all public elementary school and secondary school special education teachers, including early childhood or preschool teachers if a State includes the early childhood or preschool programs as part of its elementary school and secondary school system. If the early childhood or preschool program is not a part of a State’s public elementary school and secondary school system, the highly qualified special education teacher requirements do not apply. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the scope of the highly qualified special education teacher requirements for instructors who teach core academic subjects in specialized schools, such as schools for the blind, and recommended that there be different qualifications for instructors who provide orientation and mobility instruction or travel training for children who are blind or visually impaired. One commenter requested adding travel instructors to the list of special educators who need to be highly qualified. Some commenters recommended adding language to include certified and licensed special education teachers of children with low incidence disabilities as highly qualified special education teachers. A few commenters requested that the requirements for teachers who teach children with visual impairments include competencies in teaching Braille, using assistive technology devices, and conducting assessments, rather than competencies in core subject areas. Some commenters requested more flexibility in setting the standards for teachers of children with visual impairments and teachers of children with other low incidence disabilities. One commenter requested clarification regarding the requirements for teachers of children with low incidence disabilities. Discussion: Consistent with §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act, it is the responsibility of each State to ensure that teachers and other personnel serving children with disabilities under Part B of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities, including teachers of children with visual impairments and teachers of children with other low incidence disabilities. The highly qualified special education teacher requirements apply to all public school special education teachers. There are no separate or special provisions for special education teachers who teach in specialized schools, for teachers of children who are blind and visually impaired, or for teachers of children with other low incidence disabilities and we do not believe there should be because these children should receive the same high quality instruction from teachers who meet the same high standards as all other teachers and who have the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to assist these children to achieve to high academic standards. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how the highly qualified special education teacher requirements impact teachers who teach children of different ages. A few commenters recommended adding a provision for special education teachers who teach at multiple age levels, similar to the special education teacher who teaches multiple subjects. Discussion: The Act does not include any special requirements for special education teachers who teach at multiple age levels. Teachers who teach at multiple age levels must meet the same requirements as all other special education teachers to be considered highly qualified. The clear intent of the Act is to ensure that all children with disabilities have teachers with the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to assist children with disabilities achieve to high academic standards. Therefore, we do not believe there should be different requirements for teachers who teach at multiple age levels. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended including specific criteria defining a highly qualified special education literacy teacher. Discussion: Under §300.18(a), a special education literacy teacher who is responsible for teaching reading must meet the ESEA highly qualified teacher requirements including competency in reading, as well as the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. We do not believe that further regulation is needed as the Act leaves teacher certification and licensing requirements to States. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the highly qualified special education teacher standards will make it more difficult to recruit and retain special education teachers. Some commenters stated that most special education teachers will need to hold more than one license or certification to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements and that the time and expense needed to obtain the additional licenses or certifications is unreasonable. One commenter stated that schools will have to hire two or three teachers for every one special education teacher, thereby increasing education costs. One commenter expressed concern about losing special education teachers who teach multiple subjects in alternative education and homebound programs because they will not meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. One commenter expressed concern that the requirements set a higher standard for teachers in self- contained classrooms. Another commenter stated that requiring special education teachers in secondary schools to be experts in all subjects is a burden that elementary teachers do not have. Discussion: The Department understands the concerns of the commenters. However, the clear intention of the Act is to ensure that all children with disabilities have teachers with the subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to assist children with disabilities achieve to high academic standards. To help States and districts meet these standards, section 651 of the Act authorizes State Personnel Development grants to help States reform and improve their systems for personnel preparation and professional development in early intervention, educational, and transition services in order to improve results for children with disabilities. In addition, section 662 of the Act authorizes funding for institutions of higher education, LEAs, and other eligible local entities to improve or develop new training programs for teachers and other personnel serving children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested further clarification regarding the requirements for secondary special education teachers to be highly qualified in the core subjects they teach, as well as certified in special education. Discussion: Consistent with §300.18(a) and (b) and section 602(10)(A) and (B) of the Act, secondary special education teachers who teach core academic subjects must meet the highly qualified teacher standards established in the ESEA (which includes competency in each core academic subject the teacher teaches) and the highly qualified special education teacher requirements in VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46556 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations §300.18(b) and section 602(10)(B) of the Act. Consistent with §300.18(c) and section 602(10)(C) of the Act, a secondary special education teacher who teaches core academic subjects exclusively to children assessed against alternate achievement standards can satisfy the highly qualified special education teacher requirements by meeting the requirements for a highly qualified elementary teacher under the ESEA, or in the case of instruction above the elementary level, have subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided, as determined by the State, to effectively teach to those standards. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the highly qualified teacher requirements will drive secondary teachers who teach children with emotional and behavioral disorders out of the field and requested that the requirements be changed to require special education certification in one core area, plus a reasonable amount of training in other areas. Another commenter recommended permitting special education teachers of core academic subjects at the elementary level to be highly qualified if they major in elementary education and have coursework in math, language arts, and science. One commenter recommended that any special education teacher certified in a State prior to 2004 be exempt from having to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. Discussion: The definition of a highly qualified special education teacher in §300.18 accurately reflects the requirements in section 602(10) of the Act. To change the regulations in the manner recommended by the commenters would be inconsistent with the Act and the Act’s clear intent of ensuring that all children with disabilities have teachers with the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to assist children with disabilities achieve to high academic standards. Therefore, we decline to change the requirements in §300.18. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that there is a double standard in the highly qualified teacher requirements because general education teachers are not required to be certified in special education even though they teach children with disabilities. Another commenter recommended requiring general education teachers who teach children with disabilities to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. Discussion: We cannot make the changes suggested by the commenter because the Act does not require general education teachers who teach children with disabilities to be certified in special education. Further, the legislative history of the Act would not support these changes. Note 21 in the U.S. House of Representatives Conference Report No. 108–779 (Conf. Rpt.), p. 169, clarifies that general education teachers who are highly qualified in particular subjects and who teach children with disabilities in those subjects are not required to have full State certification as a special education teacher. For example, a reading specialist who is highly qualified in reading instruction, but who is not certified as a special education teacher, would not be prohibited from providing reading instruction to children with disabilities. The Act focuses on ensuring that children with disabilities achieve to high academic standards and have access to the same curriculum as other children. In order to achieve this goal, teachers who teach core academic subjects to children with disabilities must be competent in the core academic areas in which they teach. This is true for general education teachers, as well as special education teachers. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that LEAs may reduce placement options for children with disabilities because of the shortage of highly qualified teachers. A few commenters recommended requiring each State to develop and implement policies to ensure that teachers meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements, while maintaining a full continuum of services and alternative placements to respond to the needs of children with disabilities. Discussion: It would be inconsistent with the LRE requirements in section 612(a)(5) of the Act for a public agency to restrict the placement options for children with disabilities. Section 300.115, consistent with section 612(a)(5) of the Act, requires each public agency to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities. The additional requirements requested by the commenter are not necessary because States already must develop and implement policies to ensure that the State meets the LRE and personnel standards requirements in sections 612(a)(5) and (a)(14) of the Act, respectively. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that personnel working in charter schools should meet the same requirements as all other public school personnel. Several commenters expressed concern regarding the exemption of charter school teachers from the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. One commenter stated that while a special education teacher in a charter school does not have to be licensed or certified by the State if the State’s charter school law does not require such licensure or certification, all other elements of the highly qualified special education teacher requirements should apply to charter school teachers, including demonstrated competency in core academic subject areas. Discussion: The certification requirements for charter school teachers are established in a State’s public charter school law, and may differ from the requirements for full State certification for teachers in other public schools. The Department does not have the authority to change State charter school laws to require charter school teachers to meet the same requirements as all other public school teachers. In addition to the certification requirements established in a State’s public charter school law, if any, section 602(10) of the Act requires charter school special education teachers to hold at least a bachelor’s degree and, if they are teaching core academic subjects, demonstrate competency in the core academic areas they teach. We will add language in §300.18(b) to clarify that special education teachers in public charter schools must meet the certification or licensing requirements, if any, established by a State’s public charter school law. Changes: We have added the words ‘‘if any’’ in §300.18(b)(1)(i) to clarify that special education teachers in public charter schools must meet any certification or licensing requirements established by a State’s public charter school law. Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations use the terms ‘‘highly qualified’’ and ‘‘fully certified’’ in a manner that implies they are synonymous, and recommended that the regulations maintain the distinction between the two terms. Discussion: Full State certification is determined under State law and policy and means that a teacher has fully met State requirements, including any requirements related to a teacher’s years of teaching experience. For example, State requirements may vary for first- year teachers versus teachers who are not new to the profession. Full State VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46557 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations certification also means that the teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. The terms ‘‘highly qualified’’ and ‘‘fully certified’’ are synonymous when used to refer to special education teachers who are not teaching core academic subjects. For special education teachers teaching core academic subjects, however, both full special education certification or licensure and subject matter competency are required. Changes: We have changed the heading to §300.18(a) and the introductory material in §300.18(a) and (b)(1) for clarity. Comment: A few commenters recommended prohibiting States from creating new categories to replace emergency, temporary, or provisional licenses that lower the standards for full certification in special education. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to add the additional language recommended by the commenters. Section 300.18(b)(1)(ii) and section 602(10)(B)(ii) of the Act are clear that a teacher cannot be considered a highly qualified special education teacher if the teacher has had special education certification or licensure waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. This would include any new certification category that effectively allows special education certification or licensure to be waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters supported alternative route to certification programs for special education teachers. One commenter stated that these programs are necessary to increase the number of highly qualified teachers and will help schools on isolated tribal reservations recruit, train, and retain highly qualified teachers. However, numerous commenters expressed concerns and objections to alternative route to certification programs for special education teachers. Several commenters stated that allowing individuals making progress in an alternative route to certification program to be considered highly qualified and fully certified creates a lower standard, short-changes children, is not supported by any provision in the Act, and undermines the requirement for special education teachers to be fully certified. One commenter stated that this provision is illogical and punitive to higher education teacher training programs because it allows individuals in an alternative route to certification program to be considered highly qualified and fully certified during their training program, while at the same time individuals in regular teacher training programs that meet the same requirements as alternative route to certification programs are not considered highly qualified or fully certified. One commenter argued that an individual participating in an alternative route to certification program would need certification waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis, which means the individual has not met the requirements in §300.18(b)(1)(ii). Another commenter stated that three years is not enough time for a teacher enrolled in an alternative route to certification program to assume the functions of a teacher. Discussion: While we understand the general objections to alternative route to certification programs expressed by the commenters, the Department believes that alternative route to certification programs provide an important option for individuals seeking to enter the teaching profession. The requirements in §300.18(b)(2) were included in these regulations to provide consistency with the requirements in 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii)(A) and the ESEA, regarding alternative route to certification programs. To help ensure that individuals participating in alternative route to certification programs are well trained, there are certain requirements that must be met as well as restrictions on who can be considered to have obtained full State certification as a special education teacher while enrolled in an alternative route to certification program. An individual participating in an alternative route to certification program must (1) hold at least a bachelor’s degree and have demonstrated subject-matter competency in the core academic subject(s) the individual will be teaching; (2) assume the functions of a teacher for not more than three years; and (3) demonstrate satisfactory progress toward full certification, as prescribed by the State. The individual also must receive, before and while teaching, high-quality professional development that is sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused and have intensive supervision that consists of structured guidance and regular ongoing support. It was the Department’s intent to allow an individual who wants to become a special education teacher, but does not plan to teach a core academic subject, to enroll in an alternative route to certification program and be considered highly qualified, provided that the individual holds at least a bachelor’s degree. This requirement, however, was inadvertently omitted in the NPRM. Therefore, we will add appropriate references in §300.18(b)(3) to clarify that an individual participating in an alternative route to certification program in special education who does not intend to teach a core academic subject, may be considered a highly qualified special education teacher if the individual holds at least a bachelor’s degree and participates in an alternative route to certification program that meets the requirements in §300.18(b)(2). Changes: Appropriate citations have been added in §300.18(b)(3) to clarify the requirements for individuals enrolled in alternative route to special education teacher certification programs. Comment: A few commenters recommended more specificity in the requirements for teachers participating in alternative route to certification programs, rather than giving too much discretion to States to develop programs that do not lead to highly qualified personnel. However, one commenter recommended allowing States the flexibility to create their own guidelines for alternative route to certification programs. Several commenters recommended clarifying the requirements for the teacher supervising an individual who is participating in an alternative route to certification program. One commenter recommended requiring supervision, guidance, and support by a professional with expertise in the area of special education in which the teacher desires to become certified. Discussion: Consistent with §300.18(b)(2)(ii), States are responsible for ensuring that the standards for alternative route to certification programs in §300.18(b)(2)(i) are met. It is, therefore, up to each State to determine whether to require specific qualifications for the teachers responsible for supervising teachers participating in an alternative route to certification program. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the roles and responsibilities of special education teachers who do not teach core academic subjects. Discussion: Special education teachers who do not directly instruct children in any core academic subject or who provide only consultation to highly qualified teachers of core academic subjects do not need to demonstrate subject-matter competency in those subjects. These special educators could provide consultation services to other teachers, such as adapting curricula, VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46558 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations using behavioral supports and interventions, or selecting appropriate accommodations for children with disabilities. They could also assist children with study skills or organizational skills and reinforce instruction that the child has already received from a highly qualified teacher in that core academic subject. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended including language in the regulations to clarify that special education teachers who do not teach core academic subjects and provide only consultative services must restrict their services to areas that supplement, not replace, the direct instruction provided by a highly qualified general education teacher. One commenter recommended that States develop criteria for teachers who provide consultation services. Another commenter stated that special education teachers should not work on a consultative basis. Discussion: The definition of consultation services and whether a special education teacher provides consultation services are matters best left to the discretion of each State. While States may develop criteria to distinguish consultation versus instructional services, the Act and the ESEA are clear that teachers who provide direct instruction in a core academic subject, including special education teachers, must meet the highly qualified teacher requirements, which include demonstrated competency in each of the core academic subjects the teacher teaches. Changes: None. Requirements for Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers Teaching to Alternate Achievement Standards (§300.18(c)) Comment: One commenter recommended replacing ‘‘alternate achievement standards’’ with ‘‘alternate standards.’’ A few commenters requested including a definition of alternate achievement standards in the regulations. Discussion: ‘‘Alternate achievement standards’’ is statutory language and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to change ‘‘alternate achievement standards’’ to ‘‘alternate standards.’’ For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not adding definitions from other statutes to these regulations. However, we will include the current description of alternate achievement standards in 34 CFR 200.1(d) of the ESEA regulations here for reference. For children under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment, a State may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, define alternate academic achievement standards, provided those standards— (1) Are aligned with the State’s academic content standards; (2) Promote access to the general curriculum; and (3) Reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement standards possible. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with allowing high school students with significant cognitive disabilities to be taught by a certified elementary school teacher. One commenter stated that high school students with disabilities should be prepared to lead productive adult lives, and not be treated as young children. Another commenter stated that these requirements foster low expectations for children with the most significant cognitive disabilities and will be used to justify providing children with instruction that is not age appropriate or that denies access to the general education curriculum. A few commenters stated that the requirements for special education teachers teaching to alternate achievement standards should be the same as the requirements for all special education teachers. Some commenters recommended requiring teachers who teach to alternate achievement standards to have subject matter knowledge to provide instruction aligned to the academic content standards for the grade level in which the student is enrolled. One commenter recommended requiring any special education teacher teaching to alternate achievement standards to demonstrate knowledge of age- appropriate core curriculum content to ensure children with disabilities are taught a curriculum that is closely tied to the general education curriculum taught to other children of the same age. Discussion: The regulations promulgated under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA permit States to use alternate achievement standards to evaluate the performance of a small group of children with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are not expected to meet grade-level standards even with the best instruction. An alternate achievement standard sets an expectation of performance that differs in complexity from a grade-level achievement standard. Section 602(10)(C)(ii) of the Act, therefore, allows special education teachers teaching exclusively children who are assessed against alternate achievement standards to meet the highly qualified teacher standards that apply to elementary school teachers. In the case of instruction above the elementary level, the teacher must have subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided, as determined by the State, in order to effectively teach to those standards. We do not agree that allowing middle and high school students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to be taught by teachers who meet the qualifications of a highly qualified elementary teacher fosters low expectations, encourages students to be treated like children, promotes instruction that is not age appropriate, or denies students access to the general curriculum. Although alternate achievement standards differ in complexity from grade-level standards, 34 CFR 200.1(d) requires that alternate achievement standards be aligned with the State’s content standards, promote access to the general curriculum, and reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement standards possible. In short, we believe that the requirements in §300.18(c) will ensure that teachers teaching exclusively children who are assessed against alternate achievement standards will have the knowledge to provide instruction aligned to grade-level content standards so that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught a curriculum that is closely tied to the general curriculum. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested clarification regarding the meaning of ‘‘subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction provided’’ in §300.18(c)(2). Discussion: Section 300.18(c)(2) requires that if a teacher (who is teaching exclusively to alternate achievement standards) is teaching students who need instruction above the elementary school level, the teacher must have subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction needed to effectively teach to those standards. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that teachers exclusively teaching children who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards above the elementary level have sufficient subject matter knowledge to effectively instruct in each of the core academic subjects being taught, at the level of difficulty being taught. For example, if a high school student (determined by the IEP Team to be assessed against alternate achievement standards) has knowledge and skills in math at the 7th grade level, VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46559 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations but in all other areas functions at the elementary level, the teacher would need to have knowledge in 7th grade math in order to effectively teach the student to meet the 7th grade math standards. No further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations include requirements for teachers who provide instruction to children assessed against modified achievement standards. Several commenters stated that the requirements for teachers teaching children assessed against modified achievement standards should be the same for teachers teaching children assessed against alternate achievement standards. Discussion: The Department has not issued final regulations addressing modified achievement standards and the specific criteria for determining which children with disabilities should be assessed based on modified achievement standards. As proposed, the modified achievement standards must be aligned with the State’s academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled and provide access to the grade-level curriculum. For this reason, we see no need for a further exception to the ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ provisions at this time. Changes: None. Requirements for Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers Teaching Multiple Subjects (§300.18(d)) Comment: A few commenters stated that the requirements for teachers who teach two or more core academic subjects exclusively to children with disabilities are confusing. Some commenters requested additional guidance and flexibility for special education teachers teaching two or more core academic subjects. Other commenters recommended allowing special education teachers more time to become highly qualified in all the core academic subjects they teach. Discussion: The requirements in §300.18(d), consistent with section 602(10)(C) of the Act, provide flexibility for teachers who teach multiple core academic subjects exclusively to children with disabilities. Section 300.18(d)(2) and (3) allows teachers who are new and not new in the profession to demonstrate competence in all the core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches using a single, high objective uniform State standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) covering multiple subjects. In addition, §300.18(d)(3) gives a new special education teacher who teaches multiple subjects, and who is highly qualified in mathematics, language arts, or science at the time of hire, two years after the date of employment to demonstrate competence in the other core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches. We do not believe that further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the meaning of the following phrases in §300.18(d): ‘‘multiple subjects,’’ ‘‘in the same manner,’’ and ‘‘all the core academic subjects.’’ Discussion: ‘‘Multiple subjects’’ refers to two or more core academic subjects. Section 300.18(d) allows teachers who are new or not new to the profession to demonstrate competence in ‘‘all the core subjects’’ in which the teacher teaches ‘‘in the same manner’’ as is required for an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher under the ESEA. As used in this context, ‘‘in the same manner’’ means that special education teachers teaching multiple subjects can demonstrate competence in the core academic subjects they teach in the same way that is required for elementary, middle, or secondary school teachers in 34 CFR 200.56 of the ESEA regulations. ‘‘All the core subjects’’ refers to the core academic subjects, which include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, consistent with §300.10. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended ensuring that the requirements in §300.18(d) apply to special education teachers who teach children with severe disabilities in more than one core subject area. Discussion: The requirements in §300.18(d) do not exclude teachers who teach children with severe disabilities in more than one core subject area. Consistent with §300.18(d) and section 602(10)(D) of the Act, the requirements apply to special education teachers who teach two or more core academic subjects exclusively to children with disabilities, including, but not limited to, children with severe disabilities. We do not believe that further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: A significant number of commenters recommended adding language to the regulations to permit a separate HOUSSE for special education teachers, including a single HOUSSE that covers multiple subjects. Some commenters supported a single HOUSSE covering multiple subjects for special education teachers, as long as those adaptations of a State’s HOUSSE for use with special education teachers do not establish lower standards for the content knowledge requirements for special education teachers. Discussion: States have the option of developing a method by which teachers can demonstrate competency in each subject they teach on the basis of a HOUSSE. Likewise, we believe States should have the option of developing a separate HOUSSE for special education teachers. States have flexibility in developing their HOUSSE evaluation as long as it meets each of the following criteria established in section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA: •Be set by the State for both grade- appropriate academic subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills; •Be aligned with challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators; •Provide objective, coherent information about the teacher’s attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects in which a teacher teaches; •Be applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and teaching in the same grade level throughout the State; •Take into consideration, but not be based primarily on, the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic subject; and •Be made available to the public upon request. The ESEA also permits States, when developing their HOUSSE procedures, to involve multiple, objective measures of teacher competency. Each evaluation should have a high, objective, uniform standard that the candidate is expected to meet or to exceed. These standards for evaluation must be applied to each candidate in the same way. We believe it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to permit States to develop a separate HOUSSE for special education teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency and to use a single HOUSSE covering multiple subjects, provided that any adaptations to the HOUSSE do not establish a lower standard for the content knowledge requirements for special education teachers and meet all the requirements for a HOUSSE for regular education teachers established in section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (e) to §300.18 to allow States to develop a separate HOUSSE for VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46560 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations special education teachers and to permit the use of a single HOUSSE covering multiple subjects. Subsequent paragraphs have been renumbered. Comment: A few commenters stated that the HOUSSE should only be used to address the content requirements, not primary certification as a special educator. Discussion: A HOUSSE is a method by which teachers can demonstrate competency in each subject they teach. A HOUSSE does not address the requirement for full State certification as a special education teacher. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the requirements for a HOUSSE, particularly at the high school level. One commenter recommended clarifying the use of a separate HOUSSE for teachers of children with visual impairments. Discussion: The requirements for a HOUSSE apply to public school elementary, middle, and high school special education teachers. Neither the Act nor the ESEA provides for different HOUSSE procedures at the high school level. Similarly, there are no requirements for separate HOUSSE procedures for teachers who teach children with visual impairments or any other specific type of disability. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to establish separate requirements for separate HOUSSE procedures for teachers who teach children with visual impairments or any other specific type of disability. All children with disabilities, regardless of their specific disability, should have teachers with the subject matter knowledge to assist them to achieve to high academic standards. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that States work collaboratively to ensure there is State reciprocity of content area standards for special education teachers, including HOUSSE provisions. Discussion: It is up to each State to determine when and on what basis to accept another State’s determination that a particular teacher is highly qualified. Additionally, each State determines whether to consider a teacher from another State to be both fully certified and competent in each subject area. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested specific guidance on how to design a multi-subject HOUSSE for special education teachers. Discussion: The Department’s non- regulatory guidance on Improving Teacher Quality State Grants issued on August 3, 2005 (available at http:// www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/ guidance.doc.) provides the following guidance to States when developing their HOUSSE procedures (see question A–10): •Do the HOUSSE procedures provide an ‘‘objective’’ way of determining whether teachers have adequate subject- matter knowledge in each core academic subject they teach? •Is there a strong and compelling rationale for each part of the HOUSSE procedures? •Do the procedures take into account, but not primarily rely on, previous teaching experience? •Does the plan provide solid evidence that teachers have mastered the subject-matter content of each of the core academic subjects they are teaching? (Note: experience and association with content-focused groups or organizations do not necessarily translate into an objective measure of content knowledge.) •Has the State consulted with core content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators? •Does the State plan to widely distribute its HOUSSE procedures, and are they presented in a format understandable to all teachers? Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters asked whether the additional time allowed for teachers living in rural areas who teach multiple subjects applies to special education teachers. One commenter requested that teachers in rural areas have three extra years after the date of employment to meet the standards. Another commenter stated it will be difficult for these teachers to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements even with an extended deadline. Discussion: The Department’s policy on flexibility for middle and high school teachers in rural schools applies to special education teachers. Under this policy, announced on March 15, 2004, States may permit LEAs eligible to participate in the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program that employ teachers who teach multiple subjects and are highly qualified in at least one core academic subject, to have until the end of the 2006–07 school year for these teachers to be highly qualified in each subject that they teach. Newly- hired teachers in these covered LEAs have three years from the date of hire to become highly qualified in each core academic subject that they teach. More information about this policy is available in the Department’s nonregulatory guidance, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (August 3, 2005), which can be found on the Department’s Web site at: http:// www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/ guidance.doc. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested a definition of ‘‘new’’ special education teacher and asked whether it applies to teachers hired after the date of enactment of the Act, December 3, 2004, or after the 2005–06 school year. One commenter asked whether a fully certified regular education teacher who enrolls in a special education teacher training program would be considered ‘‘new’’ to the profession when he or she completes the training program. Discussion: Under the Act, mere completion of a special education teacher training program is not a sufficient predicate for being considered a highly qualified special education teacher. Section 602(10)(B) of the Act requires full State certification or licensure as a special education teacher, and this would apply to teachers who are already certified or licensed as a regular education teacher, as well as to other individuals. On the question of when a person is ‘‘new to the profession,’’ the Department’s non-regulatory guidance on Improving Teacher Quality State Grants issued on August 3, 2005, clarifies that States have the authority to define which teachers are new and not new to the profession; however, those definitions must be reasonable. The guidance further states that the Department strongly believes that a teacher with less than one year of teaching experience is ‘‘new’’ to the profession (see Question A–6). (The guidance is available at http:// www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/ guidance.doc). This guidance is applicable to determinations of when a person is new or not new to the profession under section 602(10)(C) and (D)(ii) of the Act and §300.18(c) and (d)(2). Under section 602(10)(D)(iii) of the Act, and reflected in §300.18(d)(3), there is additional flexibility for ‘‘a new special education teacher’’ who is teaching multiple subjects and is highly qualified in mathematics, language arts, or science, to demonstrate competence in the other core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches in the same manner as is required for an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession, which may include a single, high objective uniform State standard of evaluation covering multiple subjects, not later than 2 years after the date of employment. The phrase ‘‘2 years after the date of employment’’ in section VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46561 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 602(10)(D)(iii) of the Act is interpreted to mean 2 years after employment as a special education teacher. For purposes of this provision, we consider it appropriate to consider a fully certified regular education teacher who subsequently becomes fully certified or licensed as a special education teacher to be considered a ‘‘new special education teacher’’ when they are first hired as a special education teacher. We will add language to new §300.18(g) (proposed §300.18(f)) to make this clear. Changes: We have restructured §300.18(g) (proposed §300.18(f)) and added a new paragraph (g)(2) to permit a fully certified regular education teacher who subsequently becomes fully certified or licensed as a special education teacher to be considered a new special education teacher when first hired as a special education teacher. Comment: Some commenters recommended that the regulations clarify how co-teaching fits with the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. A few commenters stated that a special education teacher should be considered a highly qualified teacher if co-teaching with a highly qualified general education teacher. One commenter stated that co-teaching will encourage districts to work toward more inclusive settings for children with disabilities while also ensuring that teachers with appropriate qualifications are in the classroom. One commenter supported co-teaching as a method for special education teachers to learn core content knowledge and be supported by the general education teacher. One teacher recommended that a highly qualified general education teacher supervise teachers who do not meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. Discussion: The term ‘‘co-teaching’’ has many different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Whether and how co-teaching is implemented is a matter that is best left to State and local officials’ discretion. Therefore, we decline to include language regarding co-teaching in these regulations. Regardless of whether co- teaching models are used, States and LEAs must ensure that teachers meet the highly qualified teacher requirements in 34 CFR 200.56 and section 9101(23) of the ESEA and the highly qualified special education teacher requirements in §300.18 and section 602(10) of the Act, as well as the personnel requirements in §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring schools to post the credentials of educational personnel in a place with public access, and to include in the procedural safeguards notice a parent’s right to request the credentials of any teacher who supports the child in an educational environment. Another commenter stated that parents should have access to records documenting the type of supervision that is being provided when a teacher or other service provider is under the supervision of a highly qualified teacher. One commenter stated that the ESEA requires districts to provide parents with information about the personnel qualifications of their child’s classroom teachers and asked whether this requirement applies to special education teachers. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that authorizes the Department to require schools to publicly post the credentials of educational personnel or to provide parents with information about the qualification of their child’s teachers and other service providers. Section 615 of the Act describes the guaranteed procedural safeguards afforded to children with disabilities and their parents under the Act but does not address whether parents can request information about the qualifications of teachers and other service providers. However, section 1111(h)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to inform parents about the quality of a school’s teachers in title I schools. The ESEA requires that at the beginning of each school year, an LEA that accepts title I, part A funding must notify parents of children in title I schools that they can request information regarding their child’s classroom teachers, including, at a minimum: (1) Whether the teacher has met the State requirements for licensure and certification for the grade levels and subject matters in which the teacher provides instruction; (2) whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived; (3) the college major and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification or degree; and (4) whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals, and if so, their qualifications. In addition, each title I school must provide parents with timely notice that the parent’s child has been assigned, or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by, a teacher who is not highly qualified. These requirements apply only to those special education teachers who teach core academic subjects in title I schools. Changes: None. Rule of Construction (New §300.18(f)) (Proposed §300.18(e)) Comment: A number of commenters stated that the rule of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) and §300.156(e) should use the same language. One commenter stated that in order to prevent confusion, the right of action limitations regarding highly qualified teachers in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) and personnel qualifications in §300.156(e) should use consistent language regarding individual and class actions, and clearly underscore that the limitations are applicable to both administrative and judicial actions. One commenter recommended reiterating the language from section 612(a)(14)(D) of the Act that nothing prevents a parent from filing a State complaint about staff qualifications. Another commenter expressed concern because new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) and §300.156(e) may be construed to prevent due process hearings when an LEA or SEA fails to provide a highly qualified teacher. Discussion: We agree that the rule of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) and §300.156(e) should be the same. We will change the regulations to clarify that a parent or student may not file a due process complaint on behalf of a student, or file a judicial action on behalf of a class of students for the failure of a particular SEA or LEA employee to be highly qualified; however, a parent may file a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA. In addition to permitting a parent to file a complaint with the SEA, an organization or an individual may also file a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA, consistent with the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. Changes: We have added ‘‘or to prevent a parent from filing a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA as provided for under this part’’ in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)). Comment: Several commenters recommended that the regulations specify that the failure of an SEA or LEA to provide a child with a disability a highly qualified teacher can be a consideration in the determination of whether a child received FAPE, if the child is not learning the core content standards or not meeting IEP goals. However, a few commenters recommended that the regulations clarify that it is not a denial of FAPE if a special education teacher is not highly qualified. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46562 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Discussion: If the only reason a parent believes their child was denied FAPE is that the child did not have a highly qualified teacher, the parent would have no right of action under the Act on that basis. The rules of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) and §300.156(e) do not allow a parent or student to file a due process complaint for failure of an LEA or SEA to provide a highly qualified teacher. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the rule of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)) because there are no requirements to develop a specific enforcement system to ensure that teachers meet the highly qualified standard. A few commenters recommended changing the rule of construction so that States meet their supervisory responsibilities under the Act if LEAs in the State are sanctioned under the ESEA for not having highly qualified teachers. Some commenters recommended clarifying that when the SEA or LEA employs an individual who is not highly qualified, States meet their responsibilities for general supervision under the Act through the notice and other sanction procedures identified under the ESEA. One commenter stated that the regulations are silent with regard to SEA actions when meeting the general supervision requirements under the Act, and noted that unless the regulations are expanded to clarify that SEA enforcement procedures under compliance monitoring are limited to ESEA enforcement procedures, the highly qualified teacher requirements of an individual teacher may inappropriately become the target for a finding of noncompliance. This commenter further stated that the ESEA contains specific procedures for failure of a district to comply with the highly qualified teacher provisions, and if the SEA also exercises sanctioning authority under the Act, schools could be punished twice under two separate provisions of Federal law for the same infraction. The commenter recommended that to avoid double jeopardy the regulations should clarify that the ESEA enforcement procedures for a district’s failure to hire a highly qualified teacher follow the provisions of the ESEA, not the Act. Discussion: The implementation and enforcement of the highly qualified teacher standards under the ESEA and the Act complement each other. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) currently monitors the implementation of the highly qualified teacher standards for teachers of core academic subjects under the ESEA. This includes special education teachers who teach core academic subjects. The Office of Special Education programs (OSEP) collects data about special education personnel qualifications and requires that SEAs establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel essential to carrying out the purposes of Part B of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. Those personnel must also have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities, consistent with §300.156. OESE and OSEP will share their data to ensure that the highly qualified teacher requirements under the ESEA and the Act are met. This sharing of information will also prevent schools from being punished twice for the same infraction. Changes: None. Teachers Hired by Private Elementary and Secondary Schools (New §300.18(h)) (Proposed §300.18(g)) Comment: Some commenters agreed with new §300.18(h) (proposed §300.18(g)), which states that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements do not apply to teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools. However, many commenters disagreed, stating that children placed by an LEA in a private school are entitled to receive the same high quality instruction as special education children in public schools. A few commenters stated that LEAs will place children in private schools to avoid hiring highly qualified teachers. Some commenters stated that public funds should not be used for any school that is not held to the same high standards as public schools. Other commenters stated that children with the most significant disabilities who are placed in private schools are children with the most need for highly qualified teachers. A few commenters stated that this provision is contrary to the intent of the ESEA and the Act to support the educational achievement of children with disabilities. Other commenters stated that if instruction by a highly qualified teacher is a hallmark of FAPE, it should be an element of FAPE in any educational setting in which the child is enrolled by a public agency. A few commenters recommended that States have the discretion to determine whether and to what extent the highly qualified teacher requirements apply to teachers who teach publicly-placed and parentally-placed children with disabilities. The commenters stated that the SEA is in the best position to weigh the needs of private school children for highly qualified teachers and to assess what effect these requirements would have on the shortage of special education teachers in the State. One commenter asked whether the highly qualified teacher requirements apply to providers in private residential treatment centers where children with disabilities are placed to receive FAPE. Discussion: New §300.18(h) (proposed §300.18(g)) accurately reflects the Department’s position that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements do not apply to teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools. This includes teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools who teach children with disabilities. Consistent with this position and in light of comments received regarding the requirements for private school teachers providing equitable services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities under §300.138, we will add language to new §300.18(h) (proposed §300.18(g)) to clarify that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements also do not apply to private school teachers who provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities under §300.138. Changes: We have added language in new §300.18(h) (proposed §300.18(g)) to clarify that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements also do not apply to private school teachers who provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities under §300.138. Homeless Children (§300.19) Comment: Several commenters requested adding the definition of homeless children in the regulations so that it is readily accessible to parents, advocates, and educators. Discussion: The term homeless children is defined in the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not adding the definitions of other statutes to these regulations. However, we will include the current definition of homeless children in section 725 (42 U.S.C. 11434a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq. (McKinney-Vento Act) here for reference. The term homeless children and youths— (A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46563 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and (B) includes— (i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement; (ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C)); (iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and (iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that regulations are needed to address school selection and enrollment provisions under the McKinney-Vento Act. Another commenter recommended that the regulations include the McKinney- Vento Act’s requirement that school stability for homeless children be maintained during periods of residential mobility and that homeless children enrolled in new schools have the ability to immediately attend classes and participate in school activities. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters’ concerns, but do not believe it is necessary to duplicate the requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act in these regulations. We believe that these issues, as well as other issues regarding children with disabilities who are homeless, would be more appropriately addressed in non- regulatory guidance, in which more detailed information and guidance can be provided on how to implement the requirements of the Act and the McKinney-Vento Act to best meet the needs of homeless children with disabilities. We will work with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to provide guidance and disseminate information to special education teachers and administrators regarding their responsibilities for serving children with disabilities who are homeless. Changes: None. Indian and Indian Tribe (§300.21) Comment: One commenter expressed support for combining and moving the definition of Indian and Indian tribe from current §300.264 to the definitions section of these regulations because the term is applicable in instances not related to BIA schools. However, another commenter stated that the definition was unnecessary because the purpose of the Act is to ensure that every child has FAPE. Discussion: The definitions of Indian and Indian tribe are included in sections 602(12) and (13) of the Act, respectively, and are, therefore, included in subpart A of these regulations. Subpart A includes definitions for those terms and phrases about which we are frequently asked and which we believe will assist SEAs and LEAs in implementing the requirements of the Act. Including the definitions of Indian and Indian tribe in the definitions section does not in any way affect the provision of FAPE to all eligible children under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested omitting ‘‘State Indian tribes’’ that are not also federally-recognized tribes from the definition of Indian and Indian tribe stating that Federal recognition of an Indian tribe should be a predicate for the tribe’s eligibility for Federal programs and services. One commenter expressed concern that including ‘‘State Indian tribes’’ in the definition could imply that the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for providing special education and related services or funding to all State Indian tribes. Discussion: Section 602(13) of the Act and §300.21(b) define Indian tribe as ‘‘any Federal or State Indian tribe’’ and do not exclude State Indian tribes that are not federally-recognized tribes. We will add a new paragraph (c) to §300.21 clarifying that the definition of Indian and Indian tribe is not intended to indicate that the Secretary of Interior is required to provide services or funding to a State Indian tribe that is not listed in the Federal Register list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States, published pursuant to Section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a–1. Changes: A new paragraph (c) has been added to §300.21 to provide this clarification. Comment: One commenter stated that it was unclear how many States have defined Indian tribes that are not defined by the Federal government and asked what the effect would be on the provision of services by including State Indian tribes in the definition. Another commenter stated that including State Indian tribes in the definition of Indian and Indian tribe implies that children of State-recognized tribes are considered differently than other children. Discussion: As noted in the discussion responding to the previous comment, the list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States is published in the Federal Register, pursuant to Section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a–1. The Federal government does not maintain a list of other State Indian tribes. Including State Indian tribes that are not federally recognized in the definition does not affect who is responsible under the Act for the provision of services to children with disabilities who are members of State Indian tribes. Under section 611(h)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for providing special education and related services to children age 5 through 21 with disabilities on reservations who are enrolled in elementary schools and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by the Secretary of the Interior. With respect to all other children aged 3 through 21 on reservations, the SEA of the State in which the reservation is located is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of Part B of the Act are implemented. Changes: None. Individualized Family Service Plan (§300.24) Comment: A few commenters recommended including the entire definition of individualized family service plan in the regulations so that parents and school personnel do not have to shift back and forth between documents. Discussion: Adding the entire definition of individualized family service plan in section 636 of the Act, which includes information related to assessment and program development; periodic review; promptness after assessment; content of the plan; and parental consent, would unnecessarily add to the length of the regulations. However, the required content of the IFSP in section 636(d) of the Act is added here for reference. The individualized family service plan shall be in writing and contain— (1) A statement of the infant’s or toddler’s present levels of physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, and adaptive VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46564 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations development, based on objective criteria; (2) a statement of the family’s resources, priorities, and concerns relating to enhancing the development of the family’s infant or toddler with a disability; (3) a statement of the measurable results or outcomes expected to be achieved for the infant or toddler and the family, including pre-literacy and language skills, as developmentally appropriate for the child, and the criteria, procedures, and timelines used to determine the degree to which progress toward achieving the results or outcomes is being made and whether modifications or revisions of the results or outcomes or services are necessary; (4) a statement of specific early intervention services based on peer- reviewed research, to the extent practicable, necessary to meet the unique needs of the infant or toddler and the family, including the frequency, intensity, and method of delivering services; (5) a statement of the natural environments in which early intervention services will appropriately be provided, including a justification of the extent, if any, to which the services will not be provided in a natural environment; (6) the projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated length, duration, and frequency of the services; (7) the identification of the service coordinator from the profession most immediately relevant to the infant’s or toddler’s or family’s needs (or who is otherwise qualified to carry out all applicable responsibilities under this part) who will be responsible for the implementation of the plan and coordination with other agencies and persons, including transition services; and (8) the steps to be taken to support the transition of the toddler with a disability to preschool or other appropriate services. Changes: None. Infant or Toddler With a Disability (§300.25) Comment: A few commenters recommended including the entire definition of infant or toddler with a disability in the regulations so that parents and school personnel do not have to shift back and forth between documents. Discussion: We agree with the commenters and, therefore, will include the definition of infant or toddler with a disability from section 632(5) of the Act in these regulations for reference. Changes: Section 300.25 has been revised to include the entire definition of infant or toddler with a disability from section 632(5) of the Act. Institution of Higher Education (§300.26) Comment: One commenter recommended including the definition of institution of higher education in these regulations. Discussion: The term institution of higher education is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq. (HEA). For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not adding definitions from other statutes to these regulations. However, we are including the current definition here for reference. (a) Institution of higher education— For purposes of this Act, other than title IV, the term institution of higher education means an educational institution in any State that— (1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate; (2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education; (3) provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree; (4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time. (b) Additional Institutions Included— For purposes of this Act, other than title IV, the term institution of higher education also includes— (1) Any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and that meets the provision of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subsection (a); and (2) a public or nonprofit private educational institution in any State that, in lieu of the requirement in subsection (a)(1), admits as regular students persons who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that we add language to the regulations that would allow Haskell and Sipi, postsecondary programs under the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 3731 et seq., to be included in the definition of institution of higher education. Discussion: The Haskell and Sipi postsecondary programs under the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 3731 et seq. meet the statutory definition of institution of higher education in section 602(17) of the Act because they meet the definition of the term in section 101 of the HEA. The Act does not include specific institutions in the definition of institution of higher education, nor do we believe it is necessary to add specific institutions to the definition in §300.26. Changes: None. Limited English Proficient (§300.27) Comment: One commenter requested specific information about bilingual qualified personnel and qualified interpreters. Some commenters recommended including the definition of ‘‘limited English proficient’’ in the regulations. Discussion: Each State is responsible for determining the qualifications of bilingual personnel and interpreters for children with limited English proficiency. The term limited English proficient is defined in the ESEA. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not adding the definitions from other statutes to these regulations. However, we will include the current definition in section 9101(25) of the ESEA here for reference. The term limited English proficient when used with respect to an individual, means an individual— (A) Who is aged 3 through 21; (B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; (C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English; (ii)(I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and (II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46565 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and (D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual— (i) the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments described in section 1111(b)(3); (ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. Changes: None. Local Educational Agency (§300.28) Comment: One commenter suggested revising §300.28 to ensure that all responsibilities and rights attributed to an LEA apply to an ESA. Discussion: We believe that the provisions in §300.12 and §300.28 are clear that ESAs have full responsibilities and rights as LEAs. We, therefore, decline to revise §300.28. Changes: None. Comment: None. Discussion: Through its review of charter schools’ access to Federal funding, it has come to the Department’s attention that additional guidance is needed regarding whether charter schools that are established as their own LEAs must be nonprofit entities in order to meet the definition of LEA in §300.28. The definition of LEA in §300.28(b)(2) specifically includes a public charter school that is established as an LEA under State law and that exercises administrative control or direction of, or performs a service function for, itself. For purposes of the Act, the definitions of charter school, elementary school, and secondary school in §§300.7, 300.13, and 300.36, respectively, require that a public elementary or secondary charter school be a nonprofit entity. Therefore, a public elementary or secondary charter school established as its own LEA under State law, also must be a nonprofit entity. Although these regulations do not specifically define nonprofit, the definition in 34 CFR §77.1 applies to these regulations. In order to eliminate any confusion on this issue, we will revise the definition of LEA to reflect that a public elementary or secondary charter school that is established as its own LEA under State law must be a nonprofit entity. Changes: For clarity, we have revised §300.28(b)(2) by inserting the term ‘‘nonprofit’’ before ‘‘charter school that is established as an LEA under State law.’’ Comment: One commenter stated that §300.28(c) is in error from a technical drafting perspective because it does not follow the statutory language in section 602(19)(C) of the Act. The commenter also suggested adding a definition of ‘‘BIA funded school,’’ rather than adding a new definition of LEA related to BIA funded schools. Discussion: We agree that §300.28(c) does not accurately reflect the statutory language in section 602(19)(C) of the Act and, as written, could be interpreted as defining BIA funded schools. This was not our intent. Rather, the intent was to include ‘‘BIA funded schools’’ in the definition of LEA, consistent with section 602(19)(C) of the Act. In order to correct the technical drafting error, we will change §300.28(c) to accurately reflect section 602(19)(C) of the Act. We decline to add a definition of ‘‘BIA funded schools.’’ The Act does not define this term and the Department does not believe that it is necessary to define the term. Changes: In order to correct a technical drafting error, §300.28(c) has been revised to be consistent with statutory language. Native Language (§300.29) Comment: A few commenters expressed support for retaining the definition of native language, stating that it is important to clarify that sign language is the native language of many children who are deaf. One commenter stated it is important to clarify that the language normally used by the child may be different than the language normally used by the parents. Another commenter stated that the definition of native language does not adequately cover individuals with unique language and communication techniques such as deafness or blindness or children with no written language. Discussion: The definition of native language was expanded in the 1999 regulations to ensure that the full range of needs of children with disabilities whose native language is other than English is appropriately addressed. The definition clarifies that in all direct contact with the child (including an evaluation of the child), native language means the language normally used by the child and not that of the parents, if there is a difference between the two. The definition also clarifies that for individuals with deafness or blindness, or for individuals with no written language, the native language is the mode of communication that is normally used by the individual (such as sign language, Braille, or oral communication). We believe this language adequately addresses the commenters’ concerns. Changes: None. Parent (§300.30) Comment: Several commenters objected to the term ‘‘natural parent’’ in the definition of parent because ‘‘natural parent’’ presumes there are ‘‘unnatural parents.’’ The commenters recommended using ‘‘birth parent’’ or ‘‘biological parent’’ throughout the regulations. Discussion: We understand that many people find the term ‘‘natural parent’’ offensive. We will, therefore, use the term ‘‘biological parent’’ to refer to a non-adoptive parent. Changes: We have replaced the term ‘‘natural parent’’ with ‘‘biological parent’’ in the definition of parent and throughout these regulations. Comment: A significant number of commenters recommended retaining the language in current §300.20(b), which states that a foster parent can act as a parent if the biological parent’s authority to make educational decisions on the child’s behalf have been extinguished under State law, and the foster parent has an ongoing, long-term parental relationship with the child; is willing to make the educational decisions required of parents under the Act; and has no interest that would conflict with the interest of the child. A few commenters stated that current §300.20(b) better protects children’s interests and should not be removed. Another commenter stated that removing current §300.20 will have unintended consequences for the many foster children who move frequently to new homes because there will be confusion as to who has parental rights under the Act. A few commenters stated that short-term foster parents may not have the knowledge of the child or the willingness to actively participate in the special education process, which will effectively leave the child without a parent. One commenter stated that §300.30 needs to be changed to protect biological and adoptive parents from arbitrary decisions by educational officials who lack the legal authority to make educational decisions for the child and to ensure that when no biological or adoptive parent is available, a person with a long-term relationship with, and commitment to, the child has decision- making authority. Discussion: Congress changed the definition of parent in the Act. The definition of parent in these regulations reflects the revised statutory definition of parent in section 602(23) of the Act. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46566 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations The Department understands the concerns expressed by the commenters, but believes that the changes requested would not be consistent with the intent of the statutory changes. In changing the definition of parent in the Act, Congress incorporated some of the wording from the current regulations and did not incorporate in the new definition of parent, the current foster parent language referenced by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended allowing a foster parent who does not have a long-term relationship to be the parent, if a court, after notifying all interested parties, determines that it is in the best interest of the child. Discussion: Section 300.30(b)(2) clearly states that if a person is specified in a judicial order or decree to act as the parent for purposes of §300.30, that person would be considered the parent under Part B of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that §300.30(a)(2) withdraws the rights of biological parents under the Act without due process of law. Discussion: We do not agree with the commenter. If more than one person is attempting to act as a parent, §300.30(b)(1) provides that the biological or adoptive parent is presumed to be the parent if that person is attempting to act as the parent under §300.30, unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child, or there is a judicial order or decree specifying some other person to act as a parent under Part B of the Act. We do not believe that provisions regarding lack of legal authority or judicial orders or decrees would apply unless there has already been a determination, through appropriate legal processes, that the biological parent should not make educational decisions for the child or that another person has been ordered to serve as the parent. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that §300.30(a)(2) is unwieldy and difficult to implement because it requires extensive fact finding by the LEA to determine whether any contractual obligations would prohibit the foster parent from acting as a parent. Discussion: The statutory language concerning the definition of parent was changed to permit foster parents to be considered a child’s parent, unless State law prohibits a foster parent from serving as a parent. The language in the regulations also recognizes that similar restrictions may exist in State regulations or in contractual agreements between a State or local entity and a foster parent, and should be accorded similar deference. We believe it is essential for LEAs to have knowledge of State laws, regulations, and any contractual agreements between a State or local entity and a foster parent to ensure that the requirements in §300.30(a)(2) are properly implemented. States and LEAs should develop procedures to make this information more readily and easily available so that LEAs do not have to engage in extensive fact finding each time a child with a foster parent enrolls in a school. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations need to clarify that guardians ad litem do not meet the definition of a parent except for wards of the State where consent for the initial evaluation has been given by an individual appointed by the judge to represent the child in the educational decisions concerning the child. Discussion: We agree that guardians with limited appointments that do not qualify them to act as a parent of the child generally, or do not authorize them to make educational decisions for the child, should not be considered to be a parent within the meaning of these regulations. What is important is the legal authority granted to individuals appointed by a court, and not the term used to identify them. Whether a person appointed as a guardian ad litem has the requisite authority to be considered a parent under this section depends on State law and the nature of the person’s appointment. We will revise §300.30(a)(3) to clarify that a guardian must be authorized to act as the child’s parent generally or must be authorized to make educational decisions for the child in order to fall within the definition of parent. Changes: We have added language in §300.30(a)(3) to clarify when a guardian can be considered a parent under the Act. Comment: One commenter requested adding a ‘‘temporary parent’’ appointed in accordance with sections 615(b)(2) or 639(a)(5) of the Act to the definition of parent. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that would prevent a temporary surrogate parent from having all the rights of a parent. Note 89 of the Conf. Rpt., p. 35810, provides that appropriate staff members of emergency shelters, transitional shelters, independent living programs, and street outreach programs would not be considered to be employees of agencies involved in the education or care of unaccompanied youth (and thus prohibited from serving as a surrogate parent), provided that such a role is temporary until a surrogate parent can be appointed who meets the requirements for a surrogate parent in §300.519(d). This provision is included in §300.519(f), regarding surrogate parents. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add ‘‘temporary parent’’ to the definition of parent in §300.30. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the definition of parent is confusing, especially in light of the definition of ward of the State in new §300.45 (proposed §300.44) and the LEA’s obligation to appoint a surrogate parent. These commenters stated that §300.30 should cross-reference the definition of ward of the State in new §300.45 (proposed §300.44) and state that the appointed surrogate parent for a child who is a ward of the State is the parent. Discussion: Section 615(b)(2) of the Act does not require the automatic appointment of a surrogate parent for every child with a disability who is a ward of the State. States and LEAs must ensure that the rights of these children are protected and that a surrogate parent is appointed, if necessary, as provided in §300.519(b)(1). If a child who is a ward of the State already has a person who meets the definition of parent in §300.30, and that person is willing and able to assume the responsibilities of a parent under the Act, a surrogate parent might not be needed. Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to make the changes suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that public agencies will require biological or adoptive parents to affirmatively assert their rights or to take action in order to be presumed to be the parent. The commenter requested clarifying in §300.30(b)(1) that biological or adoptive parents do not have to take affirmative steps in order for the presumption to apply. Discussion: The biological or adoptive parent would be presumed to be the parent under these regulations, unless a question was raised about their legal authority. There is nothing in the Act that requires the biological or adoptive parent to affirmatively assert their rights to be presumed to be the parent. We continue to believe that §300.30(b)(1) is clear and, therefore, will not make the changes requested by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended removing ‘‘when attempting to act as a parent under this VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46567 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations part’’ in §300.30(b)(1). A few commenters stated that there is no explanation of what it means for a biological parent to ‘‘attempt to act as a parent.’’ Another commenter stated that the regulations do not set any guidelines for determining how a public agency decides if a biological or adoptive parent is attempting to act as a parent. One commenter stated ‘‘attempting to act’’ would require LEAs to make determinations about a biological parent’s decision-making authority and this should be left up to courts to determine. One commenter stated that the regulations permit multiple persons to act as a child’s parent and do not adequately set forth a process to determine who should be identified as the actual parent for decision-making purposes. The commenter further stated that the regulations do not set out a procedure or a timeframe by which public agency officials should determine if a biological parent has retained the right to make educational decisions for his or her child. One commenter stated that the definition of parent gives school districts excessive power; for example a school could appoint a surrogate parent if the foster parent was excessively demanding. The commenter further stated that a clearer order of priority and selection mechanism with judicial oversight needs to be in place so that school districts cannot ‘‘parent shop’’ for the least assertive individual, and so that relatives, foster parents, social workers, and others involved with the child will know who has educational decision making authority. One commenter questioned whether §300.30(b) helps identify parents or confuses situations in which the person to be designated the parent is in dispute. Another commenter stated that the requirements in §300.30(b) place the responsibility of determining who serves as the parent of a child in foster care directly on the shoulders of school administrators who are not child welfare experts. The commenter recommended that a foster parent automatically qualify as a parent when the rights of the child’s biological parents have been extinguished and the foster parent has a long-term relationship with the child, no conflict of interest, and is willing to make educational decisions. Discussion: Section 300.30(b) was added to assist schools and public agencies in determining the appropriate person to serve as the parent under Part B of the Act in those difficult situations in which more than one individual is ‘‘attempting to act as a parent’’ and make educational decisions for a child. It recognizes the priority of the biological or adoptive parent and the authority of the courts to make decisions, and does not leave these decisions to school administrators. The phrase ‘‘attempting to act as a parent’’ is generally meant to refer to situations in which an individual attempts to assume the responsibilities of a parent under the Act. An individual may ‘‘attempt to act as a parent’’ under the Act in many situations; for example, if an individual provides consent for an evaluation or reevaluation, or attends an IEP Team meeting as the child’s parent. We do not believe it is necessary or possible to include in these regulations the numerous situations in which an individual may ‘‘attempt to act as a parent.’’ Section 300.30(b)(1) provides that the biological or adoptive parent is presumed to be the parent if that person is attempting to act as the parent under §300.30, unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child, or there is a judicial order or decree specifying some other person to act as a parent under Part B of the Act. Section 300.30(b)(2) provides that if a person (or persons) is specified in a judicial order or decree to act as the parent for purposes of §300.30, that person would be the parent under Part B of the Act. We do not believe that it is necessary for these regulations to establish procedures or a timeline for a public agency to determine whether a biological parent has retained the right to make educational decisions for a child. Such procedures and timelines will vary depending on how judicial orders or decrees are routinely handled in a State or locality, and are best left to State and local officials to determine. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended modifying §300.30(b)(2) to clarify that a court has the discretion to decide who has the right to make educational decisions for a child. One commenter recommended clarifying that the judicial decree referred to in §300.30(b)(2) relates specifically to divorce situations, rather than situations involving children who are wards of the State. Another commenter stated that §300.30(b)(2) appears to be aimed at situations where the court has designated a parent, such as in a custody decree, and that it is not clear what the provision adds. Discussion: Section 300.30(b)(2) specifically states that if a judicial decree or order identifies a person or persons to act as the parent of a child or to make educational decisions on behalf of a child, then that person would be determined to be the parent. It was intended to add clarity about who would be designated a parent when there are competing individuals under §300.30(a)(1) through (4) who could be considered a parent for purposes of this part. It is not necessary to specify or limit this language to provide that the judicial decree or order applies to specific situations, such as divorce or custody cases. However, it should not authorize courts to appoint individuals other than those identified in §300.30(a)(1) through (4) to act as parents under this part. Specific authority for court appointment of individuals to provide consent for initial evaluations in limited circumstances is in §300.300(a)(2)(c). Authority for court appointment of a surrogate parent in certain situations is in §300.519(c). Changes: We have revised §300.30(b)(2) to limit its application to individuals identified under §300.30(a)(1) through (4) and have deleted the phrase ‘‘except that a public agency that provides education or care for the child may not act as the parent’’ as unnecessary. Comment: One commenter recommended allowing foster parents to act as parents only when the birth parent’s rights have been extinguished or terminated. A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify the circumstances under which a foster parent can take over educational decision making. One commenter stated that allowing a foster parent to act as a parent would disrupt the special education process. Discussion: Under §300.30(a)(2), a foster parent can be considered a parent, unless State law, regulations, or contractual obligations with a State or local entity prohibit a foster parent from acting as a parent. However, in cases where a foster parent and a biological or adoptive parent attempt to act as the parent, §300.30(b)(1) clarifies that the biological or adoptive parent is presumed to be the parent, unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child. Section 300.30(b)(2) further clarifies that if a person or persons such as a foster parent or foster parents is specified in a judicial order or decree to act as the parent for purposes of §300.30, that person would be the parent under Part B of the Act. We do not believe that further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that ‘‘extinguished under State law’’ be defined to mean both temporary and permanent termination VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46568 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations of parental rights to make educational decisions because this would allow courts to make more timely decisions regarding the role of a parent and not feel bound to wait for a full termination of parental rights. Discussion: The phrase ‘‘extinguished under State law’’ is not used in the Act or these regulations. The phrase was used in the definition of parent in current §300.20(b)(1). The comparable provision in these regulations is in §300.30(b)(1), which refers to situations in which the ‘‘biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child.’’ We do not believe that either of these phrases affects the timeliness of decision making by courts regarding parental rights. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters stated that ‘‘consistent with State law’’ should be included in §300.30(b)(2) in order to honor local laws already in place to protect these children. Discussion: We do not believe the change recommended by the commenters is necessary. Courts issue decrees and orders consistent with applicable laws. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that it would not be wise to completely exclude an agency involved in the education or care of the child from serving as a parent because situations in which an LEA acts as a parent are very rare and only occur under very unusual circumstances. Discussion: The exclusion of an agency involved in the education or care of the child from serving as a parent is consistent with the statutory prohibition that applies to surrogate parents in sections 615(b)(2) and 639(a)(5) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify the responsibilities of the LEA when a biological or adoptive parent and a foster parent attempt to act as the parent. Although the regulations state that the biological or adoptive parent must be presumed to be the parent unless the biological or adoptive parent has been divested of this authority by a court, the commenter stated that the regulations are not clear as to whether the LEA has the duty to notify the biological or adoptive parent, accommodate his or her schedule, or otherwise take steps to facilitate the biological or adoptive parent’s participation. One commenter recommended clarifying the relative rights of a biological or adoptive parent and a foster parent when a child is in foster care and the foster parent is not prohibited by the State from acting as a parent. Discussion: Section 300.30(b)(1) states that when more than one party is qualified under §300.30(a) to act as the parent, the biological or adoptive parent is presumed to be the parent (unless a judicial decree or order identifies a specific person or persons to act as the parent of a child). The biological or adoptive parent has all the rights and responsibilities of a parent under the Act, and the LEA must provide notice to the parent, accommodate his or her schedule when arranging meetings, and involve the biological or adoptive parent in the education of the child with a disability. Thus, if a child is in foster care (and the foster parent is not prohibited by the State from acting as a parent) and the biological or adoptive parent is attempting to act as a parent, the biological or adoptive parent is presumed to be the parent unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child or a judicial decree or order identifies a specific person or persons to act as the parent of a child. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that it is unclear when or under what circumstances a biological or adoptive parent ceases or surrenders their rights to a foster parent to make educational decisions for a child. One commenter stated that the regulations should define clearly the situations when this would occur and the level of proof that must be shown by the party seeking to make educational decisions on behalf of a child. The commenter stated that only under the most extreme and compelling circumstances should a court be able to appoint another individual to take the place of a biological or adoptive parent. Discussion: It would be inappropriate and beyond the authority of the Department to regulate on the termination of parental rights to make educational decisions. It is the responsibility of a court to decide whether to appoint another person or persons to act as a parent of a child or to make educational decisions on behalf of a child. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying to whom LEAs must provide notice, or obtain consent in situations where there are disputes between biological or adoptive parents (e.g., when parents separate or divorce). Discussion: In situations where the parents of a child are divorced, the parental rights established by the Act apply to both parents, unless a court order or State law specifies otherwise. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended clarifying in the regulations that a private agency that contracts with a public agency for the education or care of the child may not act as a parent. Discussion: A private agency that contracts with a public agency for the education or care of the child, in essence, works for the public agency, and therefore, could not act as a parent under the Act. We do not believe it is necessary to regulate on this matter. Changes: None. Parent Training and Information Center (§300.31) Comment: One commenter requested describing a parent training and information center (PTI) and a community parent resource center (CPRC) in the regulations, rather than referencing section 671 or 672 of the Act. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include these descriptions in the regulations. Section 671 of the Act describes the program requirements for a PTI and section 672 of the Act describes the program requirements for a CPRC. These sections describe the activities required of PTIs and CPRCs, as well as the application process for discretionary funding under Part D of the Act, and would unnecessarily add to the length of the regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that, in order for a State or LEA to be considered for funding under the Act, the regulations should require partnerships with the PTIs and the CPRCs, as well as input from PTIs and CPRCs on assessing State and local needs, and developing and implementing a plan to address State and local needs. Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. There is nothing in the Act that requires States or LEAs, as a condition of funding, to obtain input from PTIs and CPRCs in assessing needs or developing and implementing a plan to address State or local needs. States and LEAs are free to do so, but it is not a requirement for funding. Changes: None. Public Agency (§300.33) Comment: One commenter stated that the term public agency is not in the Act and noted that no State has created a new type of public education agency beyond LEAs and SEAs. The commenter stated that including the definition of public agency in the regulations, VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46569 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations therefore, raises concerns regarding the responsibility and authority for future special education services. Discussion: The definition of public agency refers to all agencies responsible for various activities under the Act. The terms ‘‘LEA’’ or ‘‘SEA’’ are used when referring to a subset of public agencies. We disagree that the definition raises concerns about the responsibility and authority for future educational services because the term public agency is used only for those situations in which a particular regulation does not apply only to SEAs and LEAs. During our internal review of the NPRM, we found several errors in the definition of public agency. Our intent was to use the same language in current §300.22. We will, therefore, correct these errors to be consistent with current §300.22. Additionally, we will clarify that a charter school must be a nonprofit charter school. As noted in the discussion regarding §300.28(b)(2), we clarified that a charter school established as its own LEA under State law, must be a nonprofit charter school. Changes: We have removed the phrase ‘‘otherwise included as’’ the second time it appears, and replaced it with ‘‘a school of an’’ in §300.33. We have also changed ‘‘LEAs’’ to ‘‘LEA’’ and ‘‘ESAs’’ to ‘‘ESA’’ the third time these abbreviations appear in §300.33. Related Services (§300.34) Related Services, General (§300.34(a)) Comment: One commenter requested defining related services as enabling a child with a disability to receive FAPE in the LRE. Discussion: The definition of related services is consistent with section 601(26) of the Act, which does not refer to LRE. The Department believes that revising the regulations as requested would inappropriately expand the definition in the Act. Furthermore, the regulations in §300.114(a)(2)(ii) already prevent placement of a child outside the regular education environment unless the child cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services. Therefore, we see no need to make the change suggested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: We received numerous requests to revise §300.34 to add specific services in the definition of related services. A few commenters recommended including marriage and family therapy. One commenter recommended adding nutrition therapy and another commenter recommended adding recreation therapy. A significant number of commenters recommended adding art, music, and dance therapy. One commenter recommended adding services to ensure that medical devices, such as those used for breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions, are working properly. One commenter requested adding programming and training for parents and staff as a related service. A few commenters requested clarification on whether auditory training and aural habilitation are related services. One commenter asked whether hippotherapy should be included as a related service. Other commenters recommended adding language in the regulations stating that the list of related services is not exhaustive. A few commenters asked whether a service is prohibited if it is not listed in the definition of related services. Discussion: Section 300.34(a) and section 602(26) of the Act state that related services include other supportive services that are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. We believe this clearly conveys that the list of services in §300.34 is not exhaustive and may include other developmental, corrective, or supportive services if they are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. It would be impractical to list every service that could be a related service, and therefore, no additional language will be added to the regulations. Consistent with §§300.320 through 300.328, each child’s IEP Team, which includes the child’s parent along with school officials, determines the instruction and services that are needed for an individual child to receive FAPE. In all cases concerning related services, the IEP Team’s determination about appropriate services must be reflected in the child’s IEP, and those listed services must be provided in accordance with the IEP at public expense and at no cost to the parents. Nothing in the Act or in the definition of related services requires the provision of a related service to a child unless the child’s IEP Team has determined that the related service is required in order for the child to benefit from special education and has included that service in the child’s IEP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding behavior interventions to the list of related services, stating that while positive behavioral interventions and supports are often provided by one of the professionals listed in §300.34(c), other types of specialists also often provide them. Discussion: The list of related services in §300.34 is consistent with section 602(26) of the Act and, as noted above, we do not believe it is necessary to add additional related services to this list. We agree with the commenter that there may be many professionals in a school district who are involved in the development of positive behavioral interventions. Including the development of positive behavioral interventions in the description of activities under psychological services (§300.34(b)(10)) and social work services in schools (§300.34(b)(14)) is not intended to imply that school psychologists and social workers are automatically qualified to perform these services or to prohibit other qualified personnel from providing these services, consistent with State requirements. Changes: None. Exception; Services That Apply to Children With Cochlear Implants (§300.34(b)) Comment: Many commenters opposed the exclusion of surgically implanted devices from the definition of related services. Many commenters stated that the Act does not exclude the maintenance or programming of surgically implanted devices from the definition of related services, and that the regulations should specifically state that related services includes the provision of mapping services for a child with a cochlear implant. A few commenters stated that the issue of mapping cochlear implants needs to be clarified so that schools and parents understand who is responsible for providing this service. One commenter requested that the regulations clearly specify that optimization of a cochlear implant is a medical service and define mapping as an audiological service. Discussion: The term ‘‘mapping’’ refers to the optimization of a cochlear implant and is not included in the definition of related services. Specifically, ‘‘mapping’’ and ‘‘optimization’’ refer to adjusting the electrical stimulation levels provided by the cochlear implant that is necessary for long-term post-surgical follow-up of a cochlear implant. Although the cochlear implant must be properly mapped in order for the child to hear well in school, the mapping does not have to be done in school or during the school day in order for it to be effective. The exclusion of mapping from the definition of related services reflects the language in Senate Report (S. Rpt.) No. 108–185, p. 8, which states that the Senate committee did not intend that VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46570 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations mapping a cochlear implant, or even the costs associated with mapping, such as transportation costs and insurance co- payments, be the responsibility of a school district. These services and costs are incidental to a particular course of treatment chosen by the child’s parents to maximize the child’s functioning, and are not necessary to ensure that the child is provided access to education, regardless of the child’s disability, including maintaining health and safety while in school. We will add language in §300.34(b) to clarify that mapping a cochlear implant is an example of device optimization and is not a related service under the Act. Changes: We have added ‘‘(e.g., mapping)’’ following ‘‘functioning’’ in §300.34(b) to clarify that mapping a surgically implanted device is not a related service under the Act. Comment: A significant number of commenters stated that children with cochlear implants need instruction in listening and language skills to process spoken language, just as children with hearing loss who use hearing aids, and requested that the regulations clarify that excluding the optimization of device functioning from the definition of related services does not impact a child’s access to related services such as speech and language therapy, assistive listening devices, appropriate classroom acoustics, auditory training, educational interpreters, cued speech transliterators, and specialized instruction. One commenter requested that the regulations explicitly state whether a public agency is required to provide more speech and language services or audiology services to a child with a cochlear implant. Another commenter requested that the regulations clarify that optimization only refers to access to assistive technology, such as assistive listening devices (e.g., personal frequency modulation (FM) systems) and monitoring and troubleshooting of the device function that is required under proper functioning of hearing aids. Discussion: Optimization generally refers to the mapping necessary to make the cochlear implant work properly and involves adjusting the electrical stimulation levels provided by the cochlear implant. The exclusion of mapping as a related service is not intended to deny a child with a disability assistive technology (e.g., FM system); proper classroom acoustical modifications; educational support services (e.g., educational interpreters); or routine checking to determine if the external component of a surgically implanted device is turned on and working. Neither does the exclusion of mapping as a related service preclude a child with a cochlear implant from receiving the related services (e.g., speech and language services) that are necessary for the child to benefit from special education services. As the commenters point out, a child with a cochlear implant may still require related services, such as speech and language therapy, to process spoken language just as other children with hearing loss who use hearing aids may need those services and are entitled to them under the Act if they are required for the child to benefit from special education. Each child’s IEP Team, which includes the child’s parent along with school officials, determines the related services, and the amount of services, that are required for the child to benefit from special education. It is important that the regulations clearly state that a child with a cochlear implant or other surgically implanted medical device is entitled to related services that are determined by the child’s IEP Team to be necessary for the child to benefit from special education. Therefore, we will add language in §300.34(b) to clarify that a child with a cochlear implant or other surgically implanted medical device is entitled to those related services that are required for the child to benefit from special education, as determined by the child’s IEP Team. Changes: We have reformatted §300.34(b) and added a new paragraph (2) to clarify that a child with a cochlear implant or other surgically implanted device is entitled to the related services that are determined by the child’s IEP Team to be required for the child to benefit from special education. We have also added the phrase ‘‘services that apply to children with surgically implanted devices, including cochlear implants’ to the heading in §300.34(b). Comment: One commenter expressed concern that excluding the optimization of device functioning and maintenance of the device as related services will establish different standards for serving children with cochlear implants versus children who use hearing aids and other external amplification devices, and recommended clarifying that routine monitoring of cochlear implants and other surgically implanted devices to ensure that they are functioning in a safe and effective manner is permitted under the Act. A few commenters stated that some schools are interpreting the exclusion of device optimization, functioning, and maintenance to mean that they do not have to help the child change a battery in the externally worn speech processor connected with the surgically implanted device, make certain that it is turned on, or help the child to learn to listen with the cochlear implant. One commenter stated that children with cochlear implants should have the same services as children who use a hearing aid when the battery needs changing or equipment breaks down. One commenter stated that §300.34(b) is confusing and should explicitly state that the exception of the optimization of device functioning, maintenance of the device, or replacement of the device is limited to surgically implanted devices. The commenter stated that the language could erroneously lead to an interpretation that this exception is applicable to all medical devices. One commenter expressed concern that this misinterpretation could put insulin pumps and other medical devices that are required for the health of the child in the same category as cochlear implants. A few commenters stated that it is important to clarify that excluding the optimization of device functioning and the maintenance of the device should not be construed to exclude medical devices and services that children need to assist with breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions while the child is involved with education and other school-related activities. One commenter stated that a school nurse, aide, teacher’s aide, or any other person who is qualified and trained should be allowed to monitor and maintain, as necessary, a surgically implanted device. Discussion: A cochlear implant is an electronic device surgically implanted to stimulate nerve endings in the inner ear (cochlea) in order to receive and process sound and speech. The device has two parts, one that is surgically implanted and attached to the skull and, the second, an externally worn speech processor that attaches to a port in the implant. The internal device is intended to be permanent. Optimization or ‘‘mapping’’ adjusts or fine tunes the electrical stimulation levels provided by the cochlear implant and is changed as a child learns to discriminate signals to a finer degree. Optimization services are generally provided at a specialized clinic. As we discussed previously regarding §300.34, optimization services are not a covered service under the Act. However, a public agency still has a role in providing services and supports to help children with cochlear implants. Particularly with younger children or children who have recently obtained implants, teachers and related services personnel frequently are the first to notice changes in the child’s perception VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46571 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations of sounds that the child may be missing. This may manifest as a lack of attention or understanding on the part of the child or frustration in communicating. The changes may indicate a need for remapping, and we would expect that school personnel would communicate with the child’s parents about these issues. To the extent that adjustments to the devices are required, a specially trained professional would provide the remapping, which is not considered the responsibility of the public agency. In many ways, there is no substantive difference between serving a child with a cochlear implant in a school setting and serving a child with a hearing aid. The externally worn speech processor connected with the surgically implanted device is similar to a hearing aid in that it must be turned on and properly functioning in order for the child to benefit from his or her education. Parents of children with cochlear implants and parents of children with hearing aids both frequently bring to school extra batteries, cords, and other parts for the hearing aids and externally worn speech processors connected with the surgically-implanted devices, especially for younger children. The child also may need to be positioned so that he or she can directly see the teacher at all times, or may need an FM amplification system such as an audio loop. For services that are not necessary to provide access to education by maintaining the health or safety of the child while in school, the distinguishing factor between those services that are not covered under the Act, such as mapping, and those that are covered, such as verifying that a cochlear implant is functioning properly, in large measure, is the level of expertise required. The maintenance and monitoring of surgically implanted devices require the expertise of a licensed physician or an individual with specialized technical expertise beyond that typically available from school personnel. On the other hand, trained lay persons or nurses can routinely check an externally worn processor connected with a surgically implanted device to determine if the batteries are charged and the external processor is operating. (As discussed below, the Act does require public agencies to provide those services that are otherwise related services and are necessary to maintain a child’s health or safety in school even if those services require specialized training.) Teachers and related services providers can be taught to first check the externally worn speech processor to make sure it is turned on, the volume and sensitivity settings are correct, and the cable is connected, in much the same manner as they are taught to make sure a hearing aid is properly functioning. To allow a child to sit in a classroom when the child’s hearing aid or cochlear implant is not functioning is to effectively exclude the child from receiving an appropriate education. Therefore, we believe it is important to clarify that a public agency is responsible for the routine checking of the external components of a surgically implanted device in much the same manner as a public agency is responsible for the proper functioning of hearing aids. The public agency also is responsible for providing services necessary to maintain the health and safety of a child while the child is in school, with breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions (e.g., nursing services, suctioning a tracheotomy, urinary catheterization) if these services can be provided by someone who has been trained to provide the service and are not the type of services that can only be provided by a licensed physician. (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)). Changes: We have added new §300.113 to cover the routine checking of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted devices. The requirement for the routine checking of hearing aids has been removed from proposed §300.105 and included in new §300.113(a). The requirement for routine checking of an external component of a surgically implanted medical device has been added as new §300.113(b). The requirements for assistive technology devices and services remain in §300.105 and the heading has been changed to reflect this change. We have also included a reference to new §300.113(b) in new §300.34(b)(2). Comment: A few commenters stated that specialized cochlear implant audiologists who are at implant centers or closely associated with them should program cochlear implants. One commenter stated that, typically, school audiologists and school personnel do not have the specialized experience to program cochlear implants. Discussion: The personnel with the specific expertise or licensure required for the optimization (e.g., mapping) of surgically implanted devices are decisions to be made within each State based on applicable State statutes and licensing requirements. Since mapping is not covered under the Act, personnel standards for individuals who provide mapping services are beyond the scope of these regulations. Changes: None. Audiology (§300.34(c)(1)) Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of audiology does not reflect current audiology practice in schools and recommended new language to include services for children with auditory-related disorders, provision of comprehensive audiologic habilitation and rehabilitation services; consultation and training of teachers and other school staff; and involvement in classroom acoustics. Discussion: The definition of audiology is sufficiently broad to enable audiologists to be involved in the activities described by the commenter. We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition to add the specific functions recommended by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested adding mapping services for a child with a cochlear implant to the definition of audiology. Discussion: For the reasons discussed previously in this section, §300.34(b) specifically excludes the optimization of a surgically implanted device from the definition of related services. This includes mapping of a cochlear implant. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of audiology appears to be limited to children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and recommended adding language to allow children without expressive speech to receive such services. Discussion: The term audiology, as defined in §300.34(c)(1), focuses on identifying and serving children who are deaf or hard of hearing. It is not necessary to add language in the regulations regarding children without expressive speech because the determining factor of whether audiology services are appropriate for a child is whether the child may be deaf or hard of hearing, not whether a child has expressive speech. Changes: None. Early Identification and Assessment of Disabilities (§300.34(c)(3)) Comment: Some commenters noted that ‘‘early identification and assessment of disabilities’’ was removed from the list of related services in §300.34(a). Discussion: ‘‘Early identification and assessment of disabilities’’ was inadvertently omitted from the list of related services in §300.34(a). Changes: ‘‘Early identification and assessment’’ will be added to the list of related services in §300.34(a). VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46572 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Interpreting Services (§300.34(c)(4)) Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of interpreting services requires that such services be provided by a qualified interpreter who is able to effectively, accurately, and impartially use any specialized vocabulary, both receptively and expressively. A few commenters strongly recommended requiring interpreting services to be provided by qualified interpreters to ensure equivalent communication access and effective communication with, and for, children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The commenter stated that personnel standards for interpreters vary greatly across SEAs and LEAs, and requiring qualified interpreters would be consistent with the definition of other related services included in these regulations such as physical therapy and occupational therapy. One commenter recommended defining the function of an interpreter as a person who facilitates communication between children who are deaf or hard of hearing, staff, and children, regardless of the job title. Discussion: Section 300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, clarifies that it is the responsibility of each State to establish personnel qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. It is not necessary to add more specific functions of individuals providing interpreting services, as recommended by the commenters. States are appropriately given the flexibility to determine the qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, based on the needs of children with disabilities in the State. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended including American sign language and sign language systems in the definition of interpreting services. Discussion: The definition of interpreting services is sufficiently broad to include American sign language and sign language systems, and therefore, will not be changed. We believe it is important to include sign language transliteration (e.g., translation systems such as Signed Exact English and Contact Signing), in addition to sign language interpretation of another language (e.g., American sign language) in the definition of interpreting services, and will add this language to §300.34(c)(4)(i). Changes: We have added language to §300.34(c)(4)(i) to include sign language transliteration. Comment: A few commenters recommended changing the definition of interpreting services to clarify that the need for interpreting services must be based on a child’s disability and not degree of English proficiency. Discussion: The definition of interpreting services clearly states that interpreting services are used with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The nature and type of interpreting services required for children who are deaf or hard of hearing and also limited in English proficiency are to be determined by reference to the Department’s regulations and policies regarding students with limited English proficiency. For example, the Department’s regulations in 34 CFR part 100, implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, require that recipients of Federal financial assistance ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by students who are limited English proficient, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing. The requirement to provide services to students who are limited English proficient and others is also governed by various Department policy memoranda including the September 27, 1991 memorandum, ‘‘Department of Education Policy Update on Schools’ Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students With Limited English Proficiency’’; the December 3, 1985 guidance document, ‘‘The Office for Civil Rights’ Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures’’; and the May 1970 memorandum to school districts, ‘‘Identification of discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin,’’ 35 FR 11595. These documents are available at http:// www.lep.gov. We do not believe additional clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of interpreting services appears to be limited to children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and recommended adding language to allow children without expressive speech to receive such services. Discussion: Interpreting services, as defined in §300.34(c)(4), clearly states that interpreting services are used with children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Therefore, a child who is not deaf or hard of hearing, but who is without expressive speech, would not be considered eligible to receive interpreting services as defined in §300.34(c)(4). However, such a child could be considered eligible for speech- language pathology services, consistent with §300.34(c)(15). Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended including communication access real-time transcription (CART) services in the definition of interpreting services because these services are being used with increasing frequency in postsecondary education and employment settings, and familiarity and experience with CART services may better prepare children who are deaf or hard of hearing to transition to higher education and employment environments. A few commenters stated that the definition of interpreting services appears to limit interpreting services to the methods listed in §300.34(c)(4), which exclude tactile and close vision interpreting for children who are deaf-blind. Discussion: Although the definition of interpreting services is written broadly to include other types of interpreting services, we believe that it is important to include in the definition services in which oral communications are transcribed into real-time text. Therefore, we are adding language to §300.34(c)(4) to refer to transcription services and include several examples of transcription systems used to provide such services. We also believe that it is important that the definition of interpreting services include services for children who are deaf-blind. However, because there are many types of interpreting services for children who are deaf-blind, in addition to tactile and close vision interpreting services, we will add a more general statement to include interpreting services for children who are deaf-blind, rather than listing all the different methods that might be used for children who are deaf-blind. Changes: We have restructured §300.34(c)(4) and added ‘‘and transcription services such as communication real-time translation (CART), C-Print, and TypeWell’’ to the definition of interpreting services in paragraph (c)(4)(i). We have also added a new paragraph (c)(4)(ii) to include interpreting services for children who are deaf-blind. Medical Services (§300.34(c)(5)) Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of medical services is not in the Act and recommended that the definition be broader than the decision in Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999), which the definition appears to follow. Discussion: The list of related services in §300.34(a) includes medical services VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46573 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations for diagnostic and evaluation purposes, consistent with section 602(26) of the Act. The Department continues to believe that using language from the Act to define medical services is essential. Defining medical services more broadly, as recommended by the commenter, would not be consistent with the Act. Changes: None. Orientation and Mobility Services (§300.34(c)(7)) Comment: Several commenters supported including travel training in the definition of orientation and mobility services and recommended adding a reference to the definition of travel training in new §300.39(b)(4) (proposed §300.38(b)(4)). However, other commenters stated that travel training should appear as a distinct related service and should not be included in the definition of orientation and mobility services because children who are blind and visually impaired receive this type of instruction from certified orientation and mobility specialists. One commenter stated that the regulations should specify that travel training is for children with cognitive or other disabilities. Discussion: We believe that including travel training in the definition of orientation and mobility services may be misinterpreted to mean that travel training is available only for children who are blind or visually impaired or that travel training is the same as orientation and mobility services. We will, therefore, remove travel training from §300.34(c)(7). This change, however, does not diminish the services that are available to children who are blind or visually impaired. Travel training is defined in new §300.39(b)(4) (proposed §300.38(b)(4)) for children with significant cognitive disabilities and any other children with disabilities who require this instruction, and, therefore, would be available for children who are blind or visually impaired, as determined by the child’s IEP Team. Travel training is not the same as orientation and mobility services and is not intended to take the place of appropriate orientation and mobility services. Changes: We have removed ‘‘travel training instruction’’ from §300.34(c)(7)(ii) to avoid confusion with the definition of travel training in new §300.39(b)(4) (proposed §300.38(b)(4)), and to clarify that travel training is not the same as orientation and mobility services and cannot take the place of appropriate orientation and mobility services. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations specify who is qualified to provide travel training instruction and stated that it is critical that skills such as street crossing be taught correctly. Discussion: Section 300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, requires each State to establish personnel qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. It is, therefore, the State’s responsibility to determine the qualifications that are necessary to provide travel training instruction. Changes: None. Parent Counseling and Training (§300.34(c)(8)) Comment: A few commenters stated that the definition of parent counseling and training in §300.34(c)(8) is not included in the definition of related services in section 602(26)(A) of the Act and, therefore, should not be included in the regulations. Discussion: Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of §300.34(c)(8), regarding assisting parents in understanding the special needs of their child, and providing parents with information about child development, respectively, are protected by section 607(b) of the Act, and cannot be removed. Section 300.34(c)(8)(iii), regarding helping parents acquire the skills to allow them to support the implementation of their child’s IEP or IFSP, was added in the 1999 regulations to recognize the more active role of parents as participants in the education of their children. Although not included in the Act, we believe it is important to retain this provision in these regulations so that there is no question that parent counseling and training includes helping parents acquire skills that will help them support the implementation of their child’s IEP or IFSP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations describe the responsibility of LEAs to provide parent counseling and training. Discussion: As with other related services, an LEA only is responsible for providing parent counseling and training if a child’s IEP Team determines that it is necessary for the child to receive FAPE. To include this language in the definition of parent counseling and training, moreover, would be unnecessarily duplicative of §300.17(d), which states that FAPE means special education and related services that are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements in §§300.320 through 300.324. Changes: None. Physical Therapy (§300.34(c)(9)) Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of physical therapy include related therapeutic services for children with degenerative diseases. Discussion: We do not believe the suggested change is necessary because the definition of physical therapy is broadly defined and could include therapeutic services for children with degenerative diseases. It is the responsibility of the child’s IEP Team to determine the special education and related services that are necessary for a child to receive FAPE. There is nothing in the Act that prohibits the provision of therapeutic services for children with degenerative diseases, if the IEP Team determines they are needed for an individual child and, thereby, includes the services in the child’s IEP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of physical therapy in §300.34(c)(9) is circular and requested that a functional definition be provided. Discussion: The definition of physical therapy has been in the regulations since 1977 and is commonly accepted by SEAs, LEAs, and other public agencies. We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition. Changes: None. Psychological Services (§300.34(c)(10)) Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of psychological services include strategies to facilitate social-emotional learning. Discussion: We do not believe the definition should be revised to add a specific reference to the strategies recommended by the commenter. The definition of psychological services is sufficiently broad to enable psychologists to be involved in strategies to facilitate social-emotional learning. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that unless the definition of psychological services includes research-based counseling, schools will argue that they are required to provide counseling services delivered by social workers because counseling is included in the definition of social work services in schools. Discussion: We do not believe including research-based counseling in the definition of psychological services is necessary. Including counseling in the definition of social work services in schools in §300.34(c)(14) is intended to indicate the types of personnel who assist in this activity and is not intended VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46574 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations either to imply that school social workers are automatically qualified to perform counseling or to prohibit other qualified personnel from providing counseling, consistent with State requirements. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that other related services personnel, in addition to school psychologists, should be permitted to develop and deliver positive behavioral intervention strategies. Discussion: There are many professionals who might also play a role in developing and delivering positive behavioral intervention strategies. The standards for personnel who assist in developing and delivering positive behavioral intervention strategies will vary depending on the requirements of the State. Including the development and delivery of positive behavioral intervention strategies in the definition of psychological services is not intended to imply that school psychologists are automatically qualified to perform these duties or to prohibit other qualified personnel from providing these services, consistent with State requirements. Changes: None. Recreation (§300.34(c)(11)) Comment: A few commenters requested modifying the definition of recreation to include therapeutic recreation services provided by a qualified recreational therapist, which include services that restore, remediate, or rehabilitate to improve functioning and independence, and reduce or eliminate the effects of illness or disability. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition of recreation as recommended by the commenters because the definition is sufficiently broad to include the services mentioned by the commenters. Changes: None. School Health Services and School Nurse Services (Proposed School Nurse Services) (§300.34(c)(13)) Comment: Some commenters noted that while ‘‘school health services’’ is included in the list of related services in §300.34(a), it is not defined, which will result in confusion about the relationship between ‘‘school health services’’ and ‘‘school nurse services.’’ Some commenters stated that adding the definition of school nurse services and eliminating the definition of school health services must not narrow the range of related services available to children. One commenter recommended that the definition of school nurse services allow school nurse services to be provided by other qualified persons, as well as a qualified school nurse, because the majority of schools do not have a school nurse on staff. One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that schools can continue to use registered nurses or other personnel to provide school nurse services, consistent with State law. Another commenter stated that there is well-established case law upholding the obligation of an SEA and LEA to provide health-related services necessary for a child to benefit from special education. Discussion: School health services was retained in the definition of related services in §300.34(a). However, the definition of school health services was inadvertently removed in the NPRM. To correct this error, we will add school health services to the definition of school nurse services and clarify that school health services and school nurse services means health services that are designed to enable a child with a disability to receive FAPE. We will also add language to clarify that school nurse services are provided by a qualified school nurse and that school health services are provided by either a qualified school nurse or other qualified person. We recognize that most schools do not have a qualified school nurse on a full-time basis (i.e., a nurse that meets the State standards for a qualified school nurse), and that many schools rely on other qualified school personnel to provide school health services under the direction of a school nurse. Therefore, we believe it is important to retain the definition of school health services and school nurse services in these regulations. With the changes made in §300.34(c), it is not necessary for the reference to ‘‘school nurse services’’ in §300.34(a) to include the phrase, ‘‘designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the IEP of the child.’’ We will, therefore, remove this phrase in §300.34(a). Changes: Section 300.34(c)(13) has been revised to include a definition of school health services and school nurse services. Additional language has been added to clarify who provides school health services and school nurse services. We have also modified §300.34(a) by deleting the redundant phrase, ‘‘designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the IEP of the child.’’ Comment: One commenter stated that adding school nurse services to the definition of related services makes it more burdensome for the delivery of services to children who are medically- fragile. Discussion: It is unclear how adding school nurse services to the definition of related services affects services to children who are medically fragile. As defined in §300.34(c)(13), school health services and school nurse services are designed to enable a child with a disability to receive FAPE as described in the child’s IEP. A child who is medically fragile and needs school health services or school nurse services in order to receive FAPE must be provided such services, as indicated in the child’s IEP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of school nurse services should include services that enable a child with a disability to receive FAPE in the LRE. Another commenter stated that school nurses can be extremely supportive of children with disabilities receiving FAPE in the LRE and recommended changing the regulations to ensure that parents understand that the definition of related services includes school nurse services. Discussion: The LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.120 provide, that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are to be educated with children who are not disabled. It is not necessary to repeat this requirement in the definition of school health services and school nurse services. We agree that school health services and school nurse services are important related services. Section 300.34(a) and section 602(26)(A) of the Act are clear that the definition of related services includes school health services and school nurse services. The IEP Team, of which the parent is an integral member, is responsible for determining the services that are necessary for the child to receive FAPE. We, therefore, do not believe that it is necessary to add a regulation requiring public agencies to ensure that parents understand that related services include school health services and school nurse services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that including the phrase, ‘‘designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education’’ in §300.34(c)(13) in relation to school nurse services, is unnecessary and confusing. Discussion: As stated in §300.34(a), the purpose of related services is to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. We believe it is necessary to specify that school health services and school nurse services are related services only to the extent that VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46575 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations the services allow a child to benefit from special education and enable a child with a disability to receive FAPE. Changes: None. Social Work Services in Schools (§300.34(c)(14)) Comment: One commenter recommended including strategies to facilitate social-emotional learning in the definition of social work services in schools. A few commenters stated that the role of the school social worker is evolving and recommended that the definition include the role of social workers as integral members of pre- referral teams that deliver interventions to decrease the number of referrals to special education. One commenter recommended that the definition include a reference to the social worker’s role in addressing the relevant history and current functioning of an individual within his or her environmental context, rather than referring to social-developmental histories. Another commenter stated that social workers are trained to find resources in the home, school, and community and recommended including such language in the definition. Discussion: The definition of social work services in schools is sufficiently broad to include the services described by the commenters and we do not believe the definition should be revised to add these more specific functions. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of social work services in schools removes language from the 1983 regulations that states that social work services allow children with disabilities to maximize benefit from the learning program. The commenter stated that this is a higher standard than what is required in §300.34(c)(14), which only requires that services enable a child to learn as effectively as possible, and, therefore, the 1983 definition should be retained, consistent with section 607(b) of the Act. Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. The definition of social work services in schools in the 1977 regulations included ‘‘mobilizing school and community resources to enable the child to receive maximum benefit from his or her educational program.’’ As explained in the preamble to the final 1992 regulations, the phrase ‘‘to receive maximum benefit’’ was intended only to provide that the purpose of activities carried out by personnel qualified to provide social work services in schools is to mobilize resources so that a child can learn as effectively as possible in his or her educational program. The language in the preamble to the final 1992 regulations also clarified that this provision did not set a legal standard for that program or entitle the child to a particular educational benefit. The preamble further explained that, during the public comment period for the 1992 regulations, commenters raised concerns that the term ‘‘maximum benefit’’ appeared to be inconsistent with the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Therefore, the phrase was revised to read ‘‘to learn as effectively as possible in his or her educational program.’’ This is the same phrase used in the 1999 regulations and in these regulations in §300.34(c)(14)(iv). Because the language in the 1977 final regulations did not entitle a child to any particular benefit, the change made in 1992 did not lessen protections for a child, and, therefore, is not subject to section 607(b) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding a reference to ‘‘functional behavioral assessments’’ in §300.34(c)(14)(v) because functional behavioral assessments should always precede the development of behavioral intervention strategies. Another commenter expressed concern that §300.34(c)(14)(iv), regarding social work services to mobilize school and community resources to enable the child to learn as effectively as possible, creates a potential for litigation. The commenter asked whether a school district could face a due process hearing for failure to mobilize community resources if there are no community resources to address the needs of the child or family. Discussion: The definition of social work services in schools includes examples of the types of social work services that may be provided. It is not a prescriptive or exhaustive list. The child’s IEP Team is responsible for determining whether a child needs social work services, and what specific social work services are needed in order for the child to receive FAPE. Therefore, while conducting a functional behavioral assessment typically precedes developing positive behavioral intervention strategies, we do not believe it is necessary to include functional behavioral assessments in the definition of social work services in schools because providing positive behavioral intervention strategies is just an example of a social work service that might be provided to a child if the child’s IEP Team determines that such services are needed for the child to receive FAPE. Similarly, if a child’s IEP Team determines that mobilizing community resources would not be an effective means of enabling the child to learn as effectively as possible because there are no community resources to address the needs of the child, the IEP Team would need to consider other ways to meet the child’s needs. While there is the possibility that a due process hearing might be filed based on a failure to mobilize community resources that do not exist, we do not believe that such a claim could ever be successful, as the regulation does not require the creation of community resources that do not exist. Changes: None. Speech-language Pathology Services (§300.34(c)(15)) Comment: One commenter stated that children who need speech therapy should have it for a full classroom period, five days a week, and not be removed from other classes to receive this related service. Discussion: It would be inconsistent with the Act to dictate the amount and location of services for all children receiving speech-language pathology services, as recommended by the commenter. As with all related services, section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) of the Act provides that the child’s IEP Team is responsible for determining the services that are needed for the child to receive FAPE. This includes determining the type of related service, as well as the amount and location of services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of speech-language pathology services appears to be limited to children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and recommended adding language to the regulations to allow children without expressive speech to receive such services. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act or the regulations that would limit speech-language pathology services to children who are deaf or hard of hearing or to children without expressive speech. The definition of speech- language pathology services specifically includes services for children who have language impairments, as well as speech impairments. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested the definition of speech-language pathology services specify the qualifications and standards for speech- language professionals. Another commenter requested that the definition require a highly qualified provider to deliver speech-language services. One commenter requested that the definition require a speech-language pathologist to provide speech-language services. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46576 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Discussion: Consistent with §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act, it is up to each State to establish personnel qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. Section 300.156(b), consistent with section 614(a)(14)(B) of the Act, specifically requires that these personnel qualifications must include qualifications for related services personnel. Establishing qualifications for individuals providing speech- language services in these regulations would be inconsistent with these statutory and regulatory requrements. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the roles and responsibilities for speech- language pathologists in schools have been expanded to help all children gain language and literacy skills and recommended that the definition of speech-language pathology services be revised to include consultation and collaboration with other staff members to plan and implement special intervention monitoring programs and modify classroom instruction to assist children in achieving academic success. The commenter also recommended including services for other health impairments, such as dysphagia, in the definition of speech-language pathology services. Discussion: The Act provides for speech-language pathology services for children with disabilities. It does not include speech-language pathology services to enable all children to gain language and literacy skills, as suggested by the commenter. It would, therefore, be inconsistent with the Act to change the definition of speech- language pathology services in the manner recommended by the commenter. We believe that the definition is sufficiently broad to include services for other health impairments, such as dysphagia, and therefore, decline to revise the definition to include this specific service. Changes: None. Transportation (§300.34(c)(16)) Comment: A few commenters stated that the definition of transportation should require transportation to be provided between school and other locations in which IEP services are provided. Other commenters requested that the definition explicitly define transportation as door-to-door services, including provisions for an aide to escort the child to and from the bus each day. Discussion: A child’s IEP Team is responsible for determining whether transportation between school and other locations is necessary in order for the child to receive FAPE. Likewise, if a child’s IEP Team determines that supports or modifications are needed in order for the child to be transported so that the child can receive FAPE, the child must receive the necessary transportation and supports at no cost to the parents. We believe the definition of transportation is sufficiently broad to address the commenters’ concerns. Therefore, we decline to make the requested changes to the definition. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended removing the term ‘‘special transportation’’ from the definition of transportation because the term gives the impression that adapted buses are used for a separate and different transportation system, when, in fact, adapted buses are part of the regular transportation fleet and system. These commenters stated that adapted buses should only be used as a separate, special transportation service if the child’s IEP indicates that the transportation needs of the child can be met only with transportation services that are separate from the transportation services for all children. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to make the change requested by the commenters. It is assumed that most children with disabilities will receive the same transportation provided to nondisabled children, consistent with the LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.120, unless the IEP Team determines otherwise. While we understand the commenter’s concern, adapted buses may or may not be part of the regular transportation system in a particular school system. In any case, if the IEP Team determines that a child with a disability requires transportation as a related service in order to receive FAPE, or requires supports to participate in integrated transportation with nondisabled children, the child must receive the necessary transportation or supports at no cost to the parents. Changes: None. Scientifically Based Research (new §300.35) Comment: A number of commenters requested that the regulations include a definition of scientifically based research. Discussion: The definition of scientifically based research is important to the implementation of Part B of the Act and, therefore, we will include a reference to the definition of that term in section 9101(37) of the ESEA. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not including definitions from other statutes in these regulations. However, we will include the current definition of scientifically based research in section 9101(37) of the ESEA here for reference. Scientifically based research— (a) Means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and (b) Includes research that— (1) Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; (2) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (3) Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; (4) Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls; (5) Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and (6) Has been accepted by a peer- reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. Changes: A cross-reference to the definition of scientifically based research in section 9101(37) of the ESEA has been added as new §300.35. Subsequent definitions have been renumbered accordingly. Secondary School (New §300.36) (Proposed §300.35) Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the definition of secondary school and whether ‘‘grade 12’’ refers to the regular grade 12 curriculum aligned to State academic achievement standards under the ESEA or a limit on the number of years VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46577 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations children with a disabilities can spend in school. Discussion: The term ‘‘grade 12’’ in the definition of secondary school has the meaning given it under State law. It is not intended to impose a Federal limit on the number of years a child with a disability is allowed to complete his or her secondary education, as some children with disabilities may need more than 12 school years to complete their education. Changes: None. Services Plan (New §300.37) (Proposed §300.36) Comment: One commenter stated that the term services plan is not in the Act and, therefore, should be removed. However, the commenter stated that if the definition of services plan remained in the regulations, it should reflect the fact that parentally-placed private school children are not entitled to FAPE. Discussion: The definition of services plan was included to describe the content, development, and implementation of plans for parentally- placed private school children with disabilities who have been designated to receive equitable services. The definition cross-references the specific requirements for the provision of services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities in §300.132 and §§300.137 through 300.139, which provide that parentally- placed private school children have no individual right to special education and related services and thus are not entitled to FAPE. We do not believe further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Special Education (New §300.39) (Proposed §300.38) Comment: One commenter requested modifying the definition of special education to distinguish special education from other forms of education, such as remedial programming, flexible grouping, and alternative education programming. The commenter stated that flexible grouping, diagnostic and prescriptive teaching, and remedial programming have expanded in the general curriculum in regular classrooms and the expansion of such instruction will only be encouraged with the implementation of early intervening services under the Act. Discussion: We believe the definition of special education is clear and consistent with the definition in section 602(29) of the Act. We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition to distinguish special education from the other forms of education mentioned by the commenter. Changes: None. Individual Special Education Terms Defined (New §300.39(b)) (Proposed §300.38(b)) Comment: A few commenters provided definitions of ‘‘accommodations’’ and ‘‘modifications’’ and recommended including them in new §300.39(b) (proposed §300.38(b)). Discussion: The terms ‘‘accommodations’’ and ‘‘modifications’’ are terms of art referring to adaptations of the educational environment, the presentation of educational material, the method of response, or the educational content. They are not, however, examples of different types of ‘‘education’’ and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate to define these terms of art or to include them in new §300.39(b) (proposed §300.38(b)). Changes: None. Physical Education (New §300.39(b)(2)) (Proposed §300.38(b)(2)) Comment: One commenter requested that adaptive physical education be subject to the LRE requirements of the Act. Discussion: The requirements in §§300.114 through 300.120 require that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled. This requirement applies to all special education services, including adaptive physical education. We see no need to repeat this requirement specifically for the provision of adaptive physical education. Changes: None. Specially Designed Instruction (New §300.39(b)(3)) (Proposed §300.38(b)(3)) Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations should strengthen the requirements ensuring children access to the general curriculum, because many children with disabilities still do not have the tools they need or the teachers with expertise to access the general curriculum. Discussion: We believe the regulations place great emphasis on ensuring that children with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum. New §300.39(b)(3) (proposed §300.38(b)(3)) defines specially designed instruction as adapting the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child and to ensure access to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. In addition, ensuring that children with disabilities have access to the general curriculum is a major focus of the requirements for developing a child’s IEP. For example, §300.320(a)(1) requires a child’s IEP to include a statement of how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum; §300.320(a)(2)(i) requires annual IEP goals to be designed to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and §300.320(a)(4) requires the IEP to include a statement of the special education and related services the child will receive, as well as the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided, to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. We do not believe additional language is necessary. Changes: None. Travel Training (New §300.39(b)(4)) (Proposed §300.38(b)(4)) Comment: A few commenters recommended strengthening the definition of travel training in new §300.39(b)(4) (proposed §300.38(b)(4)) and adding travel training to new §300.43 (proposed §300.42) (transition services) to acknowledge that transportation is vitally important for children with disabilities to have full participation in the community. The commenters recommended that the definition of travel training include providing instruction to children with disabilities, other than blindness, to enable them to learn the skills and behaviors necessary to move effectively and safely in various environments, including use of public transportation. Discussion: We believe the definition of travel training already acknowledges the importance of transportation in supporting children with disabilities to fully participate in their communities. New §300.43(a)(4) (proposed §300.42(a)(4)) defines travel training to include providing instruction that enables children to learn the skills necessary to move effectively and safely from place to place in school, home, at work and in the community. Therefore, we do not believe that further clarification is necessary. We also do not believe that it is necessary to add travel training to the definition of transition services, as recommended by the commenters. We believe that IEP Teams already consider the importance of transportation and travel training services in the course of planning for a student’s postsecondary transition needs. It is unnecessary to state that travel training includes instructing children with disabilities other than VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46578 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations blindness, as requested by the commenters, because the definition of travel training already states that travel training is appropriate for any child with a disability who requires this instruction. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters strongly recommended clarifying that the definition of travel training does not include training for children with visual impairments, regardless of whether they have additional disabilities. Discussion: Any child with a disability, including a child with a visual impairment, who needs travel training instruction to receive FAPE, as determined by the child’s IEP Team, can receive travel training instruction. New §300.39(b)(4) (proposed §300.38(b)(4)) specifically states that travel training means providing instruction to children with significant cognitive disabilities and any other children with disabilities who require this instruction. We, therefore, decline to change the definition, as recommended by the commenters. Changes: None. Vocational Education (New §300.39(b)(5)) (Proposed §300.38(b)(5)) Comment: A few commenters recommended revising the definition of vocational education to include specially designed educational programs that are directly related to the preparation of individuals for paid or unpaid employment or for additional preparation for a career not requiring a baccalaureate or advanced degree. Discussion: We believe that the more general reference to ‘‘organized education programs’’ in the definition of vocational education is accurate and should not be changed to refer to ‘‘specially designed educational programs,’’ as recommended by the commenter, because some children with disabilities will benefit from educational programs that are available for all children and will not need specially designed programs. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters stated that Congress did not intend that the definition of vocational education would include vocational and technical education. The commenters stated that the addition of vocational and technical education to the definition of vocational education creates a right under the Act to educational services that would be extremely costly for States and LEAs to implement. Other commenters stated that including the definition of vocational and technical education from the Carl D. Perkins Act expands FAPE beyond secondary education, which is an unwarranted responsibility for school districts. One commenter stated that the definition could be interpreted to require public agencies to provide two years of postsecondary education for students with disabilities. A few commenters strongly recommended removing the definition of vocational and technical education. Some commenters recommended removing the reference to the postsecondary level for a 1-year certificate, an associate degree, and industry-recognized credential in the definition of vocational and technical education. One commenter suggested that proposed §300.38(b)(6)(i)(A) conclude with the word ‘‘or’’ to clarify that the sequence of courses is discretionary. Discussion: The definition of vocational education was revised to include the definition of vocational and technical education in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act of 1988, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 2301, 2302(29). However, based on the comments we received, it is apparent that including the definition of vocational and technical education has raised concerns and confusion regarding the responsibilities of SEAs and LEAs to provide vocational education. Therefore, we will remove the definition of vocational and technical education in proposed §300.38(b)(6) and the reference to vocational and technical education in proposed §300.38(b)(5)(ii). Changes: The definition of vocational and technical education in proposed §300.38(b)(6) has been removed. Accordingly, the reference to vocational and technical education in proposed §300.38(b)(5)(ii)) has also been removed. Supplementary Aids and Services (New §300.42) (Proposed §300.41) Comment: A few commenters stated that the definition of supplementary aids and services should be changed to mean aids, services, and other supports provided in general education classes or other settings to children with disabilities, as well as to educators, other support staff, and nondisabled peers, if necessary, to support the inclusion of children with disabilities. Discussion: The definition of supplementary aids and services in new §300.42 (proposed §300.41) is consistent with the specific language in section 602(33) of the Act, and refers to aids, services, and other supports for children with disabilities. We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition to include providing aids, services, and supports to other individuals because §300.320(a)(4) requires each child’s IEP to include a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities. As noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart B, we have clarified in §300.107(a) that States must ensure that public agencies take steps to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including providing supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities. We have, therefore, revised the definition of supplementary aids and services in new §300.42 (proposed §300.41) to be consistent with this change. Changes: We have added language in new §300.42 (proposed §300.41) to clarify that supplementary aids and services can be provided in extracurricular and nonacademic settings to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. Comment: None. Discussion: New §300.42 (proposed §300.41) contains an incorrect reference to §300.112. The correct reference should be to §300.114. Changes: We have removed the reference to §300.112 and replaced it with a reference to §300.114. Transition Services (New §300.43) (Proposed §300.42) Comment: One commenter recommended replacing the word ‘‘child’’ with ‘‘student’’ in the definition of transition services. Discussion: The definition of transition services follows the language in section 602(34) of the Act. The words ‘‘child’’ and ‘‘student’’ are used throughout the Act and we have used the statutory language in these regulations whenever possible. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations include vocational and career training through work-study as a type of transition service. A few commenters stated that the definition of transition services must specify that a student’s need for transition services cannot be based on the category or severity of a student’s disability, but rather on the student’s individual needs. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46579 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to change the definition of transition services because the definition is written broadly to include a range of services, including vocational and career training that are needed to meet the individual needs of a child with a disability. The definition clearly states that decisions regarding transition services must be made on the basis of the child’s individual needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests. As with all special education and related services, the student’s IEP Team determines the transition services that are needed to provide FAPE to a child with a disability based on the needs of the child, not on the disability category or severity of the disability. We do not believe further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the regulations do not define ‘‘functional’’ or explain how a student’s functional performance relates to the student’s unique needs or affects the student’s education. The commenters noted that the word ‘‘functional’’ is used throughout the regulations in various forms, including ‘‘functional assessment,’’ ‘‘functional goals,’’ ‘‘functional abilities,’’ ‘‘functional needs,’’ ‘‘functional achievement,’’ and ‘‘functional performance,’’ and should be defined to avoid confusion. One commenter recommended either defining the term or explicitly authorizing States to define the term. One commenter recommended clarifying that ‘‘functional performance’’ must be a consideration for any child with a disability who may need services related to functional life skills and not just for students with significant cognitive disabilities. A few commenters stated that the definition of transition services must specify that ‘‘functional achievement’’ includes achievement in all major life functions, including behavior, social-emotional development, and daily living skills. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include a definition of ‘‘functional’’ in these regulations because the word is generally used to refer to activities and skills that are not considered academic or related to a child’s academic achievement as measured on Statewide achievement tests. There is nothing in the Act that would prohibit a State from defining ‘‘functional,’’ as long as the definition and its use are consistent with the Act. We also do not believe it is necessary for the definition of transition services to refer to all the major life functions or to clarify that functional performance must be a consideration for any child with a disability, and not just for students with significant cognitive disabilities. As with all special education and related services, the student’s IEP Team determines the services that are needed to provide FAPE to a child with a disability based on the needs of the child. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested a definition of ‘‘results-oriented process.’’ Discussion: The term ‘‘results- oriented process,’’ which appears in the statutory definition of transition services, is generally used to refer to a process that focuses on results. Because we are using the plain meaning of the term (i.e., a process that focuses on results), we do not believe it is necessary to define the term in these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that ‘‘acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation’’ is unclear as a child does not typically ‘‘acquire’’ an evaluation. The commenters stated that the phrase should be changed to ‘‘functional vocational skills.’’ Discussion: We agree that the phrase is unclear and will clarify the language in the regulation to refer to the ‘‘provision of a functional vocational evaluation.’’ Changes: We have added ‘‘provision of a’’ before ‘‘functional vocational evaluation’’ in new §300.43(a)(2)(v) for clarity. Universal Design (New §300.44) (Proposed §300.43) Comment: Many commenters requested including the full definition of universal design in the regulations, rather than providing a reference to the definition of the term. Discussion: The term universal design is defined in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are not including in these regulations full definitions of terms that are defined in other statutes. However, we will include the definition of this term from section 3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 3002, here for reference. The term universal design means a concept or philosophy for designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities, which include products and services that are directly accessible (without requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are interoperable with assistive technologies. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that the definition of universal design should be changed to include the universal design of academic content standards, curricula, instructional materials, and assessments. Discussion: The definition of universal design is statutory. Congress clearly intended that we use this specific definition when it used this term in the Act. We do not believe we can change this definition as suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. Subpart B—State Eligibility FAPE Requirements Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (§300.101) Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.101 to ensure that children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from their current placement are provided educational services consistent with State academic achievement standards. One commenter asked whether children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from their current placement must continue to be taught by highly qualified teachers. Discussion: We believe the concern raised by the commenter is already addressed by this regulation and elsewhere in the regulations and that no changes to §300.101 are necessary. Section 300.530(d), consistent with section 615(k)(1)(D) of the Act, clarifies that a child with a disability who is removed from his or her current placement for disciplinary reasons, irrespective of whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability, must be allowed to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting his or her IEP goals. As the term ‘‘general education curriculum’’ is used throughout the Act and in these regulations, the clear implication is that there is an education curriculum that is applicable to all children and that this curriculum is based on the State’s academic content standards. Children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from their current placement in public schools must continue to be taught by highly qualified teachers, consistent with the requirements in §§300.156 and 300.18. Private school teachers are not subject to the highly qualified teacher requirements under this part. Changes: None. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46580 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Comment: One commenter suggested clarifying in §300.101 that FAPE must be available to children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Discussion: We do not believe further clarification is needed in §300.101, as the matter is adequately covered elsewhere in the regulations. Section 300.101 clarifies that, in order to be eligible to receive funds under Part B of the Act, States must, among other conditions, ensure that FAPE is made available to all children with specified disabilities in mandated age ranges. The term FAPE is defined in §300.17 and section 602(9)(D) of the Act as including, among other elements, special education and related services, provided at no cost to parents, in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP). Sections 300.114 through 300.118, consistent with section 612(a)(5) of the Act, implement the Act’s strong preference for educating children with disabilities in regular classes with appropriate aids and supports. Specifically, §300.114 provides that States must have in effect policies and procedures ensuring that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended including language in §300.101(a) specifying that children with disabilities expelled or suspended from the general education classroom must be provided FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Discussion: The Department believes it would not be appropriate to include the requested language in this section because services in these circumstances are provided under somewhat different criteria than is normally the case. Section 300.530 clarifies the procedures school personnel must follow when removing a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from their current placement (e.g., suspension and expulsion). This includes how decisions are made regarding the educational services the child receives and the location in which they will be provided. School officials need some reasonable amount of flexibility in providing services to children with disabilities who have violated school conduct rules, and should not necessarily have to provide exactly the same services, in the same settings, to these children. Therefore, we decline to regulate further in this regard. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that children with disabilities have to fail or be retained in a grade or course in order to be considered eligible for special education and related services. Discussion: Section 300.101(c) provides that a child is eligible to receive special education and related services even though the child is advancing from grade to grade. Further, it is implicit from paragraph (c) of this section that a child should not have to fail a course or be retained in a grade in order to be considered for special education and related services. A public agency must provide a child with a disability special education and related services to enable him or her to progress in the general curriculum, thus making clear that a child is not ineligible to receive special education and related services just because the child is, with the support of those individually designed services, progressing in the general curriculum from grade-to-grade or failing a course or grade. The group determining the eligibility of a child for special education and related services must make an individual determination as to whether, notwithstanding the child’s progress in a course or grade, he or she needs or continues to need special education and related services. However, to provide additional clarity we will revise paragraph (c)(1) of this section to explicitly state that children do not have to fail or be retained in a course or grade in order to be considered eligible for special education and related services. Changes: Section 300.101(c)(1) has been revised to provide that children do not have to fail or be retained in a course or grade in order to be considered eligible for special education and related services. Limitation—Exception to FAPE for Certain Ages (§300.102) Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that children with disabilities who do not receive a regular high school diploma continue to be eligible for special education and related services. One commenter expressed concern that the provision in §300.102(a)(3)(ii) regarding children with disabilities who have not been awarded a regular high school diploma could result in the delay of transition services in the context of the child’s secondary school experience and postsecondary goals. Discussion: We believe that §300.102(a)(3) is sufficiently clear that public agencies need not make FAPE available to children with disabilities who have graduated with a regular high school diploma and that no change is needed to the regulations. Children with disabilities who have not graduated with a regular high school diploma still have an entitlement to FAPE until the child reaches the age at which eligibility ceases under the age requirements within the State. However, we have reviewed the regulations and believe that it is important for these regulations to define ‘‘regular diploma’’ consistent with the ESEA regulations in 34 CFR §200.19(a)(1)(i). Therefore, we will add language to clarify that a regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or general educational development (GED) credential. We do not believe §300.102 could be interpreted to permit public agencies to delay implementation of transition services, as stated by one commenter because transition services must be provided based on a child’s age, not the number of years the child has remaining in the child’s high school career. Section 300.320(b), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) of the Act, requires each child’s IEP to include, beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, appropriate measurable postsecondary goals and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. Changes: A new paragraph (iv) has been added in §300.102(a)(3) stating that a regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or GED. Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to how States should include children with disabilities who require special education services through age 21 in calculating, for adequate yearly progress (AYP) purposes, the percentage of children who graduate with a regular high school diploma in the standard number of years. The commenter expressed concern that States, in order to comply with their high school graduation rate academic outcome requirements under the ESEA, will change the grade status from 12th grade to 11th grade for those children with disabilities who will typically age out of the public education VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46581 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations system under the Act. The commenter further stated that this will affect the exception to FAPE provisions in §300.102 for children with disabilities who require special education services through age 21. Discussion: The calculation of graduation rates under the ESEA for AYP purposes (34 CFR 200.19(a)(1)(i)) does not alter the exception to FAPE provisions in §300.102(a)(3) for children with disabilities who graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma, but not in the standard number of years. The public agency must make FAPE available until age 21 or the age limit established by State law, even though the child would not be included as graduating for AYP purposes under the ESEA. In practice, though, there is no conflict between the Act and the ESEA, as the Department interprets the ESEA title I regulations to permit States to propose a method for accurately accounting for students who legitimately take longer than the standard number of years to graduate. Changes: None. Residential Placement: (§300.104) Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify that parents cannot be held liable for any costs if their child with a disability is placed in a residential setting by a public agency in order to provide FAPE to the child. Discussion: Section 300.104, consistent with section 612(a)(1) and (a)(10)(B) of the Act, is a longstanding provision that applies to placements that are made by public agencies in public and private institutions for educational purposes and clarifies that parents are not required to bear the costs of a public or private residential placement if such placement is determined necessary to provide FAPE. If a public agency determines in an individual situation that a child with a disability cannot receive FAPE from the programs that the public agency conducts and, therefore, placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to the child, the program, including non-medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child. In situations where a child’s educational needs are inseparable from the child’s emotional needs and an individual determination is made that the child requires the therapeutic and habilitation services of a residential program in order to ‘‘benefit from special education,’’ these therapeutic and habilitation services may be ‘‘related services’’ under the Act. In such a case, the SEA is responsible for ensuring that the entire cost of that child’s placement, including the therapeutic care as well as room and board, is without cost to the parents. However, the SEA is not responsible for providing medical care. Thus, visits to a doctor for treatment of medical conditions are not covered services under Part B of the Act and parents may be responsible for the cost of the medical care. Changes: None. Assistive Technology (§300.105) Comment: One commenter recommended removing §300.105 and including the requirements in this section in the definition of assistive technology device in §300.5 and assistive technology service in §300.6. Discussion: Section 300.5 and §300.6 define the terms assistive technology device and assistive technology service, respectively. Section 300.105 is not part of the definition of these terms, but rather is necessary to specify the circumstances under which public agencies are responsible for making available assistive technology devices and assistive technology services to children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested clarifying in §300.105(b) whether hearing aids are included in the definition of an assistive technology device. Discussion: An assistive technology device, as defined in §300.5, means any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The decision of whether a hearing aid is an assistive technology device is a determination that is made on an individual basis by the child’s IEP Team. However, even if the IEP Team determines that a hearing aid is an assistive technology device, within the meaning of §300.5, for a particular child, the public agency is responsible for the provision of the assistive technology device as part of FAPE, only if, as specified in §300.105, the device is required as part of the child’s special education defined in §300.39, related services defined in §300.34, or supplementary aids and services defined in §300.42. As a general matter, public agencies are not responsible for providing personal devices, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids that a child with a disability requires, regardless of whether the child is attending school. However, if it is not a surgically implanted device and a child’s IEP Team determines that the child requires a personal device (e.g., eyeglasses) in order to receive FAPE, the public agency must ensure that the device is provided at no cost to the child’s parents. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding language to §300.105(b) to include, in addition to hearing aids, other hearing enhancement devices, such as a cochlear implant. Discussion: Section 300.105(b), as proposed, requires a public agency to ensure that hearing aids worn in school by children with hearing impairments, including deafness, are functioning properly. This is a longstanding requirement and was included pursuant to a House Committee Report on the 1978 appropriations bill (H. Rpt. No. 95–381, p. 67 (1977)) directing the Department to ensure that children with hearing impairments are receiving adequate professional assessment, follow-up, and services. The Department believes that, given the increase in the number of children with disabilities with surgically implanted devices (e.g., cochlear implants, vagus nerve stimulators, electronic muscle stimulators), and rapid advances in new technologies to help children with disabilities, it is important that these regulations clearly address any obligation public agencies have to provide follow-up and services to ensure that such devices are functioning properly. Section 602(1) of the Act clarifies that the definition of assistive technology device does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted or the replacement of such device. Section 602(26) of the Act also stipulates that only medical services that are for diagnostic and evaluative purposes and required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education are considered a related service. We believe Congress was clear in its intent in S. Rpt. 108–185, p. 8, which states: [T]he definitions of ‘‘assistive technology device’’ and ‘‘related services’’ do not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of such device, or an external device connected with the use of a surgically implanted medical device (other than the costs of performing routine maintenance and monitoring of such external device at the same time the child is receiving other services under the act). The Department believes, however, that public agencies have an obligation to change a battery or routinely check an external component of a surgically VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46582 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations implanted medical device to make sure it is turned on and operating. However, mapping a cochlear implant (or paying the costs associated with mapping) is not routine checking as described above and should not be the responsibility of a public agency. We will add language to the regulations to clarify a public agency’s responsibility regarding the routine checking of external components of surgically implanted medical devices. Changes: A new §300.113 has been added with the heading, ‘‘Routine checking of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted medical devices.’’ Section 300.105(b), regarding the proper functioning of hearing aids, has been removed and redesignated as new §300.113(a). We have added a new paragraph (b) in new §300.113 clarifying that, for a child with a surgically implanted medical device who is receiving special education and related services under this part, a public agency is responsible for routine checking of external components of surgically implanted medical devices, but is not responsible for the post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of a medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of a surgically implanted medical device). The provisions in §300.105 have been changed to conform with the other changes to this section and the phrase ‘‘proper functioning of hearing aids’’ has been removed from the heading. Extended School Year Services (§300.106) Comment: Several commenters recommended removing §300.106 because the requirement to provide extended school year (ESY) services to children with disabilities is not required in the Act. Discussion: The requirement to provide ESY services to children with disabilities who require such services in order to receive FAPE reflects a longstanding interpretation of the Act by the courts and the Department. The right of an individual child with a disability to receive ESY services is based on that child’s entitlement to FAPE under section 612(a)(1) of the Act. Some children with disabilities may not receive FAPE unless they receive necessary services during times when other children, both disabled and nondisabled, normally would not be served. We believe it is important to retain the provisions in §300.106 because it is necessary that public agencies understand their obligation to ensure that children with disabilities who require ESY services in order to receive FAPE have the necessary services available to them, and that individualized determinations about each disabled child’s need for ESY services are made through the IEP process. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the ESY requirements in §300.106 should not be included as part of the State eligibility requirements and would be more appropriately included in the definition of FAPE in §300.17. Discussion: The definition of FAPE in §300.17 is taken directly from section 602(9) of the Act. We believe the ESY requirements are appropriately included under the FAPE requirements as a part of a State’s eligibility for assistance under Part B of the Act because the right of an individual child with a disability to ESY services is based on a child’s entitlement to FAPE. As a part of the State’s eligibility for assistance under Part B of the Act, the State must make FAPE available to all children with disabilities residing in the State in mandated age ranges. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended removing the word ‘‘only’’ in §300.106(a)(2) because it is unduly limiting. Discussion: The inclusion of the word ‘‘only’’ is intended to be limiting. ESY services must be provided ‘‘only’’ if a child’s IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child. We do not think this language is overly restrictive; instead, we think it is necessary for providing appropriate parameters to the responsibility of the IEP Team. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters suggested revising §300.106(a)(3)(i) to specifically state that, in addition to particular categories of disabilities, public agencies may not limit ESY services to particular age ranges. Other commenters proposed adding ‘‘preschooler with a disability’’ to the definition of ESY services in §300.106(b)(1). Discussion: The revisions recommended by the commenters are not necessary. Section 300.106(a) clarifies that each public agency must ensure that ESY services are available for children with disabilities if those services are necessary for the children to receive FAPE. Section 300.101(a) clearly states that FAPE must be available to all children aged 3 through 21, inclusive, residing in the State, except for children ages 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, or 21 to the extent that its application to those children would be inconsistent with State law or practice, or the order of any court, regarding the provision of public education to children of those ages. We do not believe any further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that language be added to §300.106(b)(1)(i) to clarify that providing ESY services to a child with a disability beyond the normal school year includes, but is not limited to, before and after regular school hours, on weekends, and during regular school vacations. Discussion: Typically, ESY services are provided during the summer months. However, there is nothing in §300.106 that would limit a public agency from providing ESY services to a child with a disability during times other than the summer, such as before and after regular school hours or during school vacations, if the IEP Team determines that the child requires ESY services during those time periods in order to receive FAPE. The regulations give the IEP Team the flexibility to determine when ESY services are appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the individual child. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested adding language to §300.106 clarifying that ‘‘recoupment and retention’’ should not be used as the sole criteria for determining the child’s eligibility for ESY services. Discussion: We do not believe the commenter’s suggested change should be made. The concepts of ‘‘recoupment’’ and ‘‘likelihood of regression or retention’’ have formed the basis for many standards that States use in making ESY eligibility determinations and are derived from well-established judicial precedents. (See, for example, Johnson v. Bixby Independent School District 4, 921 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1990); Crawford v. Pittman, 708 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1983); GARC v. McDaniel, 716 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1983)). States may use recoupment and retention as their sole criteria but they are not limited to these standards and have considerable flexibility in determining eligibility for ESY services and establishing State standards for making ESY determinations. However, whatever standard a State uses must be consistent with the individually-oriented requirements of the Act and may not limit eligibility for ESY services to children with a particular disability category or be applied in a manner that denies children with disabilities who VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46583 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations require ESY services in order to receive FAPE access to necessary ESY services. Changes: None. Nonacademic Services (§300.107) Comment: One commenter recommended adding more specific language in §300.107 regarding services and accommodations available for nonacademic activities to ensure that children with disabilities are fully included in nonacademic activities. Discussion: We agree with the commenter. Section 300.107(a), as proposed, requires public agencies to take steps to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in a manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in those services and activities. In addition, §300.320(a)(4)(ii), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(i)(IV)(bb) of the Act, clarifies that an IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities. We will add language in §300.107(a) to clarify that the steps taken by public agencies to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities include the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team. Changes: Additional language has been added in §300.107(a) to clarify that the steps taken by public agencies to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities include the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about including ‘‘nonacademic services’’ in §300.107, because it is not in the Act. The commenter stated that services such as athletics, recreational activities and clubs, counseling, transportation and health services should not be included in the regulations because they may be costly and are usually available on a limited basis. One commenter stated that it is confusing to include related services in the examples of nonacademic services and recommended that they be removed. Discussion: The list of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in §300.107(b) is not exhaustive. The list provides public agencies with examples of services and activities that may afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in the services offered to other children of the public agency. We disagree that the list of activities causes confusion with related services, as we think that the public can easily recognize the difference between academic counseling services, for example, that are offered to all children, and the type of counseling services that might be included in a child’s IEP as a related service. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate to maintain the list of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in §300.107, including those services that are also related services in §300.34. Changes: None. Physical Education (§300.108) Comment: A few commenters stated that, in some States, physical education is not required for every nondisabled child every year and this creates situations in which children with disabilities are in segregated physical education classes. The commenters recommended that the regulations clarify the requirements for public agencies to make physical education available to children with disabilities when physical education is not available to children without disabilities. Discussion: Section 300.108 describes two considerations that a public agency must take into account to meet the physical education requirements in this section. First, physical education must be made available equally to children with disabilities and children without disabilities. If physical education is not available to all children (i.e., children with and without disabilities), the public agency is not required to make physical education available for children with disabilities (e.g., a district may provide physical education to all children through grade 10, but not to any children in their junior and senior years). Second, if physical education is specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability and is set out in that child’s IEP, those services must be provided whether or not they are provided to other children in the agency. This is the Department’s longstanding interpretation of the requirements in §300.108 and is based on legislative history that the intent of Congress was to ensure equal rights for children with disabilities. The regulation as promulgated in 1977 was based on an understanding that physical education was available to all children without disabilities and, therefore, must be made available to all children with disabilities. As stated in H. Rpt. No. 94– 332, p. 9, (1975): Special education as set forth in the Committee bill includes instruction in physical education, which is provided as a matter of course to all non-handicapped children enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. The Committee is concerned that although these services are available to and required of all children in our school systems, they are often viewed as a luxury for handicapped children. We agree that §300.108(a) could be interpreted to mean that physical education must be made available to all children with disabilities, regardless of whether physical education is provided to children without disabilities. We will, therefore, revise paragraph (a) to clarify that the public agency has no obligation to provide physical education for children with disabilities if it does not provide physical education to nondisabled children attending their schools. Changes: Section 300.108(a) has been revised as described in the preceding paragraph. Full Education Opportunity Goal (FEOG) (§300.109) Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify how a State communicates and monitors the progress of the State’s FEOG. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to regulate how a State communicates and monitors its progress toward the State’s FEOG. We believe the State should have the flexibility needed to implement the provisions of this section and the State is in the best position to make this determination. Changes: None. Program Options (§300.110) Comment: A few commenters recommended revising §300.110 to require States to ensure that each public agency have in effect policies, procedures, and programs to provide children with disabilities the variety of educational programs and services available to nondisabled children. The commenters stated that §300.110 does not provide any guidance to educators. A few commenters stated that ‘‘vocational education is an outdated term’’ and proposed replacing it with ‘‘career-technical and adult education’’ or ‘‘career and technical education.’’ Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to change §300.110. Under this provision, States must ensure that public agencies take steps to ensure that children with disabilities have access to the same program options that are available to nondisabled children in the area served by the agency, whatever those options are, and we are not aware of any implementation problems with VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46584 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations this requirement. We believe that it is important that educators understand that children with disabilities must have access to the same range of programs and services that a public agency provides to nondisabled children and that the regulation conveys this point. We also do not believe it is necessary to replace the term ‘‘vocational education’’ with the language recommended by the commenter. The term is broad in its meaning and generally accepted and understood in the field and, therefore, would encompass such areas as ‘‘career- technical’’ and ‘‘technical education.’’ Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested that the regulations explicitly state that a child with a disability who has not yet received a regular high school diploma or ‘‘aged out’’ of special education may participate in dual enrollment programs and receive services in a postsecondary or community-based setting if the IEP Team decides it is appropriate. Discussion: Section 300.110, consistent with section 612(a)(2) of the Act, requires States to ensure that public agencies take steps to ensure that children with disabilities have access to the same program options that are available to nondisabled children in the area served by the agency. This would apply to dual enrollment programs in post-secondary or community-based settings. Therefore, a State would be responsible for ensuring that a public agency that offered dual enrollment programs in post-secondary or community-based settings to a nondisabled student would have that option available to a student with disabilities whose IEP Team determined that such a program would best meet the student’s needs. However, we do not believe that the Act requires public agencies to provide dual enrollment programs in post-secondary or community-based settings for students with disabilities, if such programs are not available to nondisabled secondary school students. Therefore, we are not modifying the regulations. Changes: None. Child Find (§300.111) Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion about the child find requirements in §300.111 and the parental consent requirements in §300.300, and requested clarification on whether child find applies to private school children and whether LEAs may use the consent override procedures for children with disabilities enrolled in private schools. Two commenters requested that §300.111(a)(1)(i) specify that child find does not apply to private school children whose parents refuse consent. Discussion: This issue is addressed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart D in response to comments on §300.300. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended retaining current §300.125(b) to ensure that the child find requirements are retained for parentally- placed private school children. Discussion: Current §300.125(b) was removed from these regulations because, under the Act, States are no longer required to have State policies and procedures on file with the Secretary. Furthermore, the Department believes the requirements in §§300.111 and 300.131 adequately ensure that parentally-placed private school children are considered in the child find process. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested a definition of the term ‘‘private school,’’ as used in §300.111. Discussion: The term ‘‘private school’’ as used in §300.111 means a private elementary school or secondary school, including a religious school. The terms elementary school and secondary school are defined in subpart A of these regulations. The term private is defined in 34 CFR Part 77, which applies to this program, and we see no need to include those definitions here. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the child find requirements in §300.111(c)(2) include homeless children. Discussion: Homeless children are already included in the child find requirements. Section 300.111(a)(1)(i) clarifies that the State must have policies and procedures to ensure that children with disabilities who are homeless and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. No further clarification is needed. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended including in §300.111 the requirements in current §300.125(c), regarding child find for children from birth through age two when the SEA and lead agency for the Part C program are different. The commenters stated that this will ensure that children with disabilities from birth through age two are eligible to participate in child find activities when the Part C lead agency is not the SEA. Discussion: The Department does not believe it is necessary to retain the language in current §300.125(c). The child find requirements in §300.111 have traditionally been interpreted to mean identifying and evaluating children beginning at birth. While child find under Part C of the Act overlaps, in part, with child find under Part B of the Act, the coordination of child find activities under Part B and Part C is an implementation matter that is best left to each State. Nothing in the Act or these regulations prohibits a Part C lead agency’s participation, with the agreement of the SEA, in the actual implementation of child find activities for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended removing §300.111(c) because child find for children with developmental delays, older children progressing from grade to grade, and highly mobile children is not specifically required by the Act. Discussion: The changes requested by the commenter cannot be made because they are inconsistent with the Act. Section 300.111(a)(1)(i), consistent with section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act, explicitly requires that all children with disabilities residing in the State are identified, located, and evaluated. This includes children suspected of having developmental delays, as defined in section 602(3)(B) of the Act. We recognize that it is difficult to locate, identify, and evaluate highly mobile and migrant children with disabilities. However, we strongly believe it is important to stress in these regulations that the States’ child find responsibilities in §300.111 apply equally to such children. We also believe it is important to clarify that a child suspected of having a disability but who has not failed, is making academic progress, and is passing from grade to grade must be considered in the child find process as any other child suspected of having a disability. As noted earlier in the discussion regarding §300.101, paragraph (c)(1) of §300.111 has been revised to clarify that children do not have to fail or be retained in a course or grade in order to be considered for special education and related services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that §300.111 explicitly require that children in residential facilities be included in the public agency’s child find process. Discussion: We believe §300.111(a), consistent with section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act, clarifies that the State must ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State are identified, located, and evaluated. This would VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46585 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations include children in residential facilities. No further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Individualized Education Programs (IEP) (§300.112) Comment: One commenter objected to including the reference to §300.300(b)(3)(ii) in §300.112, stating that it is not necessary to ensure compliance with the requirement for an IEP or IFSP to be developed, reviewed, and revised for each child with a disability. Discussion: Section 300.300(b)(3)(ii) states that if a parent refuses to consent to the initial provision of special education and related services, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide consent for the initial provision of special education and related services, the public agency is not required to convene an IEP meeting or develop an IEP for the child. It is necessary to include this reference in §300.112 to clarify the circumstances under which a public agency is not required to develop an IEP for an eligible child with a disability. Changes: None. Routine Checking of Hearing Aids and External Components of Surgically Implanted Medical Devices (§300.113) Comment: None. Discussion: New §300.113 is addressed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart A in response to comments on §300.34(b). Changes: We have added new §300.113 to cover the routine checking of hearing aids and external components of surgically implanted medical devices. The requirement for the routine checking of hearing aids has been removed from proposed §300.105 and included in new §300.113(a). The requirement for routine checking of an external component of a surgically implanted medical device has been added as new §300.113(b). The requirements for assistive technology devices and services remain in §300.105 and the heading has been changed to reflect this change. We have also included a reference to new §300.113(b) in new §300.34(b)(2). Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) LRE Requirements (§300.114) Comment: One commenter recommended including language in the regulations that respects and safeguards parental involvement and protects the rights of children with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Discussion: We believe that the LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.120 address the rights of children with disabilities to be educated in the LRE, as well as safeguard parental rights. Section 300.114, consistent with section 612(a)(5) of the Act, requires each public agency to ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled. Further, §300.116 ensures that a child’s parent is included in the group of persons making the decision about the child’s placement. Changes: None. Comment: A number of comments were received regarding §300.114(a)(2)(ii), which requires each public agency to ensure that the removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that the education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Many commenters recommended replacing ‘‘regular educational environment’’ with ‘‘regular classroom’’ because ‘‘regular classroom’’ is less likely to be misinterpreted to mean any kind of contact with children without disabilities. A few commenters expressed concern that using the phrase ‘‘regular educational environment’’ weakens the LRE protections. Another commenter recommended the regulations clarify that the ‘‘regular educational environment’’ means the participation of children with disabilities with their nondisabled peers in regular classrooms and other educational settings including nonacademic settings. Discussion: Section 300.114(a)(2)(ii) follows the specific language in section 612(a)(5)(A) of the Act and reflects previous regulatory language. This requirement is longstanding. We do not believe the language should be revised, as recommended by the commenters, because ‘‘regular educational environment’’ encompasses regular classrooms and other settings in schools such as lunchrooms and playgrounds in which children without disabilities participate. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested revising §300.114(a)(2) to require a public agency to document and justify placements of children with disabilities in environments outside the general education classroom. Discussion: The additional language requested by the commenter is not necessary and would impose unwarranted paperwork burdens on schools. Section 300.320(a)(5), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(V) of the Act, already requires a child’s IEP to include an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class. As noted previously, parents are a part of the group making placement decisions. We believe these provisions provide sufficient safeguards on the placement process. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the LRE requirements are often misinterpreted to be a mandate to include all children who are deaf or hard of hearing in their local schools. The commenter stated that the placement decision for a child who is deaf or hard of hearing should be based on the child’s communication needs and must be the environment that presents the fewest language and communication barriers to the child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Some commenters cautioned that inclusive settings might be inappropriate for a child who is deaf and who requires communication support and stated that the LRE should be the place where a child can be educated successfully. A few commenters requested the regulations clarify that all placement options must remain available for children who are deaf. One commenter recommended strengthening the requirement for a continuum of alternative placements and stated that a full range of placement options is necessary to meet the needs of all children with visual impairments. Another commenter urged the Department to ensure that children with low-incidence disabilities (including children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind) have access to appropriate educational programming and services at all times, including center-based schools, which may be the most appropriate setting for children with low-incidence disabilities. Discussion: The LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.117 express a strong preference, not a mandate, for educating children with disabilities in regular classes alongside their peers without disabilities. Section 300.114(a)(2), consistent with section 612(a)(5)(A) of the Act, requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46586 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. With respect to the recommendation that the placement for children who are deaf or hard of hearing be based on the child’s communication needs, §300.324(a)(2)(iv), consistent with section 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, clarifies that the IEP Team, in developing the IEP for a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, must consider the child’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, and the child’s academic level and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode. With respect to strengthening the continuum of alternative placement requirements, nothing in the LRE requirements would prevent an IEP Team from making a determination that placement in the local school is not appropriate for a particular child. Section 300.115 already requires each public agency to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. We believe this adequately addresses the commenter’s concern. The process for determining the educational placement for children with low-incidence disabilities (including children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind) is the same process used for determining the educational placement for all children with disabilities. That is, each child’s educational placement must be determined on an individual case-by- case basis depending on each child’s unique educational needs and circumstances, rather than by the child’s category of disability, and must be based on the child’s IEP. We believe the LRE provisions are sufficient to ensure that public agencies provide low-incidence children with disabilities access to appropriate educational programming and services in the educational setting appropriate to meet the needs of the child in the LRE. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from school are entitled to be educated with children who are not disabled. The commenter stated that this clarification is necessary to reduce the use of home instruction as a placement option for these children. Discussion: The Act does not require that children with disabilities suspended or expelled for disciplinary reasons continue to be educated with children who are not disabled during the period of their removal. We believe it is important to ensure that children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled from school receive appropriate services, while preserving the flexibility of school personnel to remove a child from school, when necessary, and to determine how best to address the child’s needs during periods of removal and where services are to be provided to the child during such periods of removals, including, if appropriate, home instruction. Sections 300.530 through 300.536 address the options available to school authorities in disciplining children with disabilities and set forth procedures that must be followed when taking disciplinary actions and in making decisions regarding the educational services that a child will receive and the location in which services will be provided. We believe including the language recommended by the commenter would adversely restrict the options available to school personnel for disciplining children with disabilities and inadvertently tie the hands of school personnel in responding quickly and effectively to serious child behaviors and in creating safe classrooms for all children. Changes: None. Additional Requirement—State Funding Mechanism (§300.114(b)) Comment: One commenter stated that §300.114(b) does not adequately address the requirements for funding mechanisms relative to the LRE requirements and requested that note 89 of the Conf. Rpt. be included in the regulations. Discussion: Section 300.114(b) incorporates the language from section 612(a)(5)(B) of the Act and prohibits States from maintaining funding mechanisms that violate the LRE provisions. We do not believe it is necessary to provide additional clarification in the regulations. While we agree with the commenter that note 89 of the Conf. Rpt. makes clear Congress’ intent that State funding mechanisms support the LRE requirements and do not provide an incentive or disincentive for certain placement decisions, we believe the requirements in §300.114(b) accurately capture the essence of the Conf. Rpt. and including additional language in this paragraph is not needed. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter urged the Department to impose financial sanctions on States that continue to base their funding on certain placement decisions. A few commenters suggested changing the requirement in §300.114(b)(2) for States to provide an assurance that the State will revise its funding mechanism ‘‘as soon as feasible’’ to ‘‘no later than the start of the 2006–2007 school year.’’ Discussion: Section 300.114(b)(2) incorporates the language in section 612(a)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, and requires that if a State does not have policies and procedures to ensure that the State’s funding mechanism does not violate the LRE requirements, the State must provide the Secretary an assurance that the State will revise its funding mechanism as soon as feasible. We do not believe it is necessary to include in these regulations a specific timeline for a State to revise its funding mechanism, if required to do so pursuant to 300.114(b)(2). We believe the statutory language ‘‘as soon as feasible,’’ while providing flexibility as to how each State meets the requirement, is sufficient to ensure States’ compliance with this requirement. Further, we believe the enforcement options in §300.604 give the Secretary sufficient means to address a State’s noncompliance with the requirements in §300.114(b)(2). Section 300.604 describes the enforcement options available to the Secretary if the Secretary determines that a State needs assistance or intervention implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act, or that there is a substantial failure to comply with any condition of an SEA’s or LEA’s eligibility under Part B of the Act. Enforcement options available to the Secretary include, among others, recovery of funds or withholding, in whole or in part, any further payments to the State under Part B of the Act. Changes: None. Continuum of Alternative Placements (§300.115) Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.115 so that only the specific allowable alternative settings listed in the definition of special education in new §300.39 (proposed §300.38) (i.e., classroom, home, hospitals, institutions) are permitted. Discussion: Section 300.115 requires each public agency to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements (including instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions) is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. The list of placement options in this section only expands the settings VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46587 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations mentioned in new §300.39 (proposed §300.38) by recognizing the various types of classrooms and settings for classrooms in which special education is provided. This continuum of alternative placements is intended to ensure that a child with a disability is served in a setting where the child can be educated successfully in the LRE. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested adding language to the regulations to clarify that difficulty recruiting and hiring qualified special education teachers does not relieve an LEA of its obligation to ensure a continuum of alternative placements and to offer a full range of services to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include the language suggested by the commenter, because §300.116 is sufficiently clear that placement decisions must be based on the individual needs of each child with a disability. Public agencies, therefore, must not make placement decisions based on a public agency’s needs or available resources, including budgetary considerations and the ability of the public agency to hire and recruit qualified staff. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended revising §300.115(a) to clarify that the continuum of alternative placements must be available to eligible preschool children with disabilities. Discussion: It is not necessary to revise §300.115(a) in the manner suggested by the commenters. Section 300.116 clearly states that the requirements for determining the educational placement of a child with a disability include preschool children with disabilities and that such decisions must be made in conformity with the LRE provisions in §§300.114 through 300.118. This includes ensuring that a continuum of services is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. Changes: None. Placements (§300.116) Comment: One commenter recommended the regulations clarify that the regular class must always be considered the first placement option. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include the clarification recommended by the commenter. Section 300.116 clarifies that placement decisions must be made in conformity with the LRE provisions, and §300.114(a)(2) already requires that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment only occurs if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended revising §300.116 to require that children with disabilities have access to, and make progress in, the general curriculum, and that children receive the special education and related services included in their IEPs. Discussion: The issues raised by the commenters are already addressed elsewhere in the regulations. The IEP requirements in §300.320(a), consistent with section 614(d) of the Act, clarify that children with disabilities must be provided special education and related services and needed supplementary aids and services to enable them to be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum. In addition, §300.323(c)(2) requires that, as soon as possible following the development of an IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP. We believe that these regulations adequately address the commenters’ concerns, and that no further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the placement requirements in §300.116 encourage school districts to assign a child with a disability to a particular place or setting, rather than providing a continuum of increasingly individualized and intensive services. The commenter suggested requiring that the continuum of alternative placements include a progressively more intensive level of individualized, scientifically based instruction and related services, both with increased time and lower pupil-teacher ratio, in addition to regular instruction with supplementary aids and services. Discussion: The overriding rule in §300.116 is that placement decisions for all children with disabilities must be made on an individual basis and ensure that each child with a disability is educated in the school the child would attend if not disabled unless the child’s IEP requires some other arrangement. However, the Act does not require that every child with a disability be placed in the regular classroom regardless of individual abilities and needs. This recognition that regular class placement may not be appropriate for every child with a disability is reflected in the requirement that LEAs make available a range of placement options, known as a continuum of alternative placements, to meet the unique educational needs of children with disabilities. This requirement for the continuum reinforces the importance of the individualized inquiry, not a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach, in determining what placement is the LRE for each child with a disability. The options on this continuum must include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under §300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions). These options must be available to the extent necessary to implement the IEP of each child with a disability. The group determining the placement must select the placement option on the continuum in which it determines that the child’s IEP can be implemented in the LRE. Any alternative placement selected for the child outside of the regular educational environment must include appropriate opportunities for the child to interact with nondisabled peers, to the extent appropriate to the needs of the children, consistent with §300.114(a)(2)(i). Because placement decisions must be determined on an individual case-by- case basis depending on each child’s unique educational needs and circumstances and based on the child’s IEP, we do not believe it is appropriate to require in the regulations that the continuum of alternative placements include a progressively more intensive level of individualized scientifically based instruction and related services as suggested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: We received a number of comments regarding the phrase, ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise’’ in proposed §300.116(b)(3) and (c). As proposed, §300.116(b)(3) requires the child’s placement to be as close as possible to the child’s home, ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise;’’ and §300.116(c) requires that, unless the child’s IEP requires some other arrangement, the child must be educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled, ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise.’’ Many commenters requested removing the phrase ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise,’’ because it is not included in section 612(a)(5) of the Act and is not necessary to clarify that a parent may place his or her child in a charter, magnet, or other specialized school without violating the LRE requirements. Other commenters suggested removing the phrase and clarifying that a decision by the child’s parent to send the child to a charter, magnet, or other specialized VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46588 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations school is not a violation of the LRE requirements. Several commenters stated that including the phrase undermines the statutory requirement for children with disabilities to be placed in the LRE based on their IEPs and allows more restrictive placements based on parental choice. Many commenters interpreted this phrase to mean that placement is a matter of parental choice even in public school settings and stated that a child’s LRE rights should not be overridden by parental choice. One commenter stated that the phrase might intimidate parents into accepting inappropriate placements. A few commenters stated that this phrase is unnecessary because the Act already requires parents to be involved in placement decisions, and expressed concern that including this phrase in the regulations could lead to confusion and litigation. One commenter stated that the phrase suggests that additional consent is required if the parent chooses to send the child to a charter, magnet, or other specialized school. Discussion: The phrase ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise’’ in proposed §300.116(b)(3) and (c) was added to clarify that a parent may send the child to a charter, magnet, or other specialized school without violating the LRE mandate. A parent has always had this option; a parent who chooses this option for the child does not violate the LRE mandate as long as the child is educated with his or her peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. However, we agree that this phrase is unnecessary, confusing, and may be misunderstood to mean that parents have a right to veto the placement decision made by the group of individuals in §300.116(a)(1). We will, therefore, remove the phrase. Changes: We have removed the phrase ‘‘unless the parent agrees otherwise’’ in §300.116(b)(3) and (c). Comment: One commenter disagreed with the requirement in §300.116(b)(3) that placements be as close as possible to the child’s home, stating that the requirement is administratively prohibitive and beyond the scope of the Act. The commenter stated that it is not possible for school districts to provide classes for children with all types and degrees of disabilities in each school building. The commenter stated that ‘‘placement’’ should be understood as the set of services outlined in a child’s IEP, and recommended that school districts be permitted to provide these services in the school building that is most administratively feasible. Discussion: We do not believe the requirement imposes unduly restrictive administrative requirements. The Department has consistently maintained that a child with a disability should be educated in a school as close to the child’s home as possible, unless the services identified in the child’s IEP require a different location. Even though the Act does not mandate that a child with a disability be educated in the school he or she would normally attend if not disabled, section 612(a)(5)(A) of the Act presumes that the first placement option considered for each child with a disability is the regular classroom in the school that the child would attend if not disabled, with appropriate supplementary aids and services to facilitate such placement. Thus, before a child with a disability can be placed outside of the regular educational environment, the full range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to facilitate the child’s placement in the regular classroom setting must be considered. Following that consideration, if a determination is made that a particular child with a disability cannot be educated satisfactorily in the regular educational environment, even with the provision of appropriate supplementary aids and services, that child could be placed in a setting other than the regular classroom. Although the Act does not require that each school building in an LEA be able to provide all the special education and related services for all types and severities of disabilities, the LEA has an obligation to make available a full continuum of alternative placement options that maximize opportunities for its children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled peers to the extent appropriate. In all cases, placement decisions must be individually determined on the basis of each child’s abilities and needs and each child’s IEP, and not solely on factors such as category of disability, severity of disability, availability of special education and related services, configuration of the service delivery system, availability of space, or administrative convenience. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying the difference, if any, between ‘‘placement’’ and ‘‘location.’’ One commenter recommended requiring the child’s IEP to include a detailed explanation of why a child’s educational needs cannot be met in the location requested by the parent when the school district opposes the parent’s request for services to be provided to the child in the school that the child would attend if the child did not have a disability. Discussion: Historically, we have referred to ‘‘placement’’ as points along the continuum of placement options available for a child with a disability, and ‘‘location’’ as the physical surrounding, such as the classroom, in which a child with a disability receives special education and related services. Public agencies are strongly encouraged to place a child with a disability in the school and classroom the child would attend if the child did not have a disability. However, a public agency may have two or more equally appropriate locations that meet the child’s special education and related services needs and school administrators should have the flexibility to assign the child to a particular school or classroom, provided that determination is consistent with the decision of the group determining placement. It also should be noted that, under section 615(b)(3) of the Act, a parent must be given written prior notice that meets the requirements of §300.503 a reasonable time before a public agency implements a proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the child. Consistent with this notice requirement, parents of children with disabilities must be informed that the public agency is required to have a full continuum of placement options, as well as about the placement options that were actually considered and the reasons why those options were rejected. While public agencies have an obligation under the Act to notify parents regarding placement decisions, there is nothing in the Act that requires a detailed explanation in children’s IEPs of why their educational needs or educational placements cannot be met in the location the parents’ request. We believe including such a provision would be overly burdensome for school administrators and diminish their flexibility to appropriately assign a child to a particular school or classroom, provided that the assignment is made consistent with the child’s IEP and the decision of the group determining placement. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended including in the regulations the Department’s policy that a child’s placement in an educational program that is substantially and materially similar to the former placement is not a change in placement. Discussion: As stated by the commenter, it is the Department’s longstanding position that maintaining a child’s placement in an educational VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46589 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations program that is substantially and materially similar to the former placement is not a change in placement. We do not believe further clarification is necessary in the regulations, however, as the distinction seems to be commonly accepted and understood. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters suggested requiring a public agency to pay all costs associated with providing FAPE for a child in a private preschool, including paying for tuition, transportation and such special education, related services and supplementary aids and services as the child needs, if an inclusive preschool is the appropriate placement for a child, and there is no inclusive public preschool that can provide all the appropriate services and supports. Discussion: The LRE requirements in §§300.114 through 300.118 apply to all children with disabilities, including preschool children who are entitled to FAPE. Public agencies that do not operate programs for preschool children without disabilities are not required to initiate those programs solely to satisfy the LRE requirements of the Act. Public agencies that do not have an inclusive public preschool that can provide all the appropriate services and supports must explore alternative methods to ensure that the LRE requirements are met. Examples of such alternative methods might include placement options in private preschool programs or other community-based settings. Paying for the placement of qualified preschool children with disabilities in a private preschool with children without disabilities is one, but not the only, option available to public agencies to meet the LRE requirements. We believe the regulations should allow public agencies to choose an appropriate option to meet the LRE requirements. However, if a public agency determines that placement in a private preschool program is necessary as a means of providing special education and related services to a child with a disability, the program must be at no cost to the parent of the child. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested clarifying that if a child’s behavior in the regular classroom significantly impairs the learning of the child or others, that placement would not meet the child’s needs and would not be appropriate for that child. Discussion: Although the Act places a strong preference in favor of educating children with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and supports, a regular classroom placement is not appropriate for every child with a disability. Placement decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and must be appropriate for the needs of the child. The courts have generally concluded that, if a child with a disability has behavioral problems that are so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other children is significantly impaired, the needs of the child with a disability generally cannot be met in that environment. However, before making such a determination, LEAs must ensure that consideration has been given to the full range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to the child in the regular educational environment to accommodate the unique needs of the child with a disability. If the group making the placement decision determines, that even with the provision of supplementary aids and services, the child’s IEP could not be implemented satisfactorily in the regular educational environment, that placement would not be the LRE placement for that child at that particular time, because her or his unique educational needs could not be met in that setting. (See Roncker v. Walter, 700 F. 2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983); Devries v. Fairfax County School Bd., 882 F. 2d 876, 879 (4th Cir. 1989); Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F. 2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989); and A.W. v. Northwest R–1 School Dist., 813 F.2d 158, 163 (8th Cir. 1987).) Changes: None. Nonacademic Settings (§300.117) Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that children with disabilities should receive the supplementary aids and services necessary to ensure their participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Discussion: Section 300.117, consistent with section 612(a)(5) of the Act, requires that children with disabilities participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities with their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child. The Act places great emphasis on ensuring that children with disabilities are educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who are nondisabled and are included in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities as appropriate to the needs of the child. We believe the public agency has an obligation to provide a child with a disability with appropriate aids, services, and other supports, as determined by the IEP Team, if necessary to ensure the child’s participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Therefore, we will clarify in §300.117 that each public agency must ensure that children with disabilities have the supplementary aids and services determined necessary by the child’s IEP Team for the child to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. Changes: We have added language to §300.117 to ensure that children with disabilities receive the supplementary aids and services needed to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Technical Assistance and Training Activities (§300.119) Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations define ‘‘training.’’ Discussion: The Department intends the term ‘‘training,’’ as used in §300.119, to have its generally accepted meaning. Training is generally agreed to be any activity used to enhance one’s skill or knowledge to acquire, maintain, and advance knowledge, skills, and abilities. Given the general understanding of the term ‘‘training,’’ we do not believe it is necessary to regulate on this matter. Changes: None. Children in Private Schools Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools General Comments Comment: Many comments were received regarding the parentally-placed private school children with disabilities requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144. Many commenters supported the changes to the regulations and believed the regulations simplify the processes for both private schools and public schools. Numerous commenters, however, expressed concern regarding the implementation of the private school requirements. Many of the commenters expressed concern with the requirement that the LEAs where private elementary schools and secondary schools are located are now responsible for child find, individual evaluations, and the provision of services for children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools located in the LEA. These commenters described the private school provisions in the Act and the NPRM as burdensome and difficult to understand. Discussion: The revisions to the Act in 2004 significantly changed the obligation of States and LEAs to children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private elementary VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46590 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations schools and secondary schools. Section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act now requires LEAs in which the private schools are located, rather than the LEAs in which the parents of such children reside, to conduct child find and provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. The Act provides that, in calculating the proportionate amount of Federal funds under Part B of the Act that must be spent on parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, the LEAs where the private schools are located, after timely and meaningful consultation with representatives of private elementary schools and secondary schools and representatives of parents of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, must conduct a thorough and complete child find process to determine the number of parentally-placed children with disabilities attending private elementary schools and secondary schools located in the LEAs. In addition, the obligation of the LEA to spend a proportionate amount of funds to provide services to children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools is now based on the total number of children with disabilities who are enrolled in private schools located in the LEA whether or not the children and their parents reside in the LEA. We believe these regulations and the additional clarification provided in our responses to comments on §§300.130 through 300.144 will help States and LEAs to better understand their obligations in serving children with disabilities placed by their parents in private elementary schools and secondary schools. In addition, the Department has provided additional guidance on implementing the parentally-placed private school requirements on the Department’s Web site. We also are including in these regulations Appendix B to Part 300— Proportionate Share Calculation to assist LEAs in calculating the proportionate amount of Part B funds that they must expend on parentally- placed private school children with disabilities attending private elementary schools and secondary schools located in the LEA. Changes: We have added a reference to Appendix B in §300.133(b). Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that §§300.130 through 300.144 include requirements that go beyond the Act and recommended that any requirement beyond what is statutory be removed from these regulations. Discussion: In general, the regulations track the language in section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act regarding children enrolled in private schools by their parents. However, we determined that including clarification of the statutory language on parentally-placed private school children with disabilities in these regulations would be helpful. The volume of comments received concerning this topic confirm the need to regulate in order to clarify the statutory language and to help ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulations provide flexibility to States to provide services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities beyond what they would be able to do with the proportionate share required under the Act. A few of these commenters requested that those States already providing an individual entitlement to special education and related services or providing a full range of special education services to parentally-placed private school children be deemed to have met the requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144 and be permitted to continue the State’s current practices. One commenter specifically recommended allowing States that provide additional rights or services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities (including FAPE under section 612 of the Act and the procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act), the option of requesting that the Secretary consider alternate compliance with these requirements that would include evidence and supporting documentation of alternate procedures under State law to meet all the requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144. A few commenters requested that the child find and equitable participation requirements should not apply in States with dual enrollment provisions where children with disabilities who are parentally-placed in private elementary schools or secondary schools are also enrolled in public schools for special education and have IEPs and retain their due process rights. Discussion: The Act in no way prohibits States or LEAs from spending additional State or local funds to provide special education or related services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities in excess of those required in §300.133 and section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act, consistent with State law or administrative procedures. The Act, however, does not provide the Secretary with the authority to waive, in whole or in part, the parentally-placed private school requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144 for States or LEAs that spend State or local funds to provide special education or related services beyond those required under Part B of the Act. The Secretary, therefore, cannot consider alternative compliance with the parentally-placed private school provisions in the Act and these regulations or consider States and LEAs that use State and local funds to provide services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities beyond the required proportionate share of Federal Part B funds, including providing FAPE to such children, to have met the statutory and regulatory requirements governing parentally- placed private school children with disabilities. States and LEAs must meet the requirements in the Act and these regulations. With regard to the comment requesting that the child find and equitable participation requirements for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities not apply in States with dual enrollment, there is no exception in the Act to the child find and equitable participation requirements of section 612(a)(10)(A) for States that permit dual enrollment of a child at a parent’s discretion. Therefore, there is no basis to regulate to provide such an exception. It would be a matter of State or local discretion to decide whether to have a dual enrollment policy and, if established, how it would be implemented. Whether dual enrollment alters the rights of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities under State law is a State matter. There is nothing, however, in Part B of the Act that would prohibit a State from requiring dual enrollment as a condition for a parentally-placed private school child with a disability to be eligible for services from a public agency. As long as States and LEAs meet the requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144, the local policy covering enrollment is a matter of State and local discretion. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the applicability of the child find and equitable participation requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144 for children with disabilities who reside in one State and are enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools or secondary schools located in another State. These commenters recommended that the regulations clarify whether the LEA in the State where the private elementary school or secondary school is located or the LEA in the State where the child VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46591 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations resides is responsible for conducting child find (including individual evaluations and reevaluations), and providing and paying for equitable services for children who are enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools or secondary schools. Discussion: Section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(II) of the Act provides that the LEA where the private elementary schools and secondary schools are located, after timely and meaningful consultation with private school representatives, is responsible for conducting the child find process to determine the number of parentally-placed children with disabilities attending private schools located in the LEA. We believe this responsibility includes child find for children who reside in other States but who attend private elementary schools and secondary schools located in the LEA, because section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(II) of the Act is clear about which LEA is responsible for child find and the Act does not provide an exception for children who reside in one State and attend private elementary schools and secondary schools in other States. Under section 612(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Act, the LEA where the private elementary schools and secondary schools are located, in consultation with private school officials and representatives of parents of parentally- placed private school children with disabilities, also is responsible for determining and paying for the services to be provided to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. We believe this responsibility extends to children from other States who are enrolled in a private school located in the LEA, because section 612(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Act clarifies that the LEA where the private schools are located is responsible for spending a proportionate amount of its Federal Part B funds on special education and related services for children enrolled by their parents in the private schools located in the LEA. The Act does not provide an exception for out-of-State children with disabilities attending a private school located in the LEA and, therefore, out-of-State children with disabilities must be included in the group of parentally-placed children with disabilities whose needs are considered in determining which parentally-placed private school children with disabilities will be served and the types and amounts of services to be provided. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (f) to §300.131 clarifying that each LEA where private, including religious, elementary schools and secondary schools are located must, in carrying out the child find requirements in this section, include parentally- placed private school children who reside in the State other than where the private schools they attend are located. Comment: A few commenters recommended the regulations clarify the LEA’s obligation under §§300.130 through 300.144 regarding child find and equitable participation for children from other countries enrolled in private elementary schools and secondary schools by their parents. Discussion: The obligation to consider children with disabilities for equitable services extends to all children with disabilities in the State who are enrolled by their parents in private schools within each LEA’s jurisdiction. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended the regulations clarify the applicability of the child find and equitable participation requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144 for children with disabilities, aged three through five, enrolled by their parents in private preschools or day care programs. Many commenters recommended the regulations clarify that preschool children with disabilities should be counted in determining the proportionate share of funds available to serve children enrolled in private elementary schools by their parents. Discussion: If a private preschool or day care program is considered an elementary school, as defined in §300.13, the child find and equitable services participation requirements in §§300.130 through 300.144, consistent with section 612(a)(10) of the Act, apply to children with disabilities aged three through five enrolled by their parents in such programs. Section 300.13, consistent with section 602(6) of the Act, defines an elementary school as a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public elementary charter school, which provides elementary education, as determined under State law. We believe it is important to clarify in the regulations that children aged three through five are considered parentally-placed private school children with disabilities enrolled in private elementary schools only if they are enrolled in private schools that meet the definition of elementary school in §300.13. Changes: We have added a new §300.133(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that children aged three through five are considered to be parentally-placed private school children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private, including religious, elementary schools, if they are enrolled in a private school that meets the definition of elementary school in §300.13. Definition of Parentally-Placed Private School Children With Disabilities (§300.130) Comment: A few commenters recommended removing ‘‘or facilities’’ from the definition of parentally-placed private school children because it is not defined in the Act or the regulations. Another commenter recommended including a definition of ‘‘facilities.’’ Discussion: Under section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act, the obligation to conduct child find and provide equitable services extends to children who are enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools and secondary schools. This obligation also applies to children who have been enrolled by their parents in private facilities if those facilities are elementary schools or secondary schools, as defined in subpart A of the regulations. Because facilities that meet the definition of elementary school or secondary school are covered under this section, we believe it is important to retain the reference to facilities in these regulations. We will, however, revise §300.130 to clarify that children with disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in facilities that meet the definition of elementary school in §300.13 or secondary school in new §300.36 (proposed §300.35) would be considered parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Changes: Section 300.130 has been revised to clarify that parentally-placed private school children with disabilities means children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private, including religious, schools or facilities that meet the definition of an elementary school in §300.13 or secondary school in §300.36. Child Find for Parentally-Placed Private School Children With Disabilities (§300.131) Comment: A few commenters recommended permitting the LEA where private schools are located to request reimbursement from the LEA where the child resides for the cost of conducting an individual evaluation, as may be required under the child find requirements in §300.131. One commenter recommended that the LEA where private schools are located be responsible for locating and identifying children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools and the LEA where the children reside be responsible for conducting individual evaluations. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46592 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Discussion: Section 300.131, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Act, requires that the LEA where private elementary schools and secondary schools in which the child is enrolled are located, not the LEA where the child resides, is responsible for conducting child find, including an individual evaluation for a child with a disability enrolled by the child’s parent in a private elementary school or secondary school located in the LEA. The Act specifies that the LEA where the private schools are located is responsible for conducting both the child find process and the initial evaluation. Therefore, the LEA where private schools are located may not seek reimbursement from the LEA of residence for the cost of conducting the evaluation or to request that the LEA of residence conduct the evaluation. However, the LEA where the private elementary school or secondary school is located has options as to how it meets its responsibilities. For example, the LEA may assume the responsibility itself, contract with another public agency (including the public agency of residence), or make other arrangements. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended permitting a parent who enrolled a child in a private elementary school or secondary school the option of not participating in child find required under §300.131. Discussion: New §300.300(e)(4) clarifies that parents who enroll their children in private elementary schools and secondary schools have the option of not participating in an LEA’s child find activities required under §300.131. As noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart D, once parents opt out of the public schools, States and school districts do not have the same interest in requiring parents to agree to the evaluation of their children as they do for children enrolled in public schools, in light of the public agencies’ obligation to educate public school children with disabilities. We further indicate in the discussion of subpart D that we have added new §300.300(e)(4) (proposed §300.300(d)) to clarify that if the parent of a child who is home schooled or placed in a private school by the child’s parent at the parent’s own expense does not provide consent for an initial evaluation or reevaluation, the public agency may not use the due process procedures in section 615 of the Act and the public agency is not required to consider the child for equitable services. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended permitting amounts expended for child find, including individual evaluations, to be deducted from the required amount of funds to be expended on equitable services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Discussion: The requested changes would be inconsistent with the Act. There is a distinction under the Act between the obligation to conduct child find activities, including individual evaluations, for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, and the obligation to use an amount of funds equal to a proportionate amount of the Federal Part B grant flowing to LEAs to provide special education and related services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. The obligation to conduct child find for parentally-placed private school children, including individual evaluations, is independent of the services provision. Further, §300.131(d), consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IV) of the Act, clarifies that the costs of child find activities for parentally-placed private school children, including individual evaluations, may not be considered in determining whether the LEA has spent an appropriate amount on providing special education and related services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying whether an LEA may exclude children suspected of having certain disabilities, such as those with specific learning disabilities, in conducting individual evaluations of suspected children with disabilities enrolled in private schools by their parents. Discussion: The LEA where the private elementary schools and secondary schools are located must identify and evaluate all children suspected of having disabilities as defined under section 602(3) of the Act. LEAs may not exclude children suspected of having certain disabilities, such as those with specific learning disabilities, from their child find activities. The Department recommends that LEAs and private elementary schools and secondary schools consult on how best to implement the State’s evaluation criteria and the requirements under this part for identifying children with specific learning disabilities enrolled in private schools by their parents. This is explained in more detail in the discussion of comments under §300.307. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that parents who place their children in private elementary schools and secondary schools outside the district of residence, and who are determined by the LEA where the private schools are located, through its child find process, to be children with disabilities eligible for special education and related services, would have no knowledge of the special education and related services available for their children if they choose to attend a public school in their district of residence. A few commenters suggested clarifying the obligation of the LEA where the private school is located to provide the district of residence the results of an evaluation and eligibility determination of the parentally-placed private school child. A few commenters recommended that the parent of a child with a disability identified through the child find process in §300.131 be provided with information regarding an appropriate educational program for the child. Discussion: The Act is silent on the obligation of officials of the LEA where private elementary schools and secondary schools are located to share personally identifiable information, such as individual evaluation information, with officials of the LEA of the parent’s residence. We believe that the LEA where the private schools are located has an obligation to protect the privacy of children placed in private schools by their parents. We believe that when a parentally-placed private school child is evaluated and identified as a child with a disability by the LEA in which the private school is located, parental consent should be required before such personally identifiable information is released to officials of the LEA of the parent’s residence. Therefore, we are adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to §300.622 to make this clear. We explain this revision in more detail in the discussion of comments under §300.622. We believe the regulations adequately ensure that parents of children enrolled in private schools by their parents, who are identified as children with disabilities through the child find process, receive information regarding an appropriate educational program for their children. Section 300.138(b) provides that each parentally-placed private school child with a disability who has been designated to receive equitable services must have a services plan that describes the specific education and related services that the LEA where the private school is located has determined it will make available to the child and the services plan must, to the extent appropriate, meet the IEP content, development, review and revision requirements described in VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46593 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations section 614(d) of the Act, or, when appropriate, for children aged three through five, the IFSP requirements described in section 636(d) of the Act as to the services that are to be provided. Furthermore, the LEA where the private school is located must, pursuant to §300.504(a) and section 615(d) of the Act, provide the parent a copy of the procedural safeguards notice upon conducting the initial evaluation. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (b)(3) to §300.622 to require parental consent for the disclosure of records of parentally-placed private school children between LEAs. Comment: A few commenters stated that §300.131 does not address which LEA has the responsibility for reevaluations. Discussion: The LEA where the private schools are located is responsible for conducting reevaluations of children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools and secondary schools located within the LEA. Reevaluation is a part of the LEA’s child find responsibility for parentally- placed private school children under section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the regulations permit a parent to request an evaluation from the LEA of residence at the same time the child is being evaluated by the LEA where the private elementary school or secondary school is located, resulting in two LEAs simultaneously conducting evaluations of the same child. Discussion: We recognize that there could be times when parents request that their parentally-placed child be evaluated by different LEAs if the child is attending a private school that is not in the LEA in which they reside. For example, because most States generally allocate the responsibility for making FAPE available to the LEA in which the child’s parents reside, and that could be a different LEA from the LEA in which the child’s private school is located, parents could ask two different LEAs to evaluate their child for different purposes at the same time. Although there is nothing in this part that would prohibit parents from requesting that their child be evaluated by the LEA responsible for FAPE for purposes of having a program of FAPE made available to the child at the same time that the parents have requested that the LEA where the private school is located evaluate their child for purposes of considering the child for equitable services, we do not encourage this practice. We note that new §300.622(b)(4) requires parental consent for the release of information about parentally-placed private school children between LEAs; therefore, as a practical matter, one LEA may not know that a parent also requested an evaluation from another LEA. However, we do not believe that the child’s best interests would be well-served if the parents requested evaluations of their child by the resident school district and the LEA where the private school is located, even though these evaluations are conducted for different purposes. A practice of subjecting a child to repeated testing by separate LEAs in close proximity of time may not be the most effective or desirable way of ensuring that the evaluation is a meaningful measure of whether a child has a disability or of providing an appropriate assessment of the child’s educational needs. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested the regulations clarify which LEA (the LEA of residence or the LEA where the private elementary schools or secondary schools are located) is responsible for offering FAPE to children identified through child find under §300.131 so that parents can make an informed decision regarding their children’s education. Discussion: If a determination is made by the LEA where the private school is located that a child needs special education and related services, the LEA where the child resides is responsible for making FAPE available to the child. If the parent makes clear his or her intention to keep the child enrolled in the private elementary school or secondary school located in another LEA, the LEA where the child resides need not make FAPE available to the child. We do not believe that a change to the regulations is necessary, as §300.201 already clarifies that the district of residence is responsible for making FAPE available to the child. Accordingly, the district in which the private elementary or secondary school is located is not responsible for making FAPE available to a child residing in another district. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the term ‘‘activities similar’’ in §300.131(c). Another commenter recommended clarifying that these activities include, but are not limited to, activities relating to evaluations and reevaluations. One commenter requested that children with disabilities parentally-placed in private schools be identified and evaluated as quickly as possible. Discussion: Section 300.131(c), consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A)(ii)(III) of the Act, requires that, in carrying out child find for parentally-placed private school children, SEAs and LEAs must undertake activities similar to those activities undertaken for their publicly enrolled or publicly-placed children. This would generally include, but is not limited to, such activities as widely distributing informational brochures, providing regular public service announcements, staffing exhibits at health fairs and other community activities, and creating direct liaisons with private schools. Activities for child find must be completed in a time period comparable to those activities for public school children. This means that LEAs must conduct child find activities, including individual evaluations, for parentally-placed private school children within a reasonable period of time and without undue delay, and may not wait until after child find for public school children is conducted. In addition, evaluations of all children suspected of having disabilities under Part B of the Act, regardless of whether they are enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools or secondary schools, must be conducted in accordance with the requirements in §§300.300 through 300.311, consistent with section 614(a) through (c) of the Act, which describes the procedures for evaluations and reevaluations for all children with disabilities. We believe the phrase ‘‘activities similar’’ is understood by SEAs and LEAs and, therefore, it is not necessary to regulate on the meaning of the phrase. Changes: None. Provision of Services for Parentally- Placed Private School Children With Disabilities—Basic Requirement (§300.132) Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion regarding which LEA is responsible for paying for the equitable services provided to a parentally-placed private elementary school or secondary school child, the district of the child’s residence or the LEA where the private school is located. Discussion: We believe §300.133, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Act, is sufficiently clear that the LEA where the private elementary schools and secondary schools are located is responsible for paying for the equitable services provided to a parentally-placed private elementary school or secondary school child. These provisions provide that the LEA where the private elementary and secondary schools are located must spend a proportionate amount of its Federal funds available under Part B of the Act VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46594 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations for services for children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools and secondary schools located in the LEA. The Act does not permit an exception to this requirement. No further clarification is needed. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended the regulations clarify which LEA in the State is responsible for providing equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities who attend a private school that straddles two LEAs in the State. Discussion: The Act does not address situations where a private school straddles more than one LEA. However, the Act does specify that the LEA in which the private school is located is responsible for providing special education to children with disabilities placed in private schools by their parents, consistent with the number of such children and their needs. In situations where more than one LEA potentially could assume the responsibility of providing equitable services, the SEA, consistent with its general supervisory responsibility, determines which LEA in the State is responsible for ensuring the equitable participation of children with disabilities attending that private school. We do not believe that the situation is common enough to warrant a change in the regulations. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended revising the heading for §300.132(b) to clarify that LEAs, not SEAs, are responsible for developing service plans. Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the heading for §300.132(b) should be changed to accurately reflect the requirement and to avoid confusion. Changes: We have revised the heading for §300.132(b) by removing the reference to SEA responsibility. Comment: One commenter requested requiring in §300.132(c) that data on parentally-placed private school children with disabilities be submitted to the Department. Another commenter agreed, stating that the data should be submitted the same day as the annual child count. Discussion: The purpose of the child count under §300.132(c) is to determine the amount of Federal funds that the LEA must spend on providing special education and related services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities in the next fiscal year. We are not requiring States to submit these data to the Department as the Department does not have a programmatic or regulatory need to collect this information at this time. Section 300.644 permits the SEA to include in its annual report of children served those parentally-placed private school children who are eligible under the Act and receive special education or related services. We believe this is sufficient to meet the Department’s need to collect data on this group of children and we do not wish to place an unnecessary data collection and paperwork burden on States. Changes: None. Expenditures (§300.133) Comment: One commenter requested the regulations clarify whether an LEA must spend its entire proportionate share for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities by the end of a fiscal year or could carry over any remaining funds into the next fiscal year. Discussion: We agree with the commenter that a provision should be included in these regulations to clarify that, if an LEA has not expended for equitable services all of the proportionate amount of Federal funds to be provided for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities by the end of the fiscal year for which Congress appropriated the funds, the LEA must obligate the remaining funds for special education and related services (including direct services) to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities during a carry- over period of one additional year. Changes: A new paragraph (a)(3) has been added to §300.133 to address the carry over of funds not expended by the end of the fiscal year. Comment: None. Discussion: It has come to our attention that there is some confusion among States and LEAs between the count of the number of children with disabilities receiving special education and related services as required under section 618 of the Act, and the requirement under section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(II) of the Act that each LEA conduct an annual count of the number of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities attending private schools in the LEA. We will, therefore, revise the heading (child count) for §300.133(c) and the regulatory language in §300.133(c) to avoid any confusion regarding the requirements in paragraph (c). Changes: Section 300.133(c) has been revised as described above. Comment: One commenter interpreted §300.133(d) to require that: (1) LEAs provide services to parentally- placed private school children with disabilities with funds provided under the Act and (2) LEAs no longer have the option of using local funds equal to, and in lieu of, the Federal pro-rated share amount. This commenter recommended that LEAs continue to be allowed to use local funds for administrative convenience. Discussion: The commenter’s interpretation is correct. The Act added the supplement, not supplant requirement in section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), which is included in §300.133(d). This requirement provides that State and local funds may supplement, but in no case supplant the proportionate amount of the Federal Part B funds that must be expended under this provision. Prior to the change in the Act, if a State was spending more than the Federal proportional share of funds from State or local funds, then the State would not have to spend any Federal Part B funds. That is no longer permissible under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested revising §300.133 to include home-schooled children with disabilities in the same category as parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Discussion: Whether home-schooled children with disabilities are considered parentally-placed private school children with disabilities is a matter left to State law. Children with disabilities in home schools or home day cares must be treated in the same way as other parentally-placed private school children with disabilities for purposes of Part B of the Act only if the State recognizes home schools or home day cares as private elementary schools or secondary schools. Changes: None. Consultation (§300.134) Comment: Some commenters recommended requiring, in §300.134(e), that the LEA include, in its written explanation to the private school, its reason whenever: (1) The LEA does not provide services by a professional directly employed by that LEA to parentally-placed private school children with a disability when requested to do so by private school officials; and (2) the LEA does not provide services through a third party provider when requested to do so by the private school officials. Discussion: Section 300.134(e) incorporates the language from section 612(a)(10)(A)(iii)(V) of the Act and requires the LEA to provide private school officials with a written explanation of the reasons why the LEA VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46595 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations chose not to provide services directly or through contract. We do not believe that the additional language suggested by the commenter is necessary because we view the statutory language as sufficient to ensure that the LEA meets its obligation to provide private school officials a written explanation of any reason why the LEA chose not to provide services directly or through a contract. Changes: None. Written Affirmation (§300.135) Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring LEAs to forward the written affirmation to the SEA, because this information is important for the SEA to exercise adequate oversight over LEAs with respect to the participation of private school officials in the consultation process. Discussion: Section 300.135, regarding written affirmation, tracks the language in section 612(a)(10)(A)(iv) of the Act. Including a requirement in the regulations that the LEA must submit a copy of signed written affirmations to the SEA would place reporting burdens on the LEA that are not required by the Act and that we do not believe are warranted in this circumstance. We expect that in most circumstances private school officials and LEAs will have cooperative relationships that will not need State involvement. If private school officials believe that there was not meaningful consultation, they may raise that issue with the SEA through the procedures in §300.136. However, there is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would preclude a State from requiring LEAs to submit a copy of the written affirmation obtained pursuant to §300.135, in meeting its general supervision responsibilities under §300.149 or as a part of its monitoring of LEAs’ implementation of Part B of the Act as required in §300.600. Consistent with §300.199(a)(2) and section 608(a)(2) of the Act, a State that chooses to require its LEAs to submit copies of written affirmations to the SEA beyond what is required in §300.135 would have to identify, in writing, to the LEAs located in the State and to the Secretary, that such rule, regulation, or policy is a State-imposed requirement that is not required by Part B of the Act or these regulations. Changes: None. Compliance (§300.136) Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.136 to permit an LEA to submit a complaint to the State if private school officials do not engage in meaningful consultation with the LEA. Discussion: Section 300.136, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A)(v) of the Act, provides that a private school official has the right to complain to the SEA that the LEA did not engage in consultation that was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school official. The provisions in the Act and the regulations apply to the responsibilities of the SEA and its LEAs and not to private schools or entities. Because the requirements of the Act do not apply to private schools, we do not believe requiring SEAs to permit an LEA to submit a complaint to the SEA alleging that representatives of the private schools did not consult in a meaningful way with the LEA would serve a meaningful purpose. The equitable services made available under Part B of the Act are a benefit to the parentally-placed private school children and not services provided to the private schools. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended revising §300.136 to allow States to determine the most appropriate procedures for a private school official to submit a complaint to the SEA that an LEA did not engage in consultation that was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school officials. Many of these commenters stated that requiring such complaints be filed pursuant to the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153 is not required by the Act and recommended we remove this requirement. Discussion: We agree with the commenters that section 612(a)(10)(A)(v) of the Act does not stipulate how a private school official must submit a complaint to the SEA that the LEA did not engage in consultation that was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school official. We also agree with the commenters that the SEA should have flexibility to determine how such complaints will be filed with the State. We will, therefore, revise §300.136(a) to remove the requirement that private school officials must file a complaint with the SEA under the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. States may, if they so choose, use their State complaint procedures under §§300.151 through 300.153 as the means for a private school to file a complaint under §300.136. Changes: Section 300.136 has been revised to remove the requirement that a private school official submit a complaint to the SEA using the procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. Equitable Services Determined (§300.137) Comment: One commenter recommended removing §300.137(a), stating it is discriminatory and that parentally-placed private school children must receive the same amount of services as children with disabilities in public schools. Discussion: Section 300.137(a) reflects the Department’s longstanding policy, consistent with section 612(a)(10) of the Act, and explicitly provides that children with disabilities enrolled in private schools by their parents have no individual entitlement to receive some or all of the special education and related services they would receive if enrolled in the public schools. Under the Act, LEAs only have an obligation to provide parentally-placed private school children with disabilities an opportunity for equitable participation in the services funded with Federal Part B funds that the LEA has determined, after consultation, to make available to its population of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. LEAs are not required to spend more than the proportionate Federal share on those services. Changes: None. Equitable Services Provided (§300.138) Comment: Several commenters requested clarifying whether the requirement in §300.138(a) that services provided to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities be provided by personnel meeting the same standards (i.e., highly qualified teacher requirements) as personnel providing services in the public schools applies to private school teachers who are contracted by the LEA to provide equitable services. Discussion: As discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section, in the response to comments on §300.18, it is the Department’s position that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements do not apply to teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools. This includes teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools who teach children with disabilities. Further, it is the Department’s position that the highly qualified special education teacher requirements also do not apply to private school teachers who provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46596 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations In addition to the revision we are making to new §300.18(h) (proposed §300.18(g)) to make this position clear, we also will revise §300.138(a)(1) to clarify that private elementary school and secondary school teachers who are providing equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities do not have to meet the highly qualified special education teacher requirements. Changes: We have revised §300.138(a)(1) as indicated. Comment: A few commenters requested clarifying the process for developing a services plan and explaining how a services plan differs from an IEP. Discussion: We do not believe that additional explanation in the regulation is needed. Under §300.138(b), each parentally-placed private school child with a disability who has been designated by the LEA in which the private school is located to receive special education or related services must have a services plan. The services plan must describe the specific special education and related services offered to a parentally-placed private school child with a disability designated to receive services. The services plan also must, to the extent appropriate, meet the IEP content, development, review, and revision requirements described in section 614(d) of the Act, or, when appropriate, for children aged three through five, the IFSP requirements described in section 636(d) of the Act as to the services that are to be provided. The LEA must ensure that a representative of the private school attends each meeting to develop the services plan and if the representative cannot attend, use other methods to ensure participation by the private school, including individual or conference telephone calls. Children with disabilities enrolled in public schools or who are publicly- placed in private schools are entitled to FAPE and must receive the full range of services under Part B of the Act that are determined by the child’s IEP Team to be necessary to meet the child’s individual needs and provide FAPE. The IEPs for these children generally will be more comprehensive than the more limited services plans developed for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities designated to receive services. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended revising the definition of services plan to clarify that an IEP could serve as the services plan; otherwise, States that provide IEP services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities would be required to develop a services plan and an IEP. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to clarify in the regulations that the IEP can serve as the services plan because, as stated elsewhere in this preamble, a services plan should only describe the specific special education and related services offered to a parentally-placed private school child with a disability designated to receive services. We believe that using an IEP in lieu of a services plan for these children may not be appropriate in light of the fact that an IEP developed pursuant to section 614(d) of the Act will generally include much more than just those services that a parentally-placed private school child with a disability may receive, if designated to receive services. There is nothing, however, in these regulations that would prevent a State that provides more services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities than they are required to do under the Act to use an IEP in place of a services plan, consistent with State law. Changes: None. Location of Services and Transportation (§300.139) Comment: A few commenters asked for clarification as to how the location where services will be provided to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities is determined. Discussion: Under §300.134(d), how, where, and by whom special education and related services are provided to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities are subjects of the process of consultation among LEA officials, private school representatives, and representatives of parents of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Further, §300.137(b)(2) clarifies that, after this consultation process, the final decision with respect to the services provided to eligible parentally-placed private school children with disabilities is made by the LEA. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended specifying that providing services on the premises of private elementary schools and secondary schools is the preferred means of serving parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. A few commenters recommended revising §300.139(a) to stipulate that services ‘‘should’’ or ‘‘must’’ be provided on the premises of private schools, unless there is a compelling rationale for these services to be provided off-site. In contrast, several commenters objected to the statement in the preamble to the NPRM that services should be provided on-site unless there is a compelling rationale to provide services off-site. A few of these commenters stated that the Act does not indicate a preference for one location of services over another and the Department has no authority to provide such a strong comment on this issue. Discussion: Services offered to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities may be provided on-site at a child’s private school, including a religious school, to the extent consistent with law, or at another location. The Department believes, in the interests of the child, LEAs should provide services on site at the child’s private school so as not to unduly disrupt the child’s educational experience, unless there is a compelling rationale for these services to be provided off-site. The phrase ‘‘to the extent consistent with law’’ is in section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(III) of the Act. We interpret this language to mean that the provision of services on the premises of a private school takes place in a manner that would not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would not be inconsistent with applicable State constitutions or law. We, therefore, do not have the statutory authority to require that services be provided on- site. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that §300.139(b), regarding transportation services, goes beyond the requirements in the Act and should be removed. A few commenters stated that transportation is a related service and should be treated as such with respect to parentally-placed children with disabilities in private schools. Discussion: We do not agree that transportation services should be removed from §300.139(b). If services are offered at a site separate from the child’s private school, transportation may be necessary to get the child to and from that other site. Failure to provide transportation could effectively deny the child an opportunity to benefit from the services that the LEA has determined through consultation to offer its parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. In this situation, although transportation is not a related service, as defined in §300.34, transportation is necessary to enable the child to participate and to make the offered services accessible to the child. LEAs should work in consultation with representatives of private school children to ensure that services are VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46597 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations provided at sites, including on the premises of the child’s private school, so that LEAs do not incur significant transportation costs. However, for some children with disabilities, special modifications in transportation may be necessary to address the child’s unique needs. If the group developing the child’s services plan determines that a parentally-placed private school child with a disability chosen to receive services requires transportation as a related service in order to receive special education services, this transportation service should be included as a related service in the services plan for the child. In either case, the LEA may include the cost of the transportation in calculating whether it has met the requirement of §300.133. Changes: None. Due Process Complaints and State Complaints (§300.140) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the right of parents of children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private elementary schools and secondary schools to file a due process complaint against an LEA is limited to filing a due process complaint that an LEA has failed to comply with the child find and evaluation requirements, and not an LEA’s failure to provide special education and related services as required in the services plan. A few commenters recommended that the regulations clarify whether the parent should file a due process complaint with the LEA of residence or with the LEA where the private school is located. Discussion: Section 615(a) of the Act specifies that the procedural safeguards of the Act apply with respect to the identification, evaluation, educational placement, or provision of FAPE to children with disabilities. The special education and related services provided to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities are independent of the obligation to make FAPE available to these children. While there may be legitimate issues regarding the provision of services to a particular parentally-placed private school child with a disability an LEA has agreed to serve, the due process provisions in section 615 of the Act and §§300.504 through 300.519 do not apply to these disputes, because there is no individual right to these services under the Act. Disputes that arise about these services are properly subject to the State complaint procedures under §§300.151 through 300.153. Child find, however, is a part of the basic obligation that public agencies have to all children with disabilities, and failure to locate, identify, and evaluate a parentally-placed private school child would be subject to due process. Therefore, the due process provisions in §§300.504 through 300.519 do apply to complaints that the LEA where the private school is located failed to meet the consent and evaluation requirements in §§300.300 through 311. In light of the comments received, we will clarify in §300.140 that parents of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities may file a due process complaint with the LEA in which the private school is located (and forward a copy to the SEA) regarding an LEA’s failure to meet the consent and evaluation requirements in §§300.300 through 300.311. We also will clarify that a complaint can be filed with the SEA under the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153 that the SEA or LEA has failed to meet the requirements in §§300.132 through 300.135 and §§300.137 through 300.144. There would be an exception, however, for complaints filed pursuant to §300.136. Complaints under §300.136 must be filed in accordance with the procedures established by each State under §300.136. Changes: Proposed §300.140(a)(2) has been redesignated as new paragraph (b). A new paragraph (b)(2) has been added to this section to clarify that any due process complaint regarding the evaluation requirements in §300.131 must be filed with the LEA in which the private school is located, and a copy must be forwarded to the SEA. Proposed §300.140(b) has been redesignated as new paragraph (c), and has been revised to clarify that a complaint that the SEA or LEA has failed to meet the requirements in §§300.132 through 300.135 and §§300.137 through 300.144 can be filed with the SEA under the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. Complaints filed pursuant to §300.136 must be filed with the SEA under the procedures established under §300.136(b). Comment: A few commenters requested clarification as to whether a parent of a parentally-placed private school child should request an independent educational evaluation at public expense under §300.502(b) with the LEA of residence or the LEA where the private school is located. Discussion: We do not believe that this level of detail needs to be included in the regulation. If a parent of a parentally-placed child disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the LEA in which the private school is located, the parent may request an independent educational evaluation at public expense with that LEA. Changes: None. Use of Personnel (§300.142) Comment: Several commenters requested clarifying language regarding who must provide equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Discussion: Under section 612(a)(10)(A)(vi)(I) of the Act, equitable services must be provided by employees of a public agency or through contract by the public agency with an individual, association, agency, organization, or other entity. Section 300.142(a) provides that an LEA may use Part B funds to make public school personnel available in other than public facilities to the extent necessary to provide equitable services for parentally-placed children with disabilities attending private schools and if those services are not otherwise provided by the private school to children as a benefit provided to all children attending that school. Under §300.142(b), an LEA may use Part B funds to pay for the services of an employee of a private school to provide equitable services if the employee performs the services outside of his or her regular hours of duty and the employee performs the services under public supervision and control. We believe that the regulation is sufficiently clear on this point. Changes: None. Property, Equipment, and Supplies (§300.144) Comment: A few commenters requested clarification as to whether private school officials may purchase equipment and supplies with Part B funds to provide services to parentally- placed private school children with disabilities designated to receive services. Discussion: We do not believe the additional clarification suggested by the commenters is necessary. Section 300.144, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(A)(vii) of the Act, already requires that the LEA must control and administer the funds used to provide special education and related services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities, and maintain title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with those funds. Thus, the regulations and the Act prevent private school officials from purchasing equipment and supplies with Part B funds. Changes: None. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46598 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Children With Disabilities in Private Schools Placed or Referred by Public Agencies Applicability of §§300.146 Through 300.147 (§300.145) Comment: One commenter stated that §§300.145 through 300.147 are unnecessary and solely administrative, because these sections are addressed in the Act and the proposed regulations provide no additional information on the application of the statutory requirements. Discussion: We do not agree with the commenter that the provisions in §§300.146 through 300.147 are unnecessary and solely administrative. We believe it is necessary to retain these requirements in the regulations, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(B) of the Act, to ensure that public agencies are fully aware of their obligation to ensure that children with disabilities who are placed in or referred to a private school or facility by public agencies are entitled to receive FAPE to the same extent as they would if they were placed in a public agency school or program. Changes: None. Responsibility of SEA (§300.146) Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the exception to the ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and stated that the ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ requirements should apply to private school teachers of children with disabilities placed or referred by public agencies. Several commenters stated that these children are likely to have more severe disabilities and, therefore, have a greater need for highly qualified teachers than children served in public schools. Several commenters stated that exempting teachers in private schools from the requirement to be ‘‘highly qualified’’ in situations where children with disabilities are publicly-placed in order to receive FAPE is not consistent with the requirement that the education provided to children in such settings meet the standards that apply to children served by public agencies, or with the ESEA and the goal in the Act of helping all children with disabilities achieve high standards. A few commenters supported the exception to ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ requirements. One commenter stated that States should make their own decisions in this area in light of resource constraints. One commenter opposed the expenditure of public school funds for the education of publicly-placed private school children by teachers who do not meet the ‘‘highly qualified’’ requirements. Discussion: Section 602(10) of the Act states that ‘‘highly qualified’’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of the ESEA, which clarifies that the requirements regarding highly qualified teachers apply to public school teachers and not teachers teaching as employees of private elementary schools and secondary schools. As we stated in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section regarding §300.138 in this subpart and §300.18 in subpart A, it is the Department’s position that the highly qualified teacher requirements do not apply to teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools. This includes teachers hired by private elementary schools and secondary schools who teach children with disabilities. We agree with the commenters that, in many instances, a public agency may choose to place a child with a severe disability and with more intensive educational needs in a private school or facility as a means of providing FAPE. When the public agency chooses to place a child with a significant disability, or any child with a disability, in a private school as a means of providing FAPE, the public agency has an obligation to ensure that the child receives FAPE to the same extent the child would if placed in a public school, irrespective of whether the private school teachers meet the highly qualified teacher requirements in §§300.18 and 300.156(c). FAPE includes not just the special education and related services that a child with a disability receives, but also includes an appropriate preschool, elementary and secondary school education in the State involved. The required special education and related services must be provided at public expense, at no cost to the parent, in accordance with an IEP, and the education provided to the child must meet the standards that apply to educational services provided by the SEA and LEA (except for the highly qualified teacher requirements in §§300.18 and 300.156(c)). In addition, the SEA must ensure that the child has all the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency. We do not agree with the premise of the commenters that not requiring private school teachers who provide services to publicly-placed children with disabilities to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements means that the education provided to these children in the private school setting does not meet the standards that apply to children with disabilities served by the public agency. States have flexibility in developing standards that meet the requirements of the Act. The standards that SEAs apply to private schools that contract with public agencies to provide FAPE to children with disabilities, are, so long as they meet the requirements of Part B of the Act and its regulations, a State matter. Federal law does not encourage or prohibit the imposition of additional requirements as a condition of placing these children in the private school. With regard to the comment opposing the use of public school funds for the education of publicly-placed private school children by teachers who do not meet the highly qualified teacher requirements, a State or public agency may use whatever State, local, Federal, and private sources of support that are available in the State to meet the requirements of the Act. We believe restricting the use of public school funds as requested by the commenter would not only be inconsistent with the Act, but also may unnecessarily limit a public agency’s options for providing FAPE to its publicly-placed children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended requiring States to have rules, regulations, and contracts requiring private schools that accept publicly-placed children with disabilities to guarantee that children with disabilities receive FAPE and their parents retain all of the protections mandated for public schools, including the right to pendency placements if the parents challenge the decisions of the private school to terminate the children’s placements. One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that private schools serving children placed by a public agency are not exempt from the obligation to provide FAPE. Discussion: The Act does not give States and other public agencies regulatory authority over private schools and does not place requirements on private schools. The Act imposes requirements on States and public agencies that refer to or place children with disabilities in private schools for the purposes of providing FAPE to those children because the public agency is unable to provide FAPE in a public school or program. The licensing and regulation of private schools are matters of State law. The Act requires States and public agencies, including LEAs, to ensure that FAPE is made available to all children with disabilities residing in the State in mandatory age ranges, and that the rights and protections of the Act are extended to eligible children and their parents. If the State or public VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46599 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations agency has placed children with disabilities in private schools for purposes of providing FAPE to those children, the State and the public agency must ensure that these children receive the required special education and related services at public expense, at no cost to the parents, in accordance with each child’s IEP. It is the responsibility of the public agency to determine whether a particular private school in which the child with a disability will be placed for purposes of providing FAPE meets the standards that apply to the SEA and LEA and that a child placed by a public agency be afforded all the rights, including FAPE, that the child would otherwise have if served by the public agency directly. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that, in cases where the public agency places a child in a private school or residential treatment facility for the purposes of providing FAPE, the public agency should be required to determine and inform the private school or residential treatment facility about the person or persons who have the legal authority to make educational decisions for the child. Discussion: The change requested by the commenter is not needed because the public agency, not the private agency, is responsible for providing FAPE to a child who is placed by the public agency in a private school. Consistent with §300.146 and section 612(a)(10)(B) of the Act, a public agency that places a child with a disability in a private school or facility as a means of carrying out the requirements of Part B of the Act, must ensure that the child has all the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency, which includes ensuring that the consent requirements in §300.300 and sections 614(a)(1)(D) and 614(c) of the Act are followed. A public agency must, therefore, secure the needed consent from the person or persons who have the legal authority to make such decisions, unless the public agency has made other arrangements with the private school or facility to secure that consent. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require the public agency to inform the private school or facility of the persons or persons who have the legal authority to make educational decisions for the child because this will depend on the specific arrangements made by the public agency with a private school or facility and, should, therefore, be determined by the public agency on a case by case basis. Changes: None. Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools When FAPE Is at Issue Placement of Children by Parents When FAPE Is at Issue (§300.148) Comment: Several commenters recommended retaining in these regulations the requirement in current §300.403(b) that disagreements between a parent and the LEA regarding the availability of a FAPE and the question of financial responsibility, are subject to the due process procedures in section 615 of the Act. Discussion: The provision in current §300.403(b) was in the 1983 regulations and, therefore, should have been included in the NPRM in light of section 607(b) of the Act. Section 607(b) of the Act provides that the Secretary cannot publish final regulations that would procedurally or substantively lessen the protections provided to children with disabilities in the regulations that were in effect on July 20, 1983. We will revise §300.148 to include the requirement in current §300.403(b). Changes: Section 300.148 has been revised to include the requirement in current §300.403(b) that disagreements between a parent and a public agency regarding the availability of a program appropriate for the child and the question of financial responsibility are subject to the due process procedures in §§300.504 through 300.520. Comment: One commenter requested revising the regulations to eliminate financial incentives for parents to refer children for special education and then unilaterally placing their child in private schools without first receiving special education and related services from the school district. The commenter stated that it should be clear that a unilateral placement in a private school without first receiving special education and related services from the LEA does not require the public agency to provide reimbursement for private school tuition. One commenter stated that proposed §300.148(b) goes beyond the Act and only applies if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to enrollment in the private school. The commenter stated that a determination that a placement is ‘‘appropriate,’’ even if it does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by the SEA or LEAs, conflicts with the SEA’s or LEA’s responsibility to ensure FAPE to children with disabilities. Discussion: The provision in §300.148(b) that a parental placement does not need to meet State standards in order to be ‘‘appropriate’’ under the Act is retained from current §300.402(c) to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (Burlington) and Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (Carter). Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter, a court may order reimbursement for a parent who unilaterally withdraws his or her child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under the Act and enrolls the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under the Act, but does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by the SEA and LEAs. The Court noted that these standards apply only to public agencies’ own programs for educating children with disabilities and to public agency placements of children with disabilities in private schools for the purpose of providing a program of special education and related services. The Court reaffirmed its prior holding in Burlington that tuition reimbursement is only available if a Federal court concludes ‘‘both that the public placement violated IDEA, and that the private school placement was proper under the Act.’’ (510 U.S. at 12). We believe LEAs can avoid reimbursement awards by offering and providing FAPE consistent with the Act either in public schools or in private schools in which the parent places the child. However, a decision as to whether an LEA’s offer or provision of FAPE was proper under the Act and any decision regarding reimbursement must be made by a court or hearing officer. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to include in these regulations a provision relieving a public agency of its obligation to provide tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement in a private school if the child did not first receive special education and related services from the LEA. This authority is independent of the court’s or hearing officer’s authority under section 612 (a)(10)(C)(ii) of the Act to award reimbursement for private placements of children who previously were receiving special education and related services from a public agency. Changes: None. SEA Responsibility for General Supervision and Implementation of Procedural Safeguards SEA Responsibility for General Supervision (§300.149) Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify in these VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46600 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations regulations how the requirements for SEA responsibility in §300.149 apply with respect to children attending BIA- funded schools who are sent to State prisons, including whether the Office of Indian Education Programs in the Department of the Interior can delegate the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are met by the State prison. The commenter further requested clarification regarding tribally controlled detention facilities that incarcerate a student from a different reservation than the reservation where the student attended a BIA-funded school. Discussion: As a general matter, for educational purposes, students who were enrolled in a BIA-funded school and are subsequently convicted as an adult and incarcerated in a State run adult prison are the responsibility of the State where the adult prison is located. Section 612(a)(11)(C) of the Act and §300.149(d) allow flexibility to States in that the Governor, or another individual pursuant to State law, can designate a public agency in the State, other than the SEA, as responsible for ensuring that FAPE is made available to eligible students with disabilities who are convicted under State law and incarcerated in the State’s adult prisons. This provision does not apply to the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, the Office of Indian Education Programs cannot delegate the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are met by the State prison. The Act does not specifically address who is responsible for education of students with disabilities in tribally controlled detention facilities. However, the Secretary of the Interior is only responsible for students who are enrolled in schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding a heading prior to §300.149 to separate this section from the regulations governing private schools. Discussion: We agree with the commenter that a heading should be added to separate the private school provisions from other State eligibility requirements. Changes: We have added a heading before §300.149 to separate the private school provisions from the provisions relating to the SEA’s responsibility for general supervision and implementation of procedural safeguards. State Complaint Procedures (§§300.151 through 300.153) Comment: We received several comments questioning the statutory basis for the State complaint provisions in §§300.151 through 300.153. One commenter stated that the Act includes only two statutory references to State complaints and both references (sections 612(a)(14)(E) and 615(f)(3)(F) of the Act) immediately follow statutory prohibitions on due process remedies. One commenter stated that Congress did not require SEAs to create a complaint system and that section 1232c(a) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232c(a) (GEPA), provides only that the Department may require a State to investigate and resolve all complaints received by the State related to the administration of an applicable program. The commenter stated that the permissive wording of this provision suggests that the Secretary or the Department can choose not to require a complaint investigation and resolution mechanism, particularly when such mechanism is unnecessary or, as in the case of the Act, effectively preempted by more specific requirements in the Act governing the applicable program. Another commenter concluded that there is no basis for the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153 because the Act only allows complaints to be filed with the State in two situations: (1) By private school officials, regarding consultation and child find for parentally-placed private school children pursuant to section 612(a)(10)(A)(i) and (10)(A)(iii) of the Act, and (2) by parents, regarding personnel qualifications in section 612(a)(14)(E) of the Act. The commenter stated that in both cases, the Act does not detail a complaint process. Discussion: Although Congress did not specifically detail a State complaint process in the Act, we believe that the State complaint process is fully supported by the Act and necessary for the proper implementation of the Act and these regulations. We believe a strong State complaint system provides parents and other individuals an opportunity to resolve disputes early without having to file a due process complaint and without having to go to a due process hearing. The State complaint procedures are referenced in the following three separate sections of the Act: (1) Section 611(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, which requires that States spend a portion of the amount of Part B funds that they can use for State-level activities on complaint investigations; (2) Section 612(a)(14)(E) of the Act, which provides that nothing in that paragraph creates a private right of action for the failure of an SEA or LEA staff person to be highly qualified or prevents a parent from filing a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA, as provided for under this part; and (3) Section 615(f)(3)(F) of the Act, which states that ‘‘[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the right of a parent to file a complaint with the State educational agency.’’ Paragraph (f)(3) is titled ‘‘Limitations on Hearing’’ and addresses issues such as the statute of limitations and that hearing issues are limited to the issues that the parent has raised in their due process notice. The Senate Report explains that this provision clarifies that ‘‘nothing in section 615 shall be construed to affect a parent’s right to file a complaint with the State educational agency, including complaints of procedural violations’ (S. Rpt. No. 108– 185, p. 41). Furthermore, the State complaint procedures were a part of the initial Part B regulations in 1977 (45 CFR 121a.602). These regulations were moved into part 76 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in the early 1980s, and were returned to the Part B regulations in 1992 (after the Department decided to move the regulations out of EDGAR and place them in program regulations for the major formula grant programs). Although the State complaint procedures have changed in some respects in the years since 1977, the basic right of any individual or organization to file a complaint with the SEA alleging any violation of program requirements has remained the same. For these reasons, we believe the State complaint procedures should be retained in the regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that use of the term ‘‘complaint’’ in reference to due process complaints and State complaint procedures is confusing. One commenter requested that we use the phrase ‘‘due process hearing request’’ instead of ‘‘due process complaint’’ in the regulations to avoid confusion between the two processes. Discussion: Section 615 of the Act uses the term ‘‘complaint’’ to refer to due process complaints. We have used the phrase ‘‘due process complaint’’ instead of the statutory term ‘‘complaint’’ throughout these regulations to provide clarity and reduce confusion between due process complaints in section 615 of the Act and complaints under the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. We believe this distinction is sufficient to reduce confusion and it is not necessary to add further clarification regarding the use of the term ‘‘complaint’’ in these regulations. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46601 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations The regulations for State complaints under §§300.151 through 300.153 provide for the resolution of any complaint, including a complaint filed by an organization or an individual from another State alleging that the public agency violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or of part 300. The public agency must resolve a State complaint within 60 days, unless there is a time extension as provided in §300.152(b). Due process complaints, as noted in §300.507, however, may be filed by a parent or a public agency, consistent with §§300.507 through 300.508 and §§300.510 through 300.515. Changes: None. Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§300.151) Comment: Many commenters recommended that only issues related to violations of the law should be subject to the State complaint process. One commenter stated that the State complaint procedures should be used only for systemic violations that reach beyond the involvement of one child in a school. A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify that the State complaint procedures can be used for the denial of appropriate services and the failure to provide FAPE in accordance with a child’s IEP. However, some commenters requested that the regulations clarify that disputes involving appropriateness of services and whether FAPE was provided should be dealt with in a due process hearing. One commenter stated that the State complaint procedures should be used to investigate whether required procedures were followed and not to determine if evaluation data and student-specific data support the IEP Team’s determination of what is appropriate for the child. The commenter went on to state that the procedures for administrative hearings permit the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses and establishing the credibility of the testimonies, which are the functions of a hearing officer, not SEA complaint specialists. Discussion: Some commenters, as noted above, seek to limit the scope of the State complaint system. We believe the broad scope of the State complaint procedures, as permitted in the regulations, is critical to each State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibilities. The complaint procedures provide parents, organizations, and other individuals with an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met and provide the SEA with a powerful tool to identify and correct noncompliance with Part B of the Act or of part 300. We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held. We do not believe it is necessary to clarify in the regulations that the State complaint procedures can be used to resolve a complaint regarding the denial of appropriate services or FAPE for a child, since §300.153 is sufficiently clear that an organization or individual may file a written complaint that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or part 300. The State complaint procedures can be used to resolve any complaint that meets the requirements of §300.153, including matters concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the child. We believe that an SEA, in resolving a complaint challenging the appropriateness of a child’s educational program or services or the provision of FAPE, should not only determine whether the public agency has followed the required procedures to reach that determination, but also whether the public agency has reached a decision that is consistent with the requirements in Part B of the Act in light of the individual child’s abilities and needs. Thus, the SEA may need to review the evaluation data in the child’s record, or any additional data provided by the parties to the complaint, and the explanation included in the public agency’s notice to the parent as to why the agency made the determination regarding the child’s educational program or services. If necessary, the SEA may need to interview appropriate individuals, to determine whether the agency followed procedures and applied standards that are consistent with State standards, including the requirements of Part B of the Act, and whether the determination made by the public agency is consistent with those standards and supported by the data. The SEA may, in its effort to resolve a complaint, determine that interviews with appropriate individuals are necessary for the SEA to obtain the relevant information needed to make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of Part B of the Act or of part 300. However, such interviews conducted by the SEA, as part of its effort to resolve a State complaint, are not intended to be comparable to the requirement in section 615(h)(2) of the Act, which provides any party to a due process hearing the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses. In addition, a parent always has the right to file a due process complaint and request a due process hearing on any matter concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of his or her child, or the provision of FAPE and may seek to resolve their disputes through mediation. It is important to clarify that when the parent files both a due process complaint and a State complaint on the same issue, the State must set aside any part of the complaint that is being addressed in the due process hearing until the conclusion of the hearing. However, any issue in the complaint that is not a part of the due process hearing must be resolved using the State complaint procedures in §300.152, including using the time limit and procedures in paragraphs (b) and (d) of §300.152. (See §300.152(c)(1)). Under the Act, the decision reached through the due process proceedings is the final decision on those matters, unless a party to the hearing appeals that decision by requesting State-level review, if applicable, or by bringing a civil action in an appropriate State or Federal court. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested amending §300.151(a)(2) to specifically include school personnel and teacher organizations in the list of entities to whom the SEA must disseminate the State complaint procedures. Another commenter requested that representatives of private schools or residential treatment facilities be included on the list of entities to whom the State must disseminate complaint procedures. Discussion: Section 300.151(a)(2) already requires the State to widely disseminate the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153 to parents and other interested parties, including parent training and information centers, protection and advocacy organizations, independent living centers, and other appropriate entities. There is nothing in these regulations that would prevent a State from disseminating information about the State complaint procedures to school personnel, teacher organizations, or representatives of private schools or residential facilities. However, we believe this decision is best left to the States. We do not believe that there is a need to add these entities to the mandatory distribution as individuals involved in the education of children VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46602 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations with disabilities are generally acquainted with these procedures. Changes: None. Remedies for Denial of Appropriate Services (§300.151(b)) Comment: Many commenters requested retaining current §300.660(b)(1), regarding the awarding of monetary reimbursement as a remedy for denial of appropriate services. One commenter stated that the regulations should clarify that States continue to have authority to award monetary reimbursement, when appropriate. A few commenters stated that the regulations should clarify that monetary reimbursement is not appropriate for a majority of State complaints. Some commenters stated that removing current §300.660(b)(1) creates ambiguity and may result in increased litigation because parents may choose to use the more costly and time-consuming due process system if they believe that monetary relief is not available to them under the State complaint system. Some commenters stated that removing current §300.660(b)(1) implies that monetary reimbursement is never appropriate. A few commenters stated that removing the monetary reimbursement provision in current §300.660(b)(1) suggests that the Department no longer supports the use of this remedy. A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify that compensatory services are an appropriate remedy when the LEA has failed to provide appropriate services. Discussion: The SEA is responsible for ensuring that all public agencies within its jurisdiction meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. In light of the SEA’s general supervisory authority and responsibility under sections 612(a)(11) and 616 of the Act, we believe the SEA should have broad flexibility to determine the appropriate remedy or corrective action necessary to resolve a complaint in which the SEA has found that the public agency has failed to provide appropriate services to children with disabilities, including awarding monetary reimbursement and compensatory services. To make this clear, we will change §300.151 to include monetary reimbursement and compensatory services as examples of corrective actions that may be appropriate to address the needs of the child. Changes: We have added ‘‘compensatory services or monetary reimbursement’’ as examples of corrective actions in §300.151(b)(1). Comment: One commenter stated that the remedies available in §300.151(b) are silent about whether the complainant may be reimbursed for attorneys’ fees and requested clarification as to whether reimbursement is permissible for State complaints. Another commenter requested that the language in section 615(i)(3)(B) of the Act, regarding the awarding of attorneys’ fees for due process hearings, be included in the State complaint procedures as a way to limit repetitive, harassing complaints. Discussion: The awarding of attorneys’ fees is not addressed in §300.151(b) because the State complaint process is not an administrative proceeding or judicial action, and, therefore, the awarding of attorneys’ fees is not available under the Act for State complaint resolutions. Section 615(i)(3)(B) of the Act clarifies that a court may award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in any action or proceeding brought under section 615 of the Act. We, therefore, may not include in the regulations the language from section 615(i)(3)(B) of the Act, as suggested by the commenters, because State complaint procedures are not an action or proceeding brought under section 615 of the Act. Changes: None. Minimum State Complaint Procedures (§300.152) Time Limit; Minimum Procedures (§300.152(a)) Comment: One commenter suggested changing §300.152(a)(1), to include situations when the SEA is the subject of a complaint. Another commenter recommended that the State complaint procedures include how the SEA should handle a complaint against the SEA for its failure to supervise the LEA or failure to provide direct services when given notice that the LEA has failed to do so. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to specify in the regulations how the SEA should handle a complaint filed against the SEA because §300.151 clarifies that, if an organization or individual files a complaint, pursuant to §§300.151 through 300.153, that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or part 300, the SEA must resolve the complaint. Pursuant to §300.33 and section 612(a)(11) of the Act, the term public agency includes the SEA. The SEA must, therefore, resolve any complaint against the SEA pursuant to the SEA’s adopted State complaint procedures. The SEA, however, may either appoint its own personnel to resolve the complaint, or may make arrangements with an outside party to resolve the complaint. If it chooses to use an outside party, however, the SEA remains responsible for complying with all procedural and remediation steps required in part 300. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations include language requiring an on-site investigation unless the SEA determines that it can collect all evidence and fairly determine whether a violation has occurred with the evidence provided by the complainant and a review of records. Discussion: We do not believe the regulations should require the SEA to conduct an on-site investigation in the manner suggested by the commenter because we believe §300.152(a)(1) is sufficient to ensure that an independent on-site investigation is carried out if the SEA determines that such an investigation is necessary to resolve a complaint. The minimum State complaint procedures in §300.152 are intended to be broad in recognition of the fact that States operate differently and standards appropriate to one State may not be appropriate in another State. Therefore, the standards to be used in conducting an on-site investigation are best determined by the State. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that §300.152 would allow an unlimited period of time to resolve complaints and requested that the regulations limit the complaint resolution process to 30 days, similar to the procedures when a due process hearing is requested. A few commenters requested that the 60-day time limit be lengthened to 90 days, given that many complaints involve complex issues and multiple interviews with school administrators. Discussion: Section 300.152 does not allow an unlimited period of time to resolve a complaint. Paragraph (a) of this section provides that an SEA has a time limit of 60 days after a complaint is filed to issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint (unless, under paragraph (b) of this section, there is an extension for exceptional circumstances or the parties agree to extend the timeline because they are engaged in mediation or in other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State). We believe the right of parents to file a complaint with the SEA alleging any violation of Part B of the Act or part 300 to receive a written decision within 60 days is reasonable in light of the SEA’s responsibilities in resolving a complaint pursuant to its complaint procedures, and is appropriate to the interest of resolving allegations promptly. In VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46603 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations addition, the 60-day time limit for resolving a State complaint is a longstanding requirement and States have developed their State complaint procedures based on the 60-day time limit. We believe altering this timeframe would be unnecessarily disruptive to States’ developed complaint procedures. For these reasons, we do not believe it is appropriate to change the time limit as recommended by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the regulations are silent as to how an amended State complaint should be handled. One commenter expressed concern about resolving complaints within the 60-day time limit when the complainant submits additional information about the complaint and amends the complaint. The commenter requested that in such cases, the regulations should allow the 60-day time limit to begin from the date the State receives the amended complaint. Discussion: Section 300.152 provides that the complaint must be resolved 60 days after a complaint is filed and that the complainant must be given an opportunity to submit additional information, either orally or in writing, about the allegations in the complaint. Generally, if the additional information a parent submits is on the same or related incident, it would be part of the amended complaint. If the information submitted by the complainant is on a different or unrelated incident, generally, the new information would be treated as a separate complaint. On the other hand, if the information submitted by the complainant were on the same incident, generally, the new information would be treated as an amendment to the original complaint. It is, ultimately, left to each State to determine whether the new information constitutes a new complaint or whether it is related to a pending complaint. We believe the decision regarding whether the additional information is a new complaint or an amendment to an existing complaint, is best left to the State. The State must have the flexibility to make this determination based on the circumstances of a particular complaint and consistent with its State complaint process and, therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to regulate further on this matter. There are no provisions in Part B of the Act or in these regulations that permit the 60-day time limit to begin from the date the State receives an amended complaint, if additional information submitted by the complainant results in an amendment to the complaint. However, §300.152(b) permits an extension of the 60-day time limit if exceptional circumstances exist or the parent and the public agency agree to extend the time limit to attempt to resolve the complaint through mediation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the time limit for a public agency to respond with a proposal to resolve the complaint. Discussion: The 60-day time limit to resolve a complaint does not change if a public agency decides to respond to the complaint with a proposal to resolve the complaint. However, §300.152(b)(2) permits the 60-day time limit to be extended under exceptional circumstances or if the parent and public agency agree to engage in mediation or in other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that §300.152(a) could limit the SEA’s investigation of a complaint to an exchange of papers since the SEA is not required to conduct an on-site investigation. Discussion: Section 300.152 provides that the SEA must review all relevant information and, if it determines it to be necessary, carry out an independent on- site investigation in order to make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of Part B of the Act or part 300. We believe the SEA is in the best position, and should have the flexibility, to determine what information is necessary to resolve a complaint, based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. It is true that, in some cases, a review of documents provided by the parties may be sufficient for the SEA to resolve a complaint and that conducting an on- site investigation or interviews with staff, for example, may be unnecessary. The SEA, based on the facts in the case, must decide whether an on-site investigation is necessary. We also believe requiring an on-site investigation for each State complaint would be overly burdensome for public agencies and unnecessary. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested adding language to proposed §300.152(a)(3) to allow an SEA to provide opportunities for resolving the complaint through mediation and other informal mechanisms for dispute resolution with any party filing a complaint, not only the parents. Some commenters requested that the regulations clarify that mediation is the appropriate method to resolve State complaints regarding the denial of appropriate services. A few commenters expressed concern that the phrase ‘‘[w]ith the consent of the parent’’ in proposed §300.152(a)(3) implies that complaints are disagreements between parents and public agencies, rather than allegations of violations of a child’s or a parent’s rights under the Act. A few commenters supported the use of mediation to resolve a complaint, but requested that alternative means of dispute resolution be deleted. Other commenters expressed concern that providing yet another means of initiating mediation or other dispute resolution is unnecessary because these options are already available to parties who wish to use them. A few commenters requested that the regulations define alternative means of dispute resolution. Discussion: Section 300.152(a)(3) was proposed to encourage meaningful, informal, resolution of disputes between the public agency and parents, organizations, or other individuals by providing an opportunity for parties to resolve disputes at the local level without the need for the SEA to resolve the matter. We believe that, at a minimum, the State’s complaint procedures should allow the public agency that is the subject of the complaint the opportunity to respond to a complaint by proposing a resolution and provide an opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to resolve a dispute by voluntarily engaging in mediation. However, we do not believe that the SEA should be required to offer other alternative means of dispute resolution, and so will remove the reference to these other alternatives from the minimum procedures in §300.152(a)(3). We believe it is important to retain the provision in §300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed §300.152(a)(3)(B)), with modification, to reinforce the use of voluntary mediation as a viable option for resolving disputes between the public agency and the parents at the local level prior to the SEA investigating, if necessary, and resolving a dispute. Resolving disputes between parties at the local level through the use of mediation, or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State, will be less adversarial and less time consuming and expensive than a State complaint investigation, if necessary, or a due process hearing and, ultimately, children with disabilities will be the beneficiaries of a local level resolution. Requiring that the public agency provide an opportunity for the parent VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46604 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily engage in mediation in an effort to resolve a dispute is an appropriate minimum requirement and consistent with the statutory provision in section 615(e) of the Act that voluntary mediation be made available to parties (i.e., parent and public agency) to disputes involving any matter under Part B of the Act, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint. However, the statute does not require that mediation be available to other parties, and we believe it would be burdensome to expand, through regulation, new §300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed §300.152(a)(3)(B)) to require that States offer mediation to non- parents. Although we do not believe we should regulate to require that mediation be offered to non-parents, there is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would preclude an SEA from permitting the use of mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, if available in the State, to resolve a State complaint filed by an organization or individual other than a parent, and we will add language to §300.152(b)(1)(ii) to permit extensions of the timeline if the parties are voluntarily engaged in any of these dispute resolution procedures. In fact, we encourage SEAs and their public agencies to consider alternative means of resolving disputes between the public agency and organizations or other individuals, at the local level, consistent with State law and administrative procedures. It is up to each State, however, to determine whether non- parents can use mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution. Section 615(e) of the Act makes clear that mediation is a voluntary mechanism for resolving disputes and may not be used to delay or deny a parent’s right to a due process hearing on the parent’s due process complaint, or to deny any other rights afforded under Part B of the Act. In light of the fact that mediation is a voluntary process, the parties only need to agree to engage in mediation and it is not necessary to obtain parental written consent to engage in this voluntary process. We will, therefore, change new §300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed §300.152(a)(3)(B)) by removing the phrase ‘‘[w]ith the consent of the parent’’ and adding a reference to §300.506. We do not believe it is necessary to include in the regulations a definition of the term ‘‘alternative means of dispute resolution’’ because the term is generally understood to refer to other procedures and processes that States have found to be effective in resolving disputes quickly and effectively but does not include those dispute resolution processes required under the Act or these final regulations. Changes: We have changed new §300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed §300.152(a)(3)(B)) by removing ‘‘with the consent of the parent’’ and ‘‘or other alternative means of dispute resolution’’ and adding a reference to §300.506. We have also amended §300.152(b)(1)(ii), as stated above, to clarify that a public agency’s State complaint procedures must permit an extension of the 60-day time limit if a parent (or individual or organization, if mediation, or other alternative means of dispute resolution is available to the individual or organization under State procedures) who has filed a complaint and the public agency voluntarily agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. Comment: A few commenters stated that the agreement to extend the 60-day time limit (to allow the parties to engage in mediation, or alternative means of dispute resolution, or both) should meet the consent requirements in §300.9. One commenter requested an extension of the 60-day time limit to resolve complaints when mediation is underway. Discussion: We do not agree that consent, as defined in §300.9, should be required to extend the 60-day time limit because it would add burden and is not necessary. It is sufficient to require agreement of the parties. At any time that either party withdraws from mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, or withdraws agreement to the extension of the time limit, the extension would end. We believe §300.152(b) is sufficiently clear that an extension of the 60-day time limit is permissible if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint, or if the parent and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation. We also believe it would be permissible to extend the 60-day time limit if the public agency and an organization or other individual agree to engage in an alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State, and the parties agree to extend the 60-day time limit. We will revise §300.152(b)(1)(ii) to include this exception. Changes: We have revised §300.152(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that it would be permissible to extend the 60- day time limit if the parties agree to engage in other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. Comment: Several commenters requested that §300.152(a) be modified to include language allowing parents, in addition to the public agency, an opportunity to submit a proposal to resolve the complaint. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include the language in §300.152(a) as suggested by the commenter because §300.153(b)(4)(v) already requires that the signed written complaint submitted to the SEA by the complainant include a proposed resolution to the problem. A parent who is a complainant must include a proposed resolution to the problem to the extent known and available to the parent at the time the complaint is filed. Changes: None. Complaints Filed Under This Section and Due Process Hearings Under §300.507 or §§300.530 Through 300.532 (§300.152(c)) Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations include a provision to allow parents to use the State complaint process to enforce agreements reached in mediation and resolution sessions. One commenter expressed concern that if an SEA does not have authority to enforce agreements arising from mediation and resolution sessions, the burden will be on a parent to incur costs necessary to file a petition with a court to have the agreement enforced. Discussion: The Act provides that the enforcement and implementation of agreements reached through mediation and resolution sessions may be obtained through State and Federal courts. Section 300.506(b)(7), consistent with section 615(e)(2)(F)(iii) of the Act, states that a written, signed mediation agreement is enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. Similarly, §300.510(c)(2), consistent with section 615(f)(1)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, states that a written settlement agreement resulting from a resolution meeting is enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. However, as noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes for subpart E, we have added new §300.537 that allows, but does not require, a State to have mechanisms or procedures that permit parties to mediation or resolution agreements to seek enforcement of those agreements and decisions at the SEA level. We believe this provision is sufficient to allow States the flexibility to determine what mechanisms or procedures, if any, may be appropriate to enforce such agreements, including utilizing their VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46605 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations State complaint procedures, if they choose to do so, so long as the mechanisms or procedures are not used to deny or delay a parent’s right to seek enforcement through State and Federal courts. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters requested that current §300.661(c)(3), regarding the SEA’s responsibility to resolve complaints alleging a public agency’s failure to implement due process decisions, be retained. Many commenters raised concerns that removing this language will lead to more litigation. One commenter stated that parents would be forced to litigate due process decisions, which will prolong the denial of FAPE to children. Another commenter stated that not allowing States to enforce a hearing officer’s decision encourages litigation because it is the only avenue for relief. Several commenters stated that parents are placed at a disadvantage because they may not have the resources to file in State or Federal court. Discussion: The SEA’s obligation to implement a final hearing decision is consistent with the SEA’s general supervisory responsibility, under sections 612(a)(11) and 616 of the Act, over all education programs for children with disabilities in the State, which includes taking necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that the provision of FAPE and all the requirements in Part B of the Act and part 300 are carried out. However, we agree that the requirements from current §300.661(c)(3) should be retained for clarity. Changes: We have added the requirement in current §300.661(c)(3) as new §300.152(c)(3). Comment: Numerous commenters requested retaining current §300.661(c)(1), which requires that any issue in the complaint that is not a part of a due process complaint be resolved using the applicable State complaint timelines and procedures. One commenter stated that §300.152(c)(1) requires the State to set aside an entire complaint if due process proceedings commence with respect to any subject that is raised in the complaint. A few commenters expressed concern that if issues in a State complaint, which are not part of a due process complaint, are not investigated until the due process complaint is resolved, children may go without FAPE for extended periods of time. These commenters also stated that parents are likely to file for due process on every issue of concern, rather than using the more expeditious and less expensive State complaint procedures. Discussion: We agree that language in current §300.661(c), requiring that States set aside any part of a State complaint that is being addressed in a due process hearing, until the conclusion of the hearing and resolve any issue that is not a part of the due process hearing, should be retained. Changes: We have revised §300.152(c)(1) by adding the requirements in current §300.661(c)(1) to the regulations. Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations do not address the disposition of a complaint if a parent and a public agency come to a resolution of a complaint through mediation. One commenter recommended that the regulations provide guidance on how an SEA should handle a complaint that is withdrawn. Another commenter requested clarification on what should occur if an SEA does not approve of the agreement reached between the parent and the public agency. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to regulate on these matters, as recommended by the commenters. Section 615(e)(2)(F) of the Act and §300.506(b)(7) clarify that an agreement reached through mediation is a legally binding document enforceable in State and Federal courts. Therefore, an agreement reached through mediation is not subject to the SEA’s approval. We strongly encourage parties to resolve a complaint at the local level without the need for the SEA to intervene. If a complaint is resolved at the local level or is withdrawn, no further action is required by the SEA to resolve the complaint. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested including language in the regulations that would require parties to provide evidence under threat of perjury. Another commenter stated that the State complaint process should be non- adversarial and that neither party should have the right to review the other’s submissions or to cross-examine the other party. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to include the language suggested by the commenters because we believe requiring parties to provide evidence under the threat of perjury, permitting parties to review submissions, and allowing one party to cross-examine the other party are contrary to the intent of the State complaint process. The State complaint process is intended to be less adversarial than the more formal filing of a due process complaint and possibly going to a due process hearing. To make the changes requested by the commenters will serve only to make the State complaint process more adversarial and will not be in the best interest of the child. The State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153 do not require parties to provide evidence, nor do they require that a State allow parties to review the submissions of the other party or to cross-examine witnesses. Changes: None. Filing a Complaint (§300.153) Comment: One commenter recommended the regulations include a limit on the number of times that an individual may file a State complaint against a public agency. Discussion: An SEA is required to resolve any complaint that meets the requirements of §300.153, including complaints that raise systemic issues, and individual child complaints. It would be inconsistent with the Act’s provisions in section 616 regarding enforcement and the Act’s provisions in section 612 regarding general supervision for an SEA to have a State complaint procedure that removes or limits a party’s right to file a complaint that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or part 300, including limiting the number of times a party can file a complaint with the SEA. Therefore, it is not appropriate to include in the regulations the language suggested by the commenter, nor should the SEA include in its State complaint procedures any restriction on the number of times a party can file a complaint, as long as the complaint meets the requirements of §300.153. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters requested retaining current §300.662(c), which permits a complaint to be filed about a violation that occurred more than one year prior to the date the complaint is received if the violation is continuing or the complainant is requesting compensatory services for a violation that occurred more than three years prior to the date the complaint is received. Some commenters requested that the regulations permit a parent to have as much time to file a State complaint as a parent would have to file a due process complaint (two years, unless provided otherwise by State law). One commenter stated that extensions of the statute of limitations should be granted when circumstances warrant an extension. Another commenter suggested adding language providing that the timeline begins when a parent first learns about the violation. A few commenters stated that parents need a longer statute of VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46606 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations limitations for State complaints because they do not always know about violations when they occur and may not fully understand how the violation affects their child’s education. Several commenters stated that Congress did not intend to create a one- year statute of limitations for State complaints when it created a two-year statute of limitations for due process hearings. Several commenters stated that there is no evidence that Congress intended to change the current three- year statute of limitations on the parents’ right to file a State complaint when the violation is ongoing or compensatory services are being requested. Discussion: We believe a one-year timeline is reasonable and will assist in smooth implementation of the State complaint procedures. The references to longer periods for continuing violations and for compensatory services claims in current §300.662(c) were removed to ensure expedited resolution for public agencies and children with disabilities. Limiting a complaint to a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is received will help ensure that problems are raised and addressed promptly so that children receive FAPE. We believe longer time limits are not generally effective and beneficial to the child because the issues in a State complaint become so stale that they are unlikely to be resolved. However, States may choose to accept and resolve complaints regarding alleged violations that occurred outside the one-year timeline, just as they are free to add additional protections in other areas that are not inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. For these reasons, we do not believe it is necessary to retain the language in current §300.662(c). We do not believe it is appropriate to change the timeline to begin when a parent first learns about the violation, as suggested by the commenter, because such a provision could lead to some complaints being filed well beyond one year from the time the violation actually occurred. This also would make the issue of the complaint so stale that the SEA would not be able to reasonably resolve the complaint and recommend an appropriate corrective action. As we stated earlier in the Analysis of Comments and Changes for this subpart, Congress did not specifically address or detail a State complaint process in the Act; nor did Congress express an opinion regarding the time limit for filing a complaint under a State’s complaint process. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that §300.153(c) appears to indicate that if a State complaint, is also the subject of a due process complaint, the time period to file the complaint is two years, rather than the one-year time limit applicable for all other State complaints. Several commenters stated that this provision should be removed and that a one-year limitation should apply to all State complaints, regardless of whether a request for a due process hearing is filed on the issue(s) in the complaint. Discussion: If a State complaint contains multiple issues of which one or more is part of a due process hearing, the one-year statute of limitations would apply to the issues that are resolved under the State complaint procedures; the State due process statute of limitations would apply to the issues that are the subject of the due process hearing. We agree that the language in §300.153 is confusing and will amend the language to remove the reference to the due process complaint. Changes: We have removed the phrase, ‘‘Except for complaints covered under §300.507(a)(2)’’ in §300.153(c). Comment: Some commenters recommended removing the requirement in §300.153(d) that requires the party filing the complaint to forward a copy of the complaint to the LEA or public agency serving the child at the same time the party files the complaint with the SEA. One commenter stated that filing a complaint is onerous enough for parents, without including an extra step of requiring a copy of the complaint to be forwarded to the school. One commenter stated that this poses an unnecessary paperwork burden on parents. A few commenters stated that forwarding a copy of the complaint to the LEA should be the responsibility of the SEA, not the parents. One commenter expressed concern that requiring the party filing the complaint to forward a copy of the complaint to the LEA or public agency serving the child will discourage parents or school personnel whistle blowers from filing a complaint and recommended instead, that the regulations require SEAs to provide the LEA with a concise statement of fact upon which the complaint is based and the provisions of laws and rules that are at issue. A few commenters requested including language in §300.153(d) giving the SEA discretion to protect the confidentiality of the complainant. A few commenters recommended removing the requirement in §300.153(b)(3) for the written complaint to include the signature and contact information for the complainant. Discussion: The purpose of requiring the party filing the complaint to forward a copy of the complaint to the LEA or public agency serving the child, at the same time the party files the complaint with the SEA, is to ensure that the public agency involved has knowledge of the issues and an opportunity to resolve them directly with the complaining party at the earliest possible time. The sooner the LEA knows that a complaint is filed and the nature of the issue(s), the quicker the LEA can work directly with the complainant to resolve the complaint. We believe the benefit of having the complainant forward a copy of the complaint to the LEA or public agency far outweigh the minimal burden placed on the complainant because it will lead to a faster resolution of the complaint at the local level. For these reasons, we also do not believe it is more efficient to have the SEA forward the complaint to the public agency or provide the public agency with a statement summarizing the complaint. We do not believe that the complaint procedures should provide for the confidentiality of the complainant. The complainant should not remain unknown to the public agency that is the subject of the complaint because that public agency needs to know who the complainant is and something about the complaint (consistent with §300.153) before it can be expected to resolve the issues. We believe it is reasonable to require a party to file a signed complaint and provide contact information to the SEA in order to ensure the credibility of the complaint and provide the SEA with the basic contact information necessary for the SEA to handle complaints expeditiously. If the SEA receives a complaint that is not signed, as required in §300.153, the SEA may choose to dismiss the complaint. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that a parent must have legal knowledge in order to correctly file a State complaint. Discussion: Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that a parent must have legal knowledge to file a complaint, we believe the State complaint procedures, which are under the direct control of the SEA, provide the parent and the school district with mechanisms that allow them to resolve differences without having to resort to a more costly and cumbersome due process complaint, which, by its nature, is litigious. We believe if a State effectively implements its State complaint procedures, both parents and public agencies will generally find the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46607 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations process efficient and easy to initiate. We further believe that the requirement in §300.509 that each SEA must develop model forms to assist parents in filing a State complaint in accordance with §§300.151 through 300.153, and in filing a due process complaint in accordance with §§300.507(a) and 300.508(a) through (c), will make the process of filing such complaints much easier for parents and others. Changes: We have made a minor wording change in §300.153(b)(4) for clarity. Comment: One commenter stated that the complainant should not have to propose a resolution to the problem, as required in §300.153(b)(4)(v), in order to have the State investigate a complaint. Discussion: Section 300.153(b)(4)(v) requires the complainant to propose a resolution to the complaint only to the extent known and available to the complainant at the time the complaint is filed. We believe this proposed resolution is necessary because it gives the complainant an opportunity to state what he or she believes to be the problem and how the complainant believes it can be resolved. This is important because it gives the complainant an opportunity to tell the public agency what is wrong and what it would take to fix the problem from the complainant’s point of view. It also will give the LEA an opportunity to choose either to do as the complainant requests or propose a solution that it believes would resolve the issue raised by the complainant. Thus, if successful, the parties will avoid an adversarial relationship and possibly the expense of a due process hearing. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that §300.153(d) include language allowing an LEA to appeal an SEA finding to an administrative hearing or the courts. Another commenter expressed concern that the State complaint procedures lack an appeals process for parties that lose under the State complaint procedures. Discussion: The regulations neither prohibit nor require the establishment of procedures to permit an LEA or other party to request reconsideration of a State complaint decision. We have chosen to be silent in the regulations about whether a State complaint decision may be appealed because we believe States are in the best position to determine what, if any, appeals process is necessary to meet each State’s needs, consistent with State law. If a State chooses, however, to adopt a process for appealing a State complaint decision, such process may not waive any of the requirements in §§300.151 through 300.153. Section 300.152 requires that the SEA issue a final decision on each complaint within 60 calendar days after the complaint is filed, unless the SEA extends the timeline as provided in §300.152(b). This means that, absent an appropriate extension of the timeline for a particular complaint, the State must issue a final decision within 60 calendar days. However, if after the SEA’s final decision is issued, a party who has the right to request a due process hearing (that is, the parent or LEA) and who disagrees with the SEA’s decision may initiate a due process hearing, provided that the subject of the State complaint involves an issue about which a due process hearing can be filed and the two-year statute of limitations for due process hearings (or other time limit imposed by State law) has not expired. Changes: None. Method of Ensuring Services (§300.154) Establishing Responsibility for Services (§300.154(a)) Comment: One commenter suggested posting interagency agreements on SEA Web sites and in public buildings, and making them available upon request. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would prohibit an SEA from posting interagency agreements on Web sites, in public buildings, or making them available upon request. However, we believe that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require SEAs to do so and any decision regarding posting interagency agreements is best left to the States’ discretion. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that interagency agreements are important because agencies other than SEAs (e.g., mental health agencies that place children in residential facilities) are responsible for providing special educational services. The commenter requested that the regulations specify that residential facilities be allowed reimbursement for providing educational services and that children in these facilities are entitled to FAPE. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to further clarify in the regulations that children with disabilities who are placed in residential facilities by public agencies are entitled to FAPE because §300.146, consistent with section 612(a)(10)(B) of the Act, provides that SEAs must ensure that children with disabilities receive FAPE when they are placed in or referred to private schools or facilities by public agencies. Whether residential facilities can receive reimbursement for educational services will depend on how States have apportioned financial responsibility among State agencies and we do not believe that regulating on this issue is appropriate or necessary. Changes: None. Obligation of Noneducational Public Agencies (§300.154(b)) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that §300.154(b) allows LEAs to discontinue services when there is a dispute with other agencies and requested the regulations require LEAs to bear the ultimate responsibility for providing services. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to further clarify that the LEA is ultimately responsible for providing services because §300.154(b)(2) sufficiently requires that if a public agency other than an educational agency fails to provide or pay for the special education and related services in §300.154(b)(1), the LEA or State agency responsible for developing the child’s IEP must provide or pay for these services to the child in a timely manner. Disagreements about the interagency agreements should not stop or delay the receipt of the services described in the child’s IEP. Section 300.103(c) also addresses timely services and clarifies that, consistent with §300.323(c), the State must ensure there is no delay in implementing a child’s IEP, including any situation in which the source for providing or paying for the special education or related services to a child is being determined. Section 612(a)(12)(A)(i) of the Act provides that the financial responsibility of public agencies (other than an educational agency), including Medicaid and other public insurers obligated under Federal or State law or assigned responsibility under State policy, must precede financial responsibility of the LEA. Changes: None. Children With Disabilities Who Are Covered by Public Benefits or Insurance (§300.154(d)) Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the use of a parent’s public benefits or insurance to pay for services required under Part B of the Act because co-payments and other out-of- pocket expenses would be a hardship to low-income families. A few commenters stated that services paid for by public benefits or insurance would count against a child’s lifetime cap. Discussion: The commenters’ concerns are addressed in §300.154(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii). Section 300.154(d)(2)(ii) states that a public agency may not require parents to incur VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46608 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations an out-of-pocket expense, such as the payment of a deductible or co-pay amount, in filing a claim for services, and may pay from funds reserved under the Act, the cost that the parent would otherwise be required to pay. In addition, §300.154(d)(2)(iii) states that a public agency may not use a child’s benefits under a public benefits or insurance program if that use would decrease lifetime coverage or any other insured benefit; result in the family paying for services that would otherwise be covered by the public benefits or insurance program and that are required for the child outside of the time the child is in school; increase premiums or lead to the discontinuation of benefits or insurance; or risk loss of eligibility for home and community-based waivers, based on aggregate health-related expenditures. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested changing ‘‘parental consent’’ to ‘‘informed parental consent.’’ One commenter recommended requiring public agencies to obtain parental consent each time the public agency seeks to access the parent’s public benefits or insurance. Some commenters recommended removing the requirement to obtain parental consent to use Medicaid benefits to pay for services required under Part B of the Act. A few commenters opposed requiring parental consent, stating the process is an administrative burden. Other commenters recommended waiving the requirement for consent if the agency has taken reasonable measures to obtain such consent or the parent’s consent was given to the State Medicaid Agency. Discussion: In order for a public agency to use the Medicaid or other public benefits or insurance program in which a child participates to provide or pay for services required under the Act, the public agency must provide the benefits or insurance program with information from the child’s education records (e.g., services provided, length of the services). Information from a child’s education records is protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) (FERPA), and section 617(c) of the Act. Under FERPA and section 617(c) of the Act, a child’s education records cannot be released to a State Medicaid agency without parental consent, except for a few specified exceptions that do not include the release of education records for insurance billing purposes. Parental consent requires, among other things, that the parent be fully informed in his or her native language, or other mode of communication, consistent with §300.9. Thus, there is no need to change ‘‘parental consent’’ to ‘‘informed consent,’’ as recommended by one commenter. However, we believe it would avoid confusion for the references to ‘‘consent’’ in paragraphs (d) and (e) in §300.154 to be consistent. Therefore, we will add a reference to §300.9 in §300.154(d)(2)(iv)(A) and delete ‘‘informed’’ from §300.154(e)(1). We believe obtaining parental consent each time the public agency seeks to use a parent’s public insurance or other public benefits to provide or pay for a service is important to protect the privacy rights of the parent and to ensure that the parent is fully informed of a public agency’s access to his or her public benefits or insurance and the services paid by the public benefits or insurance program. Therefore, we will revise §300.154(d)(2)(iv) to clarify that parental consent is required each time the public agency seeks to use the parent’s public insurance or other public benefits. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to include a provision permitting waiver of parental consent in this circumstance, even where a public agency makes reasonable efforts to obtain the required parental consent. However, we agree with the commenter that a public agency could satisfy parental consent requirements under FERPA and section 617(c) of the Act if the parent provided the required parental consent to the State Medicaid agency, and the consent satisfied the Part B definition of consent in §300.9. We also believe that it is important to let parents know that their refusal to allow access to their public benefits or insurance does not relieve the public agency of its responsibility to ensure that all required services are provided at no cost to the parents. We will, therefore, add a new paragraph (B) to §300.154(d)(2)(iv) to make this clear. Finally, because we have referenced the definition of consent in §300.9 throughout the rest of these regulations, rather than the consent provisions in §300.622, we have removed the reference to §300.622. Changes: Section 300.154(d)(2)(iv) has been changed to clarify that consent must be obtained each time the public agency seeks to access a parent’s public benefits or insurance and to clarify that a parent’s refusal to allow access to the parent’s public benefits or insurance does not relieve the public agency of its responsibility to ensure that all required services are provided at no cost to the parent. The reference to §300.622 has been removed and we have added ‘‘consistent with §300.9’’ following ‘‘parental consent’’ in §300.154(d)(2)(iv)(A). For consistency, we have removed ‘‘informed’’ before ‘‘consent’’ in §300.154(e)(1). Comment: One commenter stated that LEAs and agencies that, by law, must provide educational services should not be allowed to use public benefits or insurance to pay for these programs. One commenter suggested that the Act be more closely aligned with the Medicaid laws. One commenter requested requiring public benefits or insurance agencies, when paying for special education, to meet the standards of the Act, and not the standards for medical environments. Discussion: We disagree with the comment that LEAs and other public agencies responsible for providing special education and related services to children with disabilities should not be allowed to use public benefits or insurance to pay for these services. Pursuant to section 612(a)(12) of the Act, if a child is covered by a public benefits or insurance program and there is no cost to the family or the child in using the benefits of that program to support a service included in a child’s IEP, the public agency is encouraged to use the public benefits or insurance to the extent possible. We believe public benefits or insurance are important resources for LEAs and other public agencies to access, when appropriate, to assist in meeting their obligation to make FAPE available to all children who are eligible to receive services. Section 300.103 retains the Department’s longstanding provision that clarifies that each State may use whatever State, local, Federal, and private sources of support are available in the State to meet the requirements of part 300. Nothing in part 300 relieves an insurer or similar third party from an otherwise valid obligation to provide or pay for services provided to a child with a disability. The Act does not give the Department the authority to impose the standards of the Act on public benefits or insurance agencies, when paying for special education. If, however, a third party provider, such as a public benefits or insurance company, is unable to provide funding for services outside a clinical setting or other specific setting, the public agency cannot use the third party provider’s inability to provide such funding as an appropriate justification for not providing a child with a disability FAPE in the LRE. Nothing in part 300 alters the requirements imposed on a State Medicaid agency, or any other agency administering a public benefits or insurance program by Federal statute, regulation, or policy under Title XIX or VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46609 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Title XXI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 through 1396(v) and 42 U.S.C. 1397aa through 1397jj, or any other public benefits or insurance program. See section 612(a)(12) and (e) of the Act. We believe the regulations are sufficiently aligned with the Medicaid program and consistent with the Act and no further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying that a child cannot be denied Medicaid-supported medical services merely because he or she receives educational services funded by Medicaid. Discussion: We do not believe further clarification is necessary because §300.154(d)(2) is sufficiently clear that the child’s receipt of Medicaid-funded educational services, consistent with the Act and these regulations, should not deny the child receipt of other services for which he or she may be eligible under Medicaid or other noneducational programs. Further, §300.103(b) provides that nothing in part 300 relieves an insurer or third party from an otherwise valid obligation to pay for services provided to a child with a disability. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that LEAs and agencies that, by law, must provide educational services should not be allowed to use public benefits or insurance to pay for these programs. One commenter suggested that the Act be more closely aligned with the Medicaid laws. One commenter requested requiring public benefits or insurance agencies, when paying for special education, to meet the standards of the Act, and not the standards for medical environments. Discussion: We disagree with the comment that LEAs and other public agencies responsible for providing special education and related services to children with disabilities should not be allowed to use public benefits or insurance to pay for these services. Pursuant to section 612(a)(12) of the Act, if a child is covered by a public benefits or insurance program and there is no cost to the family or the child in using the benefits of that program to support a service included in a child’s IEP, the public agency is encouraged to use the public benefits or insurance to the extent possible. We believe public benefits or insurance are important resources for LEAs and other public agencies to access, when appropriate, to assist in meeting their obligation to make FAPE available to all children who are eligible to receive services. Section 300.103 retains the Department’s longstanding provision that clarifies that each State may use whatever State, local, Federal, and private sources of support are available in the State to meet the requirements of part 300. Nothing in part 300 relieves an insurer or similar third party from an otherwise valid obligation to provide or pay for services provided to a child with a disability. The Act does not give the Department the authority to impose the standards of the Act on public benefits or insurance agencies, when paying for special education. If, however, a third party provider, such as a public benefits or insurance company, is unable to provide funding for services outside a clinical setting or other specific setting, the public agency cannot use the third party provider’s inability to provide such funding as an appropriate justification for not providing a child with a disability FAPE in the LRE. Nothing in part 300 alters the requirements imposed on a State Medicaid agency, or any other agency administering a public benefits or insurance program by Federal statute, regulation, or policy under Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 through 1396(v) and 42 U.S.C. 1397aa through 1397jj, or any other public benefits or insurance program. See section 612(a)(12) and (e) of the Act. We believe the regulations are sufficiently aligned with the Medicaid program and consistent with the Act and no further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying that a child cannot be denied Medicaid-supported medical services merely because he or she receives educational services funded by Medicaid. Discussion: We do not believe further clarification is necessary because §300.154(d)(2) is sufficiently clear that the child’s receipt of Medicaid-funded educational services, consistent with the Act and these regulations, should not deny the child receipt of other services for which he or she may be eligible under Medicaid or other noneducational programs. Further, §300.103(b) provides that nothing in part 300 relieves an insurer or third party from an otherwise valid obligation to pay for services provided to a child with a disability. Changes: None. Personnel Qualifications (§300.156) Comment: One commenter requested that §300.156 use the term ‘‘standards’’ when referring to personnel qualifications. Discussion: We are not changing §300.156 because its language follows the specific language in section 612(a)(14) of the Act. Current §300.136 refers to ‘‘personnel standards’’ but was removed consistent with the changes in section 612(a)(14) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the personnel qualification requirements in §300.156 apply to personnel who provide travel instruction and teachers of children with visual impairments. Other commenters requested that personnel who provide therapeutic recreation services be required to meet the personnel qualifications. Some commenters requested that the personnel qualifications apply to preschool special education teachers. Discussion: It is not necessary to list the specific personnel who provide services to children with disabilities under the Act and to whom the requirements in §300.156 apply because the regulations are sufficiently clear that all needed personnel are covered. This includes personnel who provide travel instruction or therapeutic recreation services; teachers of children with visual impairments, if such personnel are necessary to carry out the purposes of this part; and preschool teachers in States where preschool teachers are considered elementary school teachers. Section 300.156(a), consistent with section 612(a)(14)(A) of the Act, requires each SEA to establish and maintain personnel qualification requirements to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of Part B of the Act and part 300 are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations should define what it means to be qualified to provide services to children with disabilities under the Act. The commenter stated that the regulations do not include any requirements for general education teachers or administrators who are involved in providing instruction and services for children in special education. Discussion: It is not necessary to change the regulations to define what it means to be qualified to provide services because we believe that, aside from the ‘‘highly qualified’’ requirements for teachers and special education teachers in ESEA and the Act, other personnel qualifications are appropriately left to the States, in light of the variability in State circumstances. Further, §300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46610 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations SEA, not the Federal government, to establish and maintain qualifications for personnel who provide services to children with disabilities under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter objected to the removal of the requirements for a comprehensive system of personnel development in current §300.135. The commenter also stated that regular education teachers need to be trained to work with children with disabilities to ensure that their inclusion in the regular classroom is successful. Discussion: Current §300.135 required States to have in effect a system of personnel development to ensure an adequate supply of qualified special education, regular education, and related services personnel. Section 612(a)(14) of the Act removed this requirement. The removal of current §300.135, however, does not diminish the responsibility of each State to establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel (including regular education teachers) necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, consistent with §300.156. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended that the regulations include language from note 97 of the Conf. Rpt., p. 192, which requires SEAs to establish rigorous qualifications for related services providers to ensure that children with disabilities receive the appropriate quality and quantity of care. Several commenters requested that the regulations require SEAs to consult with LEAs, other State agencies, the disability community, and professional organizations regarding appropriate qualifications for related services providers and different service delivery models (e.g., consultative, supervisory, and collaborative models). Discussion: We believe that States already have sufficient incentive to ensure that related services providers provide services of appropriate quality so that children with disabilities can achieve to high standards and that further regulation in this area is not necessary. Section 300.156(b), consistent with section 612(a)(14)(B) of the Act, includes the qualifications for related services personnel. There is nothing in the Act that requires SEAs to consult with LEAs, other State agencies, or other groups and organizations to determine the appropriate qualifications for related services providers and the use of different service delivery models, and while we agree that this is good practice and encourage SEAs to participate in such consultation, we do not believe that we should regulate in this manner. States should have the flexibility, based on each State’s unique circumstances, to determine how best to establish and maintain standards for all personnel who are providers of special education and related services. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters objected to §300.156(b) and the removal of the requirement in current §300.136 for State professional requirements to be based on the highest requirements in the State. The commenters stated that the removal of this requirement relaxes the qualification standards for speech- language pathologists and other related services personnel. Several commenters stated that speech-language professionals should be required to have advanced degrees (i.e., master’s level) because a bachelor’s degree does not provide adequate preparation. Many commenters expressed concern that the requirements in §300.156(b) will lead to a decline in the quality of related services provided to children with disabilities in public schools. Other commenters expressed concern that increasing the standards will exacerbate the shortage of related services personnel experienced by large urban school districts. Discussion: We are not changing §300.156 because it reflects the specific language in section 612(a)(14) of the Act, which was intended to provide greater flexibility to SEAs to establish appropriate personnel standards, including the standards for speech- language pathologists. As indicated in note 97 of the Conf. Rpt., p. 192, section 612(a)(14) of the Act removes the requirement for State professional requirements to be based on the highest requirements in the State because of concerns that the previous law, regarding the qualifications of related services providers, established an unreasonable standard for SEAs to meet, and as a result, led to a shortage of related services providers for children with disabilities. We believe that States can exercise the flexibility provided in §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act while ensuring appropriate services for children with disabilities without additional regulation. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that §300.156(b) establishes qualifications for related services providers in public schools that are less rigorous than the qualifications for related services providers who provide Medicaid services or services in other public settings, such as hospitals. The commenters stated that less rigorous qualifications would result in a two-tiered system in which related services providers in public schools will be less qualified than related services providers in other public agencies. Another commenter expressed concern that the relaxation of standards for speech-language pathologists would cause LEAs to lose Medicaid funds that are used to assist children with disabilities. Discussion: Section 300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14)(B)(i) of the Act, clarifies that it is up to each SEA to establish qualifications for personnel to carry out the purposes of the Act. This will require weighing the various policy concerns unique to each State. The qualifications of related services providers required under Medicaid, or in hospitals and other public settings, and the fact that Medicaid will not pay for providers who do not meet Medicaid provider qualifications should serve as an incentive for States that want to bill for medical services on children’s IEPs to impose consistent requirements for qualifications of related services providers. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters stated that related services personnel should be considered to have met the qualifications in §300.156(b)(1), regarding State-recognized certification, licensing, registration or other comparable requirements, if such personnel hold an academic degree consistent with their profession’s national certification or State license to practice; demonstrate satisfactory progress toward full certification in the schools as prescribed by the State; and assume related services personnel functions for a specified period not to exceed three years. A few commenters objected to the requirement that related services personnel must not have had certification or licensure requirements waived. One commenter stated that emergency, temporary, or provisional certificates are necessary for professionals relocating from different States or different countries, and predicted that professionals with emergency, temporary, or provisional certification would work for contract agencies to bypass the requirements. Discussion: We believe the provisions in §300.156(b) that State qualifications for related services personnel must include qualifications that are consistent with any State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services, are VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46611 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations sufficient to ensure related services personnel are qualified to provide appropriate services to children with disabilities while maintaining the States’ flexibility to establish appropriate personnel standards for related services personnel. We do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to include additional regulation as suggested by commenters. Section 300.156(b)(2)(ii) tracks the statutory requirement in section 612(a)(14)(B)(ii) of the Act, which requires that related services personnel not have certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. We do not believe this provision unnecessarily hinders States from hiring professionals from other States or countries. States, in examining the credentials of prospective related services personnel from other States or countries, may find that their existing certification or licensure requirements are ones that these related services personnel could readily meet. Because each State has full authority to define and enforce its own requirements that personnel must meet in order to receive full State certification or licensure, States that employ related services personnel from other States or countries may, consistent with State law and policy, consider establishing a separate category of certification that would differ from emergency, temporary, or provisional certification in that the State would not be waiving any training or experiential requirements. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended using nationally recognized standards to determine the qualifications of related services personnel. Another commenter recommended requiring SEAs to consider current professional standards in establishing appropriate qualifications for related services personnel. One commenter requested adding language to the regulations to prevent professional organizations from establishing personnel standards for related services personnel that override standards set by the SEA. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to regulate as suggested by the commenters because these matters are better left to States to decide as States are in the best position to determine appropriate professional requirements for their States. There is nothing in the Act that requires an SEA to determine qualifications of related services personnel based on nationally recognized standards or current professional standards. Professional organizations may establish personnel standards for related services personnel that differ from the standards established by a State, but section 612(a)(14) of the Act clarifies that the State is responsible for establishing and maintaining personnel qualifications to ensure that related services personnel have the knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations specify that an SEA, and not the State, has the authority to establish certification and licensure qualifications of related services personnel. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to change the regulation because §300.156(b), which follows the language in section 612(a)(14)(B) of the Act, clarifies that the SEA must establish qualifications for related services personnel that are consistent with State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to related services personnel. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulations require related services providers who do not meet existing State standards to be supervised by qualified personnel. Discussion: Related services providers who do not meet the personnel qualifications established by the SEA would not be considered qualified to serve children with disabilities under the Act even with supervision by qualified personnel. Section 300.156(d), consistent with section 612(a)(14)(D) of the Act, clarifies that each State must ensure that LEAs take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified special education personnel to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended that the regulations require high standards for paraprofessionals. Several commenters requested guidance on the appropriate use of paraprofessionals to ensure that paraprofessionals and assistants are not used as a means of circumventing certification and licensing requirements for related services providers. A few commenters requested language clarifying that the elimination of the requirement that State professional requirements be based on the highest requirements in the State in current §300.136(b) must not be used to justify the inappropriate use of paraprofessionals or related services providers. Another commenter asked that the regulations require States to ensure that paraprofessionals are properly supervised at all times. One commenter stated that the regulations should clarify the use of State standards for speech-language pathology paraprofessionals. Discussion: We believe the provisions in §300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, are sufficient to ensure that paraprofessionals meet high standards and that including additional requirements in these regulations is unnecessary. These provisions require an SEA to establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel, including paraprofessionals, are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities; and require the qualifications for paraprofessionals to be consistent with any State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services. In addition, the ESEA requires that paraprofessionals working in a program supported by title I of the ESEA, including special education paraprofessionals who assist in instruction in title I-funded programs, have at least an associate’s degree, have completed at least two years of college, or meet a rigorous standard of quality and demonstrate, through a formal State or local assessment, knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instruction in reading, writing, and mathematics, reading readiness, writing readiness, or mathematics readiness, as appropriate. Paraprofessionals in title I schools do not need to meet these requirements if their role does not involve instructional support, such as special education paraprofessionals who solely provide personal care services. For more information on the ESEA requirements for paraprofessionals, see 34 CFR 200.58 and section 1119 of the ESEA, and the Department’s nonregulatory guidance, Title I Paraprofessionals (March 1, 2004), which can be found on the Department’s Web site at: http:// www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ paraguidance.pdf. With regard to the commenter requesting that the regulations clarify the use of State standards for speech- language paraprofessionals, we do not believe it is appropriate to include clarification regarding a specific discipline in these regulations because the Act requires States to establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that paraprofessionals, including speech- language paraprofessionals, are VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46612 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. Section 300.156(b)(2)(iii), consistent with section 612(a)(14)(B)(iii) of the Act, does specifically allow paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with State law, regulation, or written policy, to assist in providing special education and related services to children with disabilities under the Act. However, this provision should not be construed to permit or encourage the use of paraprofessionals as a replacement for teachers or related services providers who meet State qualification standards. To the contrary, using paraprofessionals and assistants as teachers or related services providers would be inconsistent with the State’s duty to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of Part B of the Act are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. Paraprofessionals in public schools are not directly responsible for the provision of special education and related services to children with disabilities; rather, these aides provide special education and related services to children with disabilities only under the supervision of special education and related services personnel. We believe the provision in §300.156(b)(2)(iii) sufficiently ensures that paraprofessionals and assistants are adequately supervised and further clarification in these regulations is unnecessary. The Act makes clear that the use of paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised must be contingent on State law, regulation, and written policy giving States the option of determining whether paraprofessionals and assistants can be used to assist in the provision of special education and related services under Part B of the Act, and, if so, to what extent their use would be permissible. However, it is critical that States that use paraprofessionals and assistants to assist in providing special education and related services to children with disabilities do so in a manner that is consistent with the rights of children with disabilities to FAPE under Part B of the Act. There is no need to provide additional guidance on how States and LEAs should use paraprofessionals and assistants because States have the flexibility to determine whether to use them, and, if so, to determine the scope of their responsibilities. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended different requirements for paraprofessionals who perform routine tasks and those who perform specific activities to assist in the provision of special education and related services. Discussion: We do not see the need to make a change to the regulations as suggested by the commenter because, under §300.156, consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, SEAs have the responsibility for establishing and maintaining qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of this part are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. Furthermore, SEAs and LEAs have the flexibility to determine the tasks and activities to be performed by paraprofessionals and assistants, as long as they are consistent with the rights of children with disabilities to FAPE. It should be kept in mind, however, that the ESEA has different requirements for paraprofessionals, including special education paraprofessionals, who assist in instruction in title I schools versus paraprofessionals in title I schools who do not provide instructional support, such as special education paraprofessionals who solely provide personal care services. Changes: None. Comment: A number of comments were received on the qualifications for special education teachers in §300.156(c) that were similar to the comments received regarding the definition of highly qualified special education teacher in §300.18. Discussion: We combined and responded to these comments with the comments received in response to the requirements in §300.18. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulations allow alternative routes to certification for related services personnel and other non-teaching personnel, just as such routes are allowed for highly qualified teachers. Discussion: As we stated earlier in this section, section 612(a)(14)(B) of the Act, clarifies that the SEA must establish qualifications for related services personnel that are consistent with State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to related services personnel. While the Act does not address alternative routes to certification programs for related services personnel or other non-teaching personnel, there is nothing in the Act or the regulations that would preclude a State from providing for alternate routes for certification for related services personnel or other non-teaching personnel. It is, however, up to a State to determine whether related services or non-teaching personnel participating in alternative routes to certification programs meet personnel requirements established by the State, consistent with the requirements in §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended that §300.156 provide more guidance to ensure that States and LEAs implement proven strategies for recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. A few commenters stated that this is especially important for speech-language pathologists because large caseloads, increased paperwork, and lack of time for planning and collaboration have been shown to contribute to their burn out and attrition. Several commenters recommended that strategies to recruit and retain qualified personnel include reasonable workloads, improved working conditions, incentive programs, salary supplements, loan forgiveness, tuition assistance, signing bonuses, streamlined application processes, State and national advertising venues, school and university partnerships, release time for professional development, certification reciprocity between States, grants to LEAs for recruitment and retention programs, alternate professional preparation models, caseload size standards, and classroom size standards. One commenter requested that the requirements to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified personnel in §300.156(d) apply to paraprofessionals who provide special education and related services. Discussion: The list of strategies recommended by the commenters includes many strategies that may be effective in recruiting and retaining highly qualified personnel; however, we do not believe it is appropriate to include these or other strategies in our regulations because recruitment and retention strategies vary depending on the unique needs of each State and LEA. States and LEAs are in the best position to determine the most effective recruitment and retention strategies for their location. With regard to the comment regarding the applicability of §300.156(d) to paraprofessionals who provide special education and related services, §300.156(d), consistent with section 612(a)(14)(C) of the Act, applies to all personnel who provide special education and related services under the Act, including paraprofessionals. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the rule of construction in §300.156(e) is inconsistent with the rule VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46613 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations of construction in the definition of highly qualified teacher in proposed §300.18(e). Some commenters requested that the regulations clarify that the rule of construction in §300.156(e) is applicable to both administrative and judicial actions. A few commenters requested that the regulations specify that a parent may file a State complaint with the State regarding failure of their child to receive FAPE because staff is not highly qualified. However, several commenters stated that parents should not be allowed to file a State complaint under §§300.151 through 300.153 regarding staff qualifications. Discussion: We agree that the rules of construction in both proposed §300.156(e) and proposed §300.18(e) must be revised so that both rules are the same. The changes will clarify that a parent or student may not file a due process complaint on behalf of a student, or file a judicial action on behalf of a class of students for the failure of a particular SEA or LEA employee to be highly qualified; however, a parent may file a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA. In addition to permitting a parent to file a State complaint with the SEA, an organization or an individual may also file a complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA, consistent with the State complaint procedures in §§300.151 through 300.153. We believe that this is appropriate given the wording of section 612(a)(14)(E) of the Act ‘‘ * * * or to prevent a parent from filing a complaint about staff qualifications with the State educational agency’’ and incorporated in the regulations in §300.156(e) and new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)). By incorporating the wording from the construction clause in section 612(a)(14)(E) of the Act in the regulations as previously noted, parents and other interested parties, may seek compliance through the State complaint process. Changes: We have added ‘‘or a class of students’’ to §300.156(e) to clarify that a judicial action on behalf of a class of students may not be filed for failure of a particular SEA or LEA employee to be highly qualified. We have substituted the word, ‘‘employee’’ for ‘‘staff person’’ to be more precise and for consistency with the rule of construction in new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)). We have also reformatted §300.156(e). Comment: Some commenters recommended adding language to the regulations restricting a parent’s right to file a complaint regarding an LEA’s failure to take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified personnel. Discussion: We believe the regulations do not need clarification. Section §300.151(a) is sufficiently clear that an organization or individual may file a State complaint under §§300.151 through 300.153 alleging a violation of a requirement of Part B of the Act or of this part. This includes the requirement that an LEA take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified personnel consistent with section 612(a)(14)(D) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulations clarify that, unless the State has statutory control over district staffing, parents cannot obtain compensatory damages or services or a private school placement based on the lack of highly qualified personnel. Discussion: We do not agree that the exception requested by the commenter should be added to the regulations because new §300.18(f) (proposed §300.18(e)), and §300.156(e) are sufficiently clear that nothing in part 300 shall be construed to create a right of action on behalf of an individual child for the failure of a particular SEA or LEA staff person to be highly qualified. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the qualifications of all personnel should be made a matter of public record. Discussion: To do as the commenter recommends would add burden for local school personnel and it is not required under the Act. In contrast, title I of the ESEA required that LEAs receiving title I funds provide parents, at their request, the qualifications of their children’s classroom teachers. There is nothing in the Act or these regulations, however, which would prevent an SEA or LEA from adopting such a policy should it wish to do so. In the absence of a congressional requirement in the Act, such policies are matters best left to State law. Section 1111(h)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to inform parents about the professional qualifications of their children’s classroom teachers. The ESEA requires that at the beginning of each school year, an LEA that accepts title I, part A funding must notify parents of students in title I schools that they can request information regarding their children’s classroom teachers, including, at a minimum: (1) Whether the teacher has met the State requirements for licensure and certification for the grade levels and subject-matters in which the teacher provides instruction; (2) whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived; (3) the college major and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification or degree; and (4) whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals, and if so, their qualifications. In addition, each title I school must provide each parent timely notice that the parent’s child has been assigned, or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by, a teacher who is not highly qualified. These requirements apply only to special education teachers who teach core academic subjects in Title I schools. Changes: None. Performance Goals and Indicators (§300.157) Comment: Several commenters recommended that the regulations retain current §300.137(a)(2), which requires that States have goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the State that are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for all children established by the State. The commenters specifically objected to the removal of the word ‘‘maximum’’ before ‘‘extent appropriate;’’ and the removal of the word ‘‘all’’ before ‘‘children’’ in §300.157(a)(4). Discussion: Section 612(a)(15)(A)(iv) of the Act specifically removed the words in current §300.137(a)(2) that the comment references. Therefore, we believe that it would be contrary to the intent of the statutory drafters to restore these words to the regulatory provision. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations in §300.156(b) require States to involve parent centers in establishing the performance goals and indicators and measurable annual objectives for children with disabilities. Discussion: We encourage broad stakeholder involvement in the development of performance goals, indicators, and annual objectives for children with disabilities, including the involvement of parent centers. We see no need to single out a particular group, however. The regulations in §300.165(a) already require specific public participation in the adoption of policies and procedures needed to demonstrate eligibility under Part B, including this requirement. Changes: None. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46614 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Participation in Assessments (Proposed §300.160) Comment: None. Discussion: Participation in assessments is the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74624) to amend the regulations governing programs under title I of the ESEA and Part B of the Act, regarding additional flexibility for States to measure the achievement of children with disabilities based on modified achievement standards. Changes: Therefore, we are removing proposed §300.160 and designating the section as ‘‘Reserved.’’ Supplementation of State, Local, and Other Federal Funds (§300.162) Comment: One commenter disagreed with the removal of current §300.155, which requires that States have policies and procedures on file with the Secretary to ensure that funds paid to the State under Part B of the Act are spent in accordance with the provisions of Part B. Discussion: Current §300.155 was removed from these regulations consistent with section 612(a)(17) of the Act. The removal of this requirement is also consistent with section 612(a) of the Act, which requires a State to submit a plan that provides assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect policies and procedures to ensure that the State meets the requirements of the Act rather than submitting the actual policies and procedures to the Department. To alleviate burden, Congress removed the statutory provisions which required that States have policies and procedures on file with the Secretary to ensure that funds paid to the State under Part B of the Act are spent in accordance with the provisions of Part B. OSEP continues to have responsibility to ensure that States are properly implementing the Act. Given the statutory change that Congress made to remove the prior requirement, we believe it would be inappropriate to include it in these regulations. Changes: None. Maintenance of State Financial Support (§300.163) Comment: One commenter requested that §300.163(c)(1), regarding waivers for maintenance of State financial support for exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, provide examples of what would be considered a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the State’s financial resources. Discussion: We decline to limit the Secretary’s discretion in these matters in the abstract. The Secretary makes the determinations regarding these waivers on a case-by-case basis and given the facts and circumstances at the time such a request is made. Changes: None. Public Participation (§300.165) Comment: Several commenters objected to the removal of current §§300.280 through 300.284, regarding public participation, and recommended that all provisions, including those related to public hearings, comment periods, and review of public comments be restored. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to retain in the regulations the requirements in current §§300.280 through 300.284 because the provisions in §300.165 and GEPA, in 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(7), provide sufficient opportunities for public participation. We also believe retaining the requirements in §§300.280 through 300.284 would place unnecessary regulatory burden on States. Section 300.165(a) incorporates the language in section 612(a)(19) of the Act, regarding public participation in the adoption of policies and procedures to implement Part B of the Act, and requires States to ensure that there are public hearings, adequate notice of hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the general public. Furthermore, paragraph (b) of this section requires States to comply with the public participation requirements of GEPA, in 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(7), before submitting a State plan under this part. In accordance with the GEPA requirement, the State must assure that it will provide reasonable opportunities for participation by local agencies, representatives of the class of individuals affected by programs under this part and other interested institutions, organizations, and individuals in the planning for the operation of programs under this part. GEPA also requires that the State publish each proposed State plan under this part, in a manner that will ensure circulation throughout the State, at least 60 days prior to the date on which the State plan is submitted to the Secretary or on which the State plan becomes effective, whichever occurs earlier, with an opportunity for public comments on such plan to be accepted for at least 30 days. In addition, the State must comply with any State-specific public participation requirements in adopting policies and procedures related to Part B of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations define the meaning of ‘‘adequate notice’’ as it is used in §300.165(a) to ensure that there is adequate notice of public hearings prior to adopting any policies and procedures needed to comply with Part B of the Act. Discussion: We do not think it is appropriate or necessary to include in the regulations a definition of ‘‘adequate notice’’ because what constitutes ‘‘adequate notice’’ will vary depending on the unique circumstances in each State and we believe States should have the flexibility of determining and applying a workable and reasonable standard that meets their circumstances to ensure public participation at public hearings. We believe it would be reasonable for the State to assume that it provided adequate notice if, at its public hearings, there were sufficient representatives of the general public, including individuals with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities, in attendance. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations require States to provide notices of public hearings in multiple languages and alternative formats. Discussion: It is unnecessary to include regulations requiring States to provide notice of public hearings in multiple languages and alternative formats. Public agencies are required by other Federal statutes to take appropriate actions to ensure that the public has access, in alternative formats and languages other than English, to public hearings. The other Federal statutory provisions that apply in this regard are section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 104 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal financial assistance), title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations in 28 CFR part 35 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, regardless of receipt of Federal funds), and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 100 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations require States to work with the parent centers to identify appropriate locations and times for public hearings. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act or these regulations that would prohibit a State from working with the parent centers to identify appropriate VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46615 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations locations and times for public hearings, but we see no need to require States to do so. We believe that this matter should be left to State discretion. Changes: None. Rule of Construction (§300.166) Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the use of Federal funds to offset decreases in State formula allocations to LEAs that use attendance, enrollment, or inflation as elements of the State funding formula for special education. Discussion: Section 300.166 was added to incorporate language in section 612(a)(20) of the Act. It specifies that States with laws that require a specific level of funding to their LEAs cannot use Federal Part B funds for this purpose. Changes: None. State Advisory Panel State Advisory Panel (§300.167) Comment: One commenter stated that §§300.167 through 300.169 are unnecessary and do not add any requirements beyond those in section 612(a)(21) of the Act. The commenter recommended removing these requirements and stated that they can be adequately implemented through guidance provided by the Department and not through regulation. Discussion: The requirements of the State advisory panel in §§300.167 through 300.169 reflect the specific language in section 612(a)(21) of the Act. We believe it is necessary to include these statutory requirements in the regulations to provide parents, public agencies, and others with information on the requirements applicable to State advisory panels. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended retaining the procedures to govern State advisory panels in current §300.653 and strengthening the requirements of notice and opportunity for public comment at State advisory panel meetings by mandating publication of meeting dates, agendas, and minutes on Web sites. A few commenters stated that eliminating the notice requirements and the opportunity to participate in meetings in current §300.653(d) and (e) will result in fewer low income, hearing-impaired, and foreign-language speaking parents attending State advisory panel meetings. One commenter expressed concern that the removal of current §300.653 will result in less panel visibility, less public participation, and that State advisory panels will become ‘‘rubber-stamps’’ for positions taken by State officials. One commenter stated that the removal of the requirements in current §300.653 weakens the protection of children with disabilities, and, therefore, violates section 607(b) of the Act. Discussion: The requirements in current §300.653 were removed to provide greater State flexibility in the operation of advisory panels. We do not believe the removal of current §300.653 will mean that the States will not ensure that State advisory panel meetings are announced in advance and open to the public because States generally have adequate sunshine laws that ensure public access to governmental agency meetings. We do not believe it is necessary to require that information regarding State advisory panel meetings be posted on State Web sites because sunshine laws generally contain provisions regarding meeting notices, agendas, and the availability of minutes of public meetings. However, it is important that individuals consult the laws governing their State and locality on the issue of open meetings and public access. Section 607(b)(2) of the Act provides that the Secretary may not implement, or publish in final form, any regulation pursuant to the Act that procedurally or substantively lessens the protections provided to children with disabilities as embodied in regulations in effect on July 20, 1983. We do not believe removing from these regulations the requirements in current §300.653 procedurally or substantively lessens the protections provided to children with disabilities pursuant to section 607(b)(2) of the Act because we do not view public notice of advisory committee meetings to be a protection provided to children with disabilities. Changes: None. Membership (§300.168) Comment: We received numerous, specific requests to revise §300.168 to add to the list of individuals who can serve as members of the State advisory panels. Some commenters recommended requiring State advisory panels to include representatives from the Parent Training and Information Centers and Community Parent Resource Centers funded by the Department under sections 671 and 672 of the Act because their representation would ensure a diverse group of people experienced with children with different disabilities on the panels. One commenter expressed concern that, without representation from these groups, panel members would make recommendations based solely on their individual circumstances and backgrounds. A few commenters requested including school psychologists and other student support staff on State advisory panels. One commenter suggested including a representative of a residential treatment facility as a member on State advisory panels because children in these facilities are a growing population and have specialized needs. A few commenters requested adding representatives from centers for independent living because these individuals are experienced in advocating for people with disabilities. One commenter suggested including State coordinators for education of homeless children and youth. A few commenters suggested including disabled high school and postsecondary students on the list because the intended beneficiaries of the Act are often denied a voice. A few commenters proposed requiring each State advisory panel to be racially, culturally, linguistically, and socio-economically representative of the State. One commenter expressed concern that the new regulations could lead States to abruptly replace current panel members causing discontinuity and decreasing expertise, and recommended phasing in the new requirements and allowing panel members to complete their terms of office. Discussion: The membership of State advisory panels is described in section 612(a)(21)(B) and (C) of the Act and the Department does not agree that there is a need to require additional representatives or to change the panel composition. However, nothing in the Act or these regulations would prevent the appointment of additional representatives, if a State elected to add these individuals. With respect to the request to include State coordinators for education of homeless children on the panels, State and local officials who carry out activities under the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act are already included in the list of individuals identified to serve on the State advisory panels in §300.168(a)(5). Section 612(a)(21)(B) of the Act, as reflected in §300.168, requires the State advisory panel to be representative of the State population and be composed of individuals involved in, or concerned with, the education of children with disabilities. Also, the Act and these regulations require a majority of the panel members to be individuals with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities (ages birth through 26). We also do not believe there is a need to phase in the new requirements, as those members that do not need to change should provide sufficient continuity of panel functions. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46616 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Changes: None. Duties (§300.169) Comment: A few commenters recommended requiring States to submit any rules or regulations related to children with disabilities to the State advisory panel for consideration before the rules are finalized. One commenter requested requiring panel members to take positions on State proposed rules and regulations regarding the education of children with disabilities and offer their views to the appropriate State agencies. Discussion: Section 612(a)(21)(D) of the Act clearly specifies the duties of the State advisory panel and these duties are accurately reflected in §300.169. Paragraph (b) of this section clarifies that the advisory panel must comment publicly on any State proposed rules or regulations regarding the education of children with disabilities. We believe §300.169(b) is sufficient to ensure that the advisory panel has the opportunity to consider any State rules or regulations before they are final and, accordingly, further regulatory language is unnecessary. Further, we believe it is inappropriate to require that panel members ‘‘take positions’’ on proposed rules and regulations because to do so would be overly controlling of the advisory panel and may impact the panel’s ability to effectively meet its statutory responsibility of providing public comment on State proposed rules and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters suggested retaining current §300.652(b), which requires State advisory panels to provide advice for educating students with disabilities in adult correctional facilities. A few of these commenters noted that students in adult correctional facilities are members of one of the most vulnerable populations. Discussion: Given the breadth of the State advisory panel’s statutory responsibilities we removed from the regulations all nonstatutory mandates on the State advisory panel, including the provision in current §300.652(b), regarding advising on the education of eligible students with disabilities who have been convicted as adults and have been incarcerated in adult prisons. We believe placing such nonstatutory mandates on the State advisory panel may hinder the advisory panel’s ability to effectively provide policy guidance with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in the State. There is nothing, however, that would prevent a State from assigning other responsibilities to its State advisory panel, as long as those other duties do not prevent the advisory panel from carrying out its responsibilities under the Act. Changes: None. Access to Instructional Materials (§300.172) Comment: One commenter recommended including the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) in these regulations. Discussion: We agree with the commenter. The final NIMAS was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 41084) and will be included as Appendix C to Part 300— National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard of these regulations. We will add language in §300.172(a) to refer to this location and to reference the publication date of the NIMAS in the Federal Register. Changes: The final NIMAS has been added as appendix C to part 300. We have added language in §300.172(a) to refer to the location of the NIMAS in these regulations and the publication date of the NIMAS in the Federal Register. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the language requiring States to adopt the NIMAS ‘‘in a timely manner’’ is ambiguous and could lead to delays in providing instructional materials to children with disabilities, inconsistencies across States, and increased litigation. Several commenters requested that the regulations specify a timeline for States to adopt the NIMAS. Some commenters recommended requiring all States to adopt the NIMAS by December 3, 2006. However, one commenter stated that States should not be given a deadline to adopt the NIMAS. A number of commenters requested that the regulations define the meaning of ‘‘adopt’’ in §300.172(a) and specify what States must do to adopt the NIMAS. Several commenters recommended defining ‘‘adopt’’ to mean that the State, through regulatory or legislative procedures, designates NIMAS as the only required source format for publishers to convert print instructional materials into specialized formats for children with disabilities. One commenter urged the Department to define ‘‘adopt’’ to mean that a State must accept a NIMAS file as satisfying the publisher’s legal obligation to provide accessible instructional materials. Other commenters recommended that the regulations clearly state that adoption of the NIMAS means that SEAs and LEAs must accept and use electronic copies of instructional materials in the NIMAS format that are provided by the publishers. Discussion: Section 300.172(a), consistent with section 612(a)(23)(A) of the Act, requires States to adopt the NIMAS in a timely manner after the publication of the NIMAS in the Federal Register for the purpose of providing instructional materials to blind or other persons with print disabilities. As noted in the discussion to the previous comment, the NIMAS is included as Appendix C to Part 300—National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard and was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 41084). The Department believes that States should make every effort to adopt the NIMAS in a timely manner following the publication of the NIMAS in the Federal Register, recognizing that the timelines and requirements for adopting new rules, policies, or procedures vary from State to State. States choosing to coordinate with the NIMAC must, consistent with section 612(a)(23)(C) of the Act and §300.172(c) of these regulations, not later than December 3, 2006, as part of any print instructional materials adoption process, procurement contract, or other practice or instrument used for purchase of print instructional materials, enter into a written contract with the publisher of the print instructional materials to: (1) Require the publisher to prepare and, on or before delivery of the print instructional materials, provide the NIMAC with electronic files containing the content of the print instructional materials using the NIMAS; or (2) purchase instructional materials from the publisher that are produced in, or may be rendered in, specialized formats. Clearly, we would expect that these States would have adopted the NIMAS by December 3, 2006. We decline to require a specific adoption date for all States, however, given the lack of specificity in the Act. We also decline to include a definition of ‘‘adopt’’ in these regulations because requirements for adopting new rules and policies may vary from State to State. The Department’s view is that it is inherent in the adoption requirement that, at a minimum, upon ‘‘adoption’’ of the NIMAS, a State must accept and use electronic copies of instructional materials in the NIMAS format for the purpose of providing instructional materials to blind or other persons with print disabilities. Under §300.172(a), adopting the NIMAS is a State responsibility and does not impose any legal obligations on publishers of instructional materials. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46617 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Changes: We have made technical changes in §300.172(c). For clarity, we have replaced the phrase ‘‘not later than’’ with ‘‘as of.’’ We have removed the phrase ‘‘two years after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004’’ because it is unnecessary. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring States to comply with the requirements for public hearings and public comment in section 612(a)(19) of the Act before adopting policies and procedures to implement the requirements in §300.172 related to access to instructional materials. The commenter stated that all interested members of the public, including parents of children with disabilities, are entitled to participate in designing the plan for implementing these policies and procedures. Discussion: Section 300.165(a), consistent with section 612(a)(19) of the Act, requires States to hold public hearings and receive public comment before implementing any policies and procedures needed to comply with Part B of the Act. These public hearing and public comment requirements apply to the policies and procedures needed to implement the requirements in §300.172. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the NIMAS is limited to print materials on the medium of paper or also includes the iconic representation of letters and words. Discussion: The NIMAS is the standard established by the Secretary to be used in the preparation of electronic files of print instructional materials so they can be more easily converted to accessible formats, such as Braille. In addition to print materials, the NIMAS provides standards for textbooks and related core materials where icons replace text. Materials with icons will be available if they are in printed textbooks and related printed core materials that are written and published primarily for use in elementary school and secondary school instruction and are required by an SEA or LEA for use by children in the classroom, consistent with section 674(e)(3)(C) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended clarifying that providing materials in accessible formats includes changes in the depth, breadth, and complexity of materials. Some commenters stated that §300.172 should include language regarding universal design of instructional materials. Discussion: Section 300.172 is consistent with section 612(a)(23) of the Act and focuses specifically on providing access to print instructional materials using the NIMAS. The NIMAS is designed to improve the quality and consistency of print instructional materials converted into accessible formats for persons who are blind and persons with print disabilities, not to alter the content (e.g., the depth, breadth, or complexity) of the print instructional materials. While the NIMAS is designed to make print instructional materials more readily and easily accessible to persons who are blind and persons with print disabilities, it is not intended to provide materials that are universally designed. Therefore, while the Department acknowledges the importance of universal design, it would be inappropriate to reference universal design in this section. The NIMAS Development Center has been charged with examining the need for future changes in the NIMAS. This Center, funded by the Department, is looking at a variety of issues, including the extent to which universal design features should be incorporated into future iterations of the NIMAS. Information about the NIMAS Development Center can be found at: http://nimas.cast.org/. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that books on tape be made available in the same manner as print materials. Discussion: The conversion of text to speech for digital talking books is one of the accessible formats that can be generated from a NIMAS file. The NIMAS makes it possible for such talking books to be generated more efficiently so that children who need them will receive them more quickly than in the past. Such audio formats will be made available for printed textbooks and related printed core materials that are written and published primarily for use in elementary school and secondary school instruction and are required by an SEA or LEA for use by children in the classroom, consistent with section 674(e)(3)(C) of the Act. The NIMAS does not pertain to books on tape that are produced in sound studios. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters requested that the regulations specify that providing instructional materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner means providing these materials at the same time they are provided to children without disabilities. One commenter recommended defining ‘‘in a timely manner’’ as the start of the school year or, for children who transfer schools after the start of the school year, within 30 days of the start of the school year, regardless of whether a State chooses to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: The Department agrees that States should make every effort to provide children with disabilities accessible instructional materials at the same time as other children receive their instructional materials. The Department’s position is consistent with S. Rpt. No. 108–185, p. 19, which states, ‘‘The committee feels strongly that instructional materials should be provided to blind and print disabled students at the same time their fellow students without print disabilities are receiving the same materials.’’ This position also is consistent with H. Rpt. No. 108–77, pp. 97–98. However, the Department recognizes that this may not be possible in all circumstances, for example, when a child with a disability transfers to a new school in the middle of a school year. Additionally, there could be circumstances beyond the control of the public agency that could prevent children with disabilities who need instructional materials in accessible formats from receiving them at the same time as instructional materials are provided to other children, such as if the public agency’s contractor is unable to produce the instructional materials in an accessible format because of some unforeseen circumstance. In situations such as these, it is understandable that the accessible format materials may not be immediately available. Therefore, we will add a provision to the regulations to specify that in order to meet their obligation to provide accessible format instructional materials in a timely way, public agencies must take all reasonable steps to make those instructional materials available at the same time as instructional materials are provided to other children. Reasonable steps, for example, would include requiring publishers or other contractors to provide instructional materials in accessible formats by the beginning of the school year for children whom the public agency has reason to believe will be attending its schools. Reasonable steps also might include having a means of acquiring instructional materials in accessible formats as quickly as possible for children who might transfer into the public agency in the middle of the year. Reasonable steps would not include withholding instructional materials from other children until instructional materials in accessible formats are available. To clarify that the obligation to make instructional materials available in a timely manner applies even to VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46618 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations States that coordinate with the NIMAC, we are adding a new provision to that effect. We also are clarifying that the definitions in §300.172(e) apply to each State and LEA, whether or not the State or LEA chooses to coordinate with the NIMAC. Changes: We have amended paragraph (b) in §300.172 by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) requiring the SEA to ensure that all public agencies take all reasonable steps to provide instructional materials in accessible formats to children with disabilities who need those instructional materials at the same time as other children receive instructional materials. We have reorganized paragraph (c) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) requiring States that coordinate with the NIMAC to provide accessible materials in a timely manner. We have also amended paragraph (e) by adding a new paragraph (e)(2) to clarify that the definitions in §300.172(e)(1) apply to each SEA and LEA whether or not the SEA or LEA chooses to coordinate with the NIMAC. We have made technical changes to §300.172(e) and renumbered §300.172(e) to be consistent with this change. Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the regulations fail to ensure timely access to instructional materials for children with other types of disabilities besides print disabilities. One commenter recommended clarifying that children do not have to be blind or have print disabilities to fit into the description of children who need accessible materials. However, another commenter stated that §300.172(b)(3), which require SEAs to be responsible for providing accessible materials for children for whom assistance is not available from the NIMAC, should be removed because the Act does not include these requirements. A few commenters requested adding a regulation to clarify that the requirements in §300.172 do not apply if an SEA is not responsible for purchasing textbooks. The commenters stated that if an SEA cannot purchase textbooks, it has no legal relationship with textbook publishers and cannot comply with the requirements in §300.172. Discussion: Timely access to appropriate and accessible instructional materials is an inherent component of a public agency’s obligation under the Act to ensure that FAPE is available for children with disabilities and that children with disabilities participate in the general curriculum as specified in their IEPs. Section 300.172(b)(3) provides that nothing relieves an SEA of its responsibility to ensure that children with disabilities who need instructional materials in accessible formats, but who do not fall within the category of children who are eligible to receive materials produced from NIMAS files obtained through the NIMAC, receive those instructional materials in a timely manner. Therefore, we do not believe that any further clarification is necessary. Even SEAs that are not directly responsible for purchasing textbooks have this responsibility. In short, we believe these regulations are necessary to fully implement the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that all children with disabilities should receive assistance from the NIMAC. Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. Section 674(e) of the Act limits the authority of the NIMAC to provide assistance to SEAs and LEAs in acquiring instructional materials for children who are blind, have visual disabilities, or are unable to read or use standard print materials because of physical limitations, and children who have reading disabilities that result from organic dysfunction, as provided for in 36 CFR 701.6. Clearly, SEAs and LEAs that choose to use the services of the NIMAC will be able to assist blind persons or other persons with print disabilities who need accessible instructional materials through this mechanism. However, SEAs and LEAs still have an obligation to provide accessible instructional materials in a timely manner to other children with disabilities who also may need accessible materials even though their SEA or LEA may not receive assistance from the NIMAC, as provided in §§300.172(b)(3) and 300.210(b). Changes: None. Rights and Responsibilities of SEAs (§300.172(b)) Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about allowing States to choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters stated that coordination with the NIMAC should be mandatory for all States. One commenter recommended that the Department strongly encourage States to coordinate with the NIMAC, because it may be difficult for States to provide the assurances required in §300.172(b)(2) if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters recommended that States that cannot demonstrate a past history of providing instructional materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner should be required to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: It would be inconsistent with section 612(a)(23)(B) of the Act to make coordination with the NIMAC mandatory for all States or to require certain States to coordinate with the NIMAC (e.g., States that do not have a history of providing instructional materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner), as suggested by the commenters. Section 612(a)(23)(B) of the Act provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to require any SEA to coordinate with the NIMAC. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested that the regulations clearly define the process for a State to choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters requested additional details on what assurances States must provide if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Other commenters requested that State assurances provide the public with information to evaluate the capacity of the State to provide materials to children who are blind or have print disabilities. Some commenters stated that the assurances provided by States that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC should be done annually and in writing. Several commenters requested that the regulations provide a means for the public to obtain information about which States choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters requested that the Department publish the assurances made by SEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Some commenters stated that SEAs that choose to coordinate with the NIMAC should be required to provide information to the Department on the LEAs in the State that elect not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: Section 300.172(b)(2), consistent with section 612(a)(23)(B) of the Act, requires SEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC to provide an assurance to the Secretary that the agency will provide instructional materials to blind persons and other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. As part of a State’s application for Part B funds, §300.100 and section 612(a) of the Act require States to provide assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect policies and procedures to ensure that the State meets the conditions of eligibility. (The Part B Annual State Application for 2006, OMB No. 1820– 0030, can be found at: http:// www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/ 2006apps.html.) Therefore, the Department will compile a list of the States that choose to coordinate with the NIMAC and those that do not, and will make this list VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46619 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations available on OSEP’s monitoring Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/ speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. Section 612(a)(23)(B) of the Act does not mandate that States coordinate with the NIMAC or place conditions on which States can choose to coordinate with the NIMAC. Therefore, it is unnecessary to require a State’s assurance to include information on its capacity to provide instructional materials to children who are blind or have print disabilities, as commenters recommended. We do not believe it is appropriate to regulate to require States to provide information to the Department on the LEAs in the State that elect not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Under §300.149 and section 612(a)(11) of the Act, States are responsible for ensuring that LEAs in the State meet the requirements of the Act, including providing instructional materials to blind persons or other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. As stated in §300.210 and section 613(a)(6)(B) of the Act, if an LEA chooses not to coordinate with the NIMAC, the LEA must provide an assurance to the SEA that the LEA will provide instructional materials to blind persons or other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters proposed that the regulations require States that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC to annually report to the public on when children with disabilities receive their materials, how print materials are provided in a timely manner, and the steps the State has taken to ensure that materials will be provided at the same time as materials are provided to children without disabilities. One commenter stated that, if a State chooses not to coordinate with the NIMAC, the State should be required to submit data to the Department on the number of children with print disabilities served by the State and when those children received the accessible version of print instructional materials compared with when other children received their materials. Other commenters recommended that States choosing not to coordinate with the NIMAC should be required to develop and publish their policies and procedures that govern how they maintain and distribute NIMAS files. Discussion: It would be unfair to impose additional data collection and reporting requirements, such as those requested by the commenters, only on those States that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. All States, regardless of whether they choose to coordinate with the NIMAC, must ensure that children with disabilities who need instructional materials in accessible formats receive instructional materials in a timely manner, consistent with §300.172(b)(3). Furthermore, even States that choose to coordinate with the NIMAC will need to take steps to ensure that the instructional materials for children eligible to receive print instructional materials derived from NIMAS files are received in a timely manner. As provided in section 674(e)(3)(A) of the Act, the NIMAC is a distribution center for NIMAS files obtained from publishers, SEAs, and LEAs. Section 612(a)(23) of the Act requires SEAs that choose to coordinate with the NIMAC to enter into written contracts with publishers to require the publishers to provide electronic files using the NIMAS to the NIMAC on, or before, delivery of the print instructional materials to the SEA. The NIMAC is not responsible for converting NIMAS files to the accessible formats needed by the children eligible to receive print instructional materials derived from NIMAS files. All States will need to arrange to have the NIMAS files converted to student-ready versions of instructional materials in the accessible formats needed by these children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide information and training to States and LEAs on the NIMAC so that they can make an informed choice regarding whether to coordinate with the NIMAC. Another commenter recommended that the Department provide written guidance for States and LEAs regarding the NIMAS and the NIMAC. Discussion: The Department recognizes the need to provide information to SEAs and LEAs regarding the NIMAS and the NIMAC and will provide technical assistance through the NIMAS Technical Assistance Center after the Department has approved the NIMAC procedures. Changes: None. Preparation and Delivery of Files (§300.172(c)) Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require instructional materials provided to children with disabilities to be complete and accurate. Another commenter requested requiring publishers to provide copies of the original books to the NIMAC along with the electronic files, because a copy of the original book is necessary for alignment of page numbers and descriptions of pictures. Discussion: We understand and appreciate the importance of having a copy of the original material to ensure accuracy of the files. However, the NIMAC is not responsible for ensuring the accuracy of materials, aligning page numbers, or describing pictures. Rather, the NIMAC is a distribution center for NIMAS files obtained from publishers, SEAs, and LEAs. Consistent with section 674(e)(3)(A) of the Act, the duties of the NIMAC are to receive and maintain a catalog of print instructional materials prepared in the NIMAS format and made available to the NIMAC by the textbook publishing industry, SEAs, and LEAs. Accessible, student-ready versions of instructional materials are created from NIMAS source files by national third-party conversion organizations; regional or State conversion sources; desktop applications created by software developers; or curriculum publishers that produce accessible alternate format versions for direct sale to SEAs and LEAs. The Act does not authorize the Department to impose obligations on such entities to provide accurate materials. States and LEAs that contract with such entities, however, may wish to require the accuracy of such materials, including the alignment of page numbers and descriptions of pictures, as part of their agreements. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations permit an SEA to receive assistance from the NIMAC, even if the SEA is not formally coordinating with the NIMAC. Discussion: The Act does not require the NIMAC to provide assistance to SEAs if the SEA has chosen not to coordinate with the NIMAC. However, there is nothing in the Act that would prevent the NIMAC from doing so. As stated in section 674(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the NIMAC must provide access to print instructional materials, including textbooks, in accessible media, free of charge, to blind or other persons with print disabilities in elementary and secondary schools, in accordance with such terms and procedures as the NIMAC may prescribe. Providing this access could include assisting an SEA, even if the SEA has chosen not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations include an accountability mechanism so that parents and schools know whether the State or LEA is responsible for the timely delivery of instructional materials. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46620 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Discussion: Whether instructional materials are purchased by the State or LEA is a State matter. The Act does not authorize the Department to impose obligations on States or LEAs with respect to the process for timely delivery of instructional materials. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter emphasized the need to track the progress and monitor the advancement of accessible materials on a national and regional level. Another commenter stated that there is a need to establish SEA and LEA baseline data regarding the timeliness, quality, and quantity of alternate formats in schools. One commenter stated that States should be required to publicize information regarding whether the State is meeting its responsibilities to provide accessible materials to persons who are blind or other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. Discussion: We believe that it would be overly burdensome to require States to collect and report data on the timeliness, quality, and quantity of alternate formats provided to children with disabilities in order to track the availability of accessible materials for children with disabilities on a regional or national level. Under the State complaint procedures, States are responsible for resolving complaints alleging violations of requirements under the Act, including this one. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested information on the scope of the NIMAC’s responsibilities. Discussion: The duties of the NIMAC are specified in section 674(e)(2) of the Act and include: (a) receiving and maintaining a catalog of print instructional materials prepared in the NIMAS format; (b) providing access to print instructional materials in accessible media, free of charge to blind or other persons with print disabilities in elementary schools and secondary schools; and (c) developing, adopting, and publishing procedures to protect against copyright infringement, with respect to print instructional materials provided under sections 612(a)(23) and 613(a)(6) of the Act. Section 674(c) of the Act provides that NIMAC’s duties apply to print instructional materials published after July 19, 2006, the date on which the final rule establishing the NIMAS is published in the Federal Register (71 FR 41084). The Department interprets ‘‘publish’’ to have the plain meaning of the word, which is to issue for sale or distribution to the public. The NIMAC’s duties, therefore, apply to print instructional materials made available to the public for sale after the NIMAS is published in the Federal Register. However, this does not relieve SEAs and LEAs of their responsibility to provide accessible instructional materials in a timely manner, regardless of when the instructional materials were ‘‘published.’’ Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that the regulations do not specify the structure and operation of the NIMAC. One commenter requested that the Department provide more information about the operation of the NIMAC. Another commenter recommended that the NIMAC’s management board include representatives of authorized entities. One commenter requested information on the legal protections that the Department will provide to the NIMAC. Another commenter requested specific information on the process and timing of the funding of the NIMAC. One commenter recommended a timeline with a series of activities (e.g., establishment of a cooperative agreement, cost projections) to ensure that the NIMAC is operational. Another commenter recommended that the Department develop a process to ensure that the files included in the NIMAC are NIMAS compliant, complete, and of the highest quality. One commenter expressed concern about how NIMAS files will be bundled and delivered to the NIMAC. Discussion: We do not believe that regulations on the structure, operation, or budget of the NIMAC are necessary. Section 674(e) of the Act establishes the NIMAC through the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) and allows the NIMAC to prescribe terms and procedures to perform its duties under the Act. The Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will oversee the administration of the NIMAC through a cooperative agreement with the APH and will work with the NIMAC to establish its structure, operating procedures, and budget. The NIMAC procedures will be available on the NIMAC Web site at: http://www.nimac.us. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the duties of the NIMAC to receive and maintain electronic files of instructional materials provided by publishers should not be misconstrued as imposing a duty on the NIMAC itself to use the NIMAS files to reproduce the instructional materials in accessible formats for children with print disabilities. Discussion: The Act clarifies that the NIMAC is not responsible for producing instructional materials in accessible formats. As stated in section 674(e)(2) of the Act, the NIMAC receives and maintains a catalog of print instructional materials prepared in the NIMAS, and made available to the NIMAC by the textbook publishing industry, SEAs, and LEAs. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about clear guidance regarding electronic rights. Another commenter recommended that the regulations require the NIMAC to develop a user agreement that any entity seeking access to a NIMAS file must sign. The commenters stated that the agreement should detail the entities that are eligible under Federal copyright law and the Act to access the NIMAS files, the alternate formats that may be produced, and any other restrictions on the dissemination and use of NIMAS files. One commenter stated that the regulations should require that the authorized entities have full, complete, and immediate access to deposited files and clarify that the authorized entities are responsible for reproducing the instructional materials in an accessible format and therefore, the files housed by the NIMAC should be free of charge. Another commenter stated that the Department should ensure that NIMAS books are available to all authorized entities and the appropriate State organizations within five days after the books are deposited in the NIMAC. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to regulate on the authorized entities eligible to have access to the NIMAS files. Under section 674(e)(2)(C) of the Act, the NIMAC is required to develop, adopt, and publish procedures to protect against copyright infringement, with respect to the print instructional materials produced using the NIMAS and provided by SEAs and LEAs to blind persons or other persons with print disabilities. Such procedures will address, for example, information regarding the authorized entities that are eligible to have access to NIMAS files, responsibilities of such authorized entities, and how and when access will be provided. The NIMAC procedures will be available on the NIMAC Web site at: http://www.nimac.us. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested several changes in the process to make Braille copies of instructional materials including constructing directions for choosing answers in universal terms, such as ‘‘write the correct response,’’ rather than ‘‘circle’’ or ‘‘underline;’’ describing, in writing, visuals that cannot be easily interpreted; using hard VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46621 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations paper for Braille and raised drawings, rather than thermoform; using hard- bound bindings for text, rather than plastic spiral binders; using audio formats as supplemental materials; and using simple graphics with easy access to map keys on the same page. Discussion: Procedures for Braille transcribers and for conversion entities are the responsibility of SEAs and LEAs and, as such, are beyond the scope of these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that software companies routinely create desktop publishing programs that contain text to speech capabilities. Discussion: It is beyond the Department’s authority to impose requirements on software companies. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that a NIMAS style guide be developed that is textbook specific. Discussion: The NIMAS Technical Assistance Center will develop a best practices Web page with exemplars and a style guide. This technical assistance resource will be available at: http:// nimas.cast.org. Changes: None. Assistive Technology (§300.172(d)) Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify that the ‘‘assistive technology programs,’’ referred to in §300.172(d), are the programs established in each State pursuant to the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended. Discussion: Section 300.172(d) and section 612(a)(23)(D) of the Act provide that in carrying out the requirements in §300.172, the SEA, to the maximum extent possible, must work collaboratively with the State agency responsible for assistive technology programs. Section 612(a)(23)(D) of the Act does not refer to any particular assistive technology program. Therefore, we interpret broadly the phrase ‘‘State agency responsible for assistive technology programs’’ to mean the agency determined by the State to be responsible for assistive technology programs, which may include programs established under section 4 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended. Changes: None. Definitions (§300.172(e)) Comment: Several commenters requested that §300.172(e) include the full definition of terms, rather than the citations to the definitions in the laws. A number of commenters requested that the regulations include a definition of ‘‘persons with print disabilities.’’ Discussion: We have published the NIMAS as Appendix C to Part 300— National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard of these regulations, which will include the definition of NIMAS from section 674(e)(3)(B) of the Act. The definition of the NIMAC in new §300.172(e)(1)(ii) (proposed §300.172(e)(2)) and section 612(a)(23)(E)(i) of the Act refers to the center established pursuant to section 674(e) of the Act. Paragraph (e)(1) in section 674 of the Act establishes the center at the APH and paragraph (e)(2) outlines the duties of the NIMAC. We do not believe it is necessary to include this information in the regulations in order to implement the requirements of the Act, but will include it here for the convenience of the readers. National Instructional Materials Access Center or NIMAC means the center established pursuant to section 674(e) of the Act. Section 674(e) of the Act provides, in part, that— (1) In general. The Secretary shall establish and support, through the American Printing House for the Blind, a center to be known as the ‘‘National Instructional Materials Access Center’’ not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2) Duties. The duties of the NIMAC are the following: (A) To receive and maintain a catalog of print instructional materials prepared in the NIMAS, as established by the Secretary, made available to such center by the textbook publishing industry, State educational agencies, and local educational agencies. (B) To provide access to print instructional materials, including textbooks, in accessible media, free of charge, to blind or other persons with print disabilities in elementary schools and secondary schools, in accordance with such terms and procedures as the NIMAC may prescribe. (C) To develop, adopt and publish procedures to protect against copyright infringement, with respect to the print instructional materials provided under sections 612(a)(23) and 613(a)(6). The definitions of blind persons or other persons with print disabilities and specialized format both refer to statutes other than the Act. For the reasons set forth earlier in this notice, we are referencing the definitions of terms in §300.172(e), rather than adding them to these regulations. However, we will include them here for the convenience of the readers. The Library of Congress regulations (36 CFR 701.6(b)(1)) related to the Act to Provide Books for the Adult Blind (approved March 3, 1931, 2 U.S.C. 135a) provide that blind persons or other persons with print disabilities include: (i) Blind persons whose visual acuity, as determined by competent authority, is 20/200 or less in the better eye with correcting glasses, or whose widest diameter if visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees. (ii) Persons whose visual disability, with correction and regardless of optical measurement, is certified by competent authority as preventing the reading of standard printed material. (iii) Persons certified by competent authority as unable to read or unable to use standard printed material as a result of physical limitations. (iv) Persons certified by competent authority as having a reading disability resulting from organic dysfunction and of sufficient severity to prevent their reading printed material in a normal manner. Competent authority is defined in 36 CFR 701.6(b)(2) as follows: (i) In cases of blindness, visual disability, or physical limitations ‘‘competent authority’’ is defined to include doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, ophthalmologists, optometrists, registered nurses, therapists, professional staff of hospitals, institutions, and public or welfare agencies (e.g., social workers, case workers, counselors, rehabilitation teachers, and superintendents). (ii) In the case of a reading disability from organic dysfunction, competent authority is defined as doctors of medicine who may consult with colleagues in associated disciplines. Specialized formats has the meaning given the term in section 121(d)(4) of title 17, United States Code: (A) Braille, audio, or digital text which is exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities. (B) With respect to print instructional materials, includes large print formats when such materials are distributed exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities. Changes: As noted earlier, we have amended paragraph (e) of §300.172 by adding a new paragraph (e)(2) to clarify that the definitions in §300.172(e)(1) apply to each SEA and LEA whether or not the SEA or LEA chooses to coordinate with the NIMAC. We have made technical changes to §300.172(e) and renumbered §300.172(e) to be consistent with this change. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46622 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Prohibition on Mandatory Medication (§300.174) Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that the regulations do not provide sufficient guidance on what school personnel can communicate to parents regarding medication. The commenters stated that in the absence of additional guidance, the regulations have the unintended effect of preventing school personnel from speaking openly with parents regarding classroom behavior, options for addressing behavior problems, and the impact of a child’s medication on classroom behavior. Further, the commenters requested that the regulations do more to encourage school personnel to recommend evaluations for children with behavior problems and communicate openly with parents about the effectiveness of treatment, and protect school personnel. Other commenters recommended requiring school personnel to inform parents if they suspect that a child’s behavior may be related to a disability. Discussion: We believe that §300.174 provides sufficient guidance on what school personnel can and cannot communicate to parents regarding a child’s medication. Paragraph (a) clarifies that school personnel cannot require parents to obtain a prescription for medication for a child as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation to determine if a child is eligible for special education services, or receiving special education and related services under the Act. Paragraph (b) clearly permits classroom personnel to speak with parents or guardians regarding a child’s academic and functional performance, behavior in the classroom or school, or the need for an evaluation to determine the need for special education or related services. We do not believe that further regulations are needed to encourage school personnel to recommend evaluations for children with behavior problems or to require school personnel to inform parents if they suspect a child’s behavior may be related to a disability. The child find requirements in §300.111 clarify that States must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in a State and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. Changes: None. States’ Sovereign Immunity (New §300.177) Comment: None. Discussion: In developing the proposed regulations, we incorporated those provisions of subpart A that apply to States. We inadvertently omitted the provisions in section 604 of the Act, regarding States’ sovereign immunity. We have added these to the regulations in new §300.177. In paragraph (a), we have clarified that the statutory language means that a State must waive immunity in order to receive Part B funds. This is the longstanding interpretation of the Department and is consistent with Federal Circuit Courts’ decisions interpreting this statutory language. (See, e.g., Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005); M.A. ex rel. E.S. v. State- Operated Sch. Dist., 344 F.3d 335 (3rd Cir. 2003); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Mauney, 183 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1999); Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 1997).) Changes: We have added the provisions in section 604 of the Act, regarding States’ sovereign immunity, to new §300.177. Department Procedures (§§300.178 Through 300.186) Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements in §§300.179 through 300.183, regarding the notice and hearing procedures before the Secretary determines a State is not eligible to receive a grant under Part B of the Act, are unnecessary and go beyond what is required in section 612(d) of the Act. The commenter recommended removing §§300.179 through 300.183 and including additional language in §300.178 clarifying that the Secretary has the authority to develop specific administrative procedures to determine if States meet statutory requirements for eligibility under Part B of the Act and that such procedures must include notification of eligibility or non- eligibility, an opportunity for a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal of the hearing decision. Discussion: The Department does not agree with the commenter that the notification and hearing procedures included in §§300.179 through 300.183 are unnecessary and go beyond what is required in section 612(d) of the Act. Section 612(d)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall not make a final determination that a State is not eligible to receive a grant under this part until after providing the State with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing. When the Secretary proposes to deny a State’s eligibility to receive a grant under Part B of the Act, withhold funds, or take other enforcement action, it is important to all parties that the process through which those issues will be decided is clearly described, so that time, money, and effort are not spent resolving procedural questions instead of the underlying issues. For these reasons, we believe it is important to retain §§300.179 through 300.183 in the regulations. Changes: None. Judicial Review (§300.184) Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify in the regulations the status of a State’s operation of a program or eligibility to receive a grant under Part B of the Act while a final judicial decision is pending with respect to the State’s eligibility under section 612 of the Act. Discussion: Under section 612(a) of the Act, States must meet certain conditions in order to be eligible for a grant under the Part B program. Under section 612(d) of the Act, if the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, makes a final determination that a State is not eligible for a grant, the Secretary may not award funds to the State. The procedures in §§300.179 through 300.183 detail the process through which the Secretary notifies a State of a proposed ineligibility determination, the hearing available to the State to dispute this proposal, and the process through which the Secretary makes a final determination. The Secretary’s final determination may be appealed through the judicial review procedure described in section 616(e)(8) of the Act and §300.184. We decline to address this issue more specifically in the regulations, however, as we think the regulations already adequately convey the idea that only States that the Secretary determines to be eligible can receive a grant. Changes: None. By-Pass for Children in Private Schools (§§300.190 through 300.198) Comment: One commenter stated that §§300.190 through 300.198 are unnecessary because the Act gives sufficient authority for the Secretary to implement a by-pass for children with disabilities enrolled in private elementary schools and secondary schools. Discussion: Section 300.190 retains the authority for a by-pass in current §300.480 and includes additional authority for a by-pass, consistent with section 612(f)(1) of the Act, in cases where the Secretary determines that an SEA, LEA, or public agency has substantially failed, or is unwilling, to provide for equitable participation of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. When the Secretary authorizes a by-pass it is important that all parties understand the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46623 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations process by which the Secretary determines the funds that will be deducted from the State’s allocation under Part B of the Act to provide services, as well as the actions that are required before the Secretary takes any final action to implement a by-pass. When such processes and procedures are clearly described, time, money, and effort are not spent resolving procedural questions. The requirements in §§300.190 through 300.198 provide this information and we believe are necessary to clarify and ensure effective implementation of the by-pass provisions in the Act. We are making one change to §300.191(d) to clarify that the Secretary deducts amounts the Secretary determines necessary to implement a by-pass from the State’s allocations under sections 611 and 619 of the Act. Changes: In §300.191(d) we have substituted a reference to sections 611 and 619 of the Act for a reference to Part B of the Act. Show Cause Hearing (§300.194) Comment: One commenter opposed allowing a lawyer for the SEA or LEA to present oral and written evidence and arguments at a show cause hearing because parents are often intimidated by having to face a lawyer. Discussion: Section 300.194(a)(3) provides an opportunity for an SEA, LEA, or other public agency, and representatives of private elementary schools and secondary schools to be represented by legal counsel and to submit oral or written evidence or arguments at a hearing to show cause why a by-pass should not be implemented. Parents are not parties to this hearing and generally would not appear before the show cause hearing officer, and would, therefore, not be intimidated by a participating lawyer. We believe that it is only fair that the party to the hearing (SEA, LEA, or other public agency, and representatives of private schools) be provided the option to be represented by legal counsel because legal counsel will generally represent the Department, as a party to the hearing. Changes: None. State Administration (§300.199) Comment: One commenter indicated that §300.199 is improperly placed in the regulations under the general heading ‘‘By-pass for Children in Private Schools.’’ Discussion: We agree with the commenter that §300.199 does not belong under the general heading ‘‘By- Pass for Children in Private Schools.’’ Changes: A new undesignated center heading entitled ‘‘State Administration’’ will be added immediately preceding §300.199 to separate that section from the regulations related to implementation of the by-pass provisions of the Act. Comment: One commenter recommended including in §300.199 a requirement that States may not eliminate from their rules, regulations, and policies any provisions required by Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations. Discussion: Section 300.199 incorporates the requirement in section 608 of the Act that any rulemaking related to the Act conducted by the State conform to the purposes of the Act. Consistent with section 608 of the Act, §300.199 makes clear that each State that receives funds under Part B of the Act must ensure that any State rules, regulations, and policies relating to 34 CFR part 300 conform to the provisions of 34 CFR part 300. We do not believe it is necessary to add a provision in §300.199 prohibiting States from eliminating from their rules, regulations, and policies any provisions required by Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, as requested by the commenter. If a State were to do so, the State’s rules, regulations, and policies would not conform to the provisions in 34 CFR part 300. Under this provision, a State, and not the Secretary, determines whether a particular rule, regulation, or policy conforms to the purposes of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the mandate to minimize State rules and regulations might discourage States from developing beneficial programs, and, therefore, should not pertain to policies that promote best practices, increased parental involvement, educating children in the least restrictive environment, and improving access to the general curriculum. One commenter recommended including a statement in the regulations that a State would not be penalized for exceeding the minimum requirements of the Act. A few commenters stated that the services provided by the Act were intended to be a ‘‘floor,’’ rather than a ‘‘ceiling’’ and recommended a pilot program to encourage States to adopt rules that best serve the needs of children with disabilities. Discussion: We do not agree that the regulations discourage States from developing beneficial programs or establishing rules that best serve the needs of children with disabilities. In fact, §300.199(b), consistent with section 608(b) of the Act, requires State rules, regulations, and policies under the Act to support and facilitate LEA and school-level system improvement designed to enable children with disabilities to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards. Section 300.199(a), consistent with section 608(a) of the Act, is intended to minimize the number of rules, regulations, and policies to which LEAs and schools are subject under the Act, and to identify in writing any rule, regulation, or policy that is State- imposed and not required under the Act and its implementing regulations. The Department’s position is consistent with S. Rpt. No. 108–185, p. 10, which states ‘‘Through section 608(a), the committee is in no way attempting to reduce State input or State practice in this area, but intends to make clear what is a Federal obligation and what is a State or local educational agency requirement for the Act.’’ We believe it is important for parents, teachers, school administrators, State lawmakers, and others to understand what is required under the Act, and, therefore, do not believe that §300.199 should be changed. Changes: None. Subpart C—Local Educational Agency Eligibility Consistency With State Policies (§300.201) Comment: Some commenters recommended requiring LEAs to seek input from parents of children with disabilities in the development of LEA policies, procedures, and programs. Discussion: Section 300.201, consistent with section 613(a)(1) of the Act, requires each LEA to have in effect policies, procedures, and programs that are consistent with State policies and procedures. It is up to each State and its LEAs to determine the manner in which LEAs develop their policies, procedures, and programs, consistent with State law and procedures. The Act does not authorize the Department to impose additional obligations on States or LEAs with respect to the development of LEA policies, procedures, and programs. Changes: None. Maintenance of effort (§§300.202 through 300.205) Comment: A few commenters stated that the maintenance of effort requirements are complicated and unnecessary and should be eliminated or simplified. Discussion: Sections 300.202 through 300.205, regarding maintenance of effort and the LEA’s use of funds received VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46624 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations under Part B of the Act, reflect the specific statutory requirements in section 613(a)(2) of the Act, as well as necessary information regarding the implementation of these requirements. Much of the additional information in §§300.202 through 300.205 was included in various sections throughout the current regulations. We continue to believe that this information is necessary for the proper implementation of the Act. Section 300.204(e), which has been newly added to the regulations, includes the assumption of costs by the high cost fund as an additional condition under which an LEA may reduce its level of expenditures. We believe this provision is necessary because LEAs should not be required to maintain a level of fiscal effort based on costs that are assumed by the SEA’s high cost fund. In short, we have tried to present the regulations relating to LEA maintenance of effort in a clear manner, while being consistent with the language of the Act (which we do not have the authority to change) and including only as much additional information as is necessary to ensure proper implementation of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that LEAs should be permitted to use a reasonable amount of their Part B funds to meet the Act’s requirements relating to student assessment, outcomes, complaints, compliance monitoring, mediation, and due process hearings. Discussion: With one exception, nothing in the Act or these regulations would prevent an LEA from using its Part B allotment for the activities noted by the commenter, so long as the expenditures meet the other applicable requirements under the Act and regulations. LEAs may not use their Part B funds to support the mediation process described in §300.506. Consistent with section 615(e)(2)(D) of the Act, §300.506(b)(4) requires the State (not the LEA) to bear the cost of that mediation process. Although LEAs may not use their Part B funds to support the mediation process required under §300.506(b)(4), they may use their Part B funds to support alternative mediation processes that they offer. Some LEAs (and States) offer alternative mediation processes, in addition to the mediation process required under section 615 of the Act. These alternative mediation processes generally were established prior to the Federal mandate for mediation and some LEAs (and States) continue to offer parents the option of using these alternative mediation processes to resolve disputes. Therefore, if an LEA has an alternative mediation process, it may use its Part B funds for this process, so long as parents are provided access to the required mediation process under section 615 of the Act and are not required to use an alternative mediation process in order to engage in the mediation process provided under section 615 of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested clarifying that ‘‘per capita’’ in §300.203(b) means the amount per child with a disability in an LEA. Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include a definition of ‘‘per capita’’ in §300.203(b) because we believe that, in the context of the regulations, it is clear that we are using this term to refer to the amount per child with a disability served by the LEA. Changes: None. Exception to Maintenance of Effort (§300.204) Comment: One commenter recommended expanding the exceptions to the maintenance of effort requirements in §300.204(a) to include negotiated reductions in staff salaries or benefits so that LEAs are not penalized for being proactive in reducing costs. Another commenter recommended revising §300.204 to allow LEAs to apply for a waiver of the maintenance of effort requirements in cases of fiscal emergencies. Discussion: Section 300.204(a) through (d) reflects the language in section 613(a)(2)(B) of the Act and clarifies the conditions under which LEAs may reduce the level of expenditures below the level of expenditures for the preceding year. Nothing in the Act permits an exception for negotiated reductions in staff salaries or benefits or financial emergencies. Accordingly, to expand the exceptions to the maintenance of effort requirements, as recommended by the commenters, would be beyond the authority of the Department. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested clarification as to whether the exceptions to the maintenance of effort requirements apply to an LEA that uses funds from its SEA’s high cost fund under §300.704(c) during the preceding year. Discussion: We do not believe further clarification is necessary because §300.204(e) clearly states that the assumption of costs by a State-operated high cost fund under §300.704(c) would be a permissible reason for reducing local maintenance of effort. This provision was included in the proposed regulations in recognition that the new statutory authority in section 611(e)(3) of the Act that permits States to establish a fund to pay for some high costs associated with certain children with disabilities could logically and appropriately result in lower expenditures for some LEAs. Changes: None. Adjustments to Local Fiscal Efforts in Certain Fiscal Years (§300.205) Comment: A few commenters stated that the link between early intervening services and reductions in maintenance of effort in §300.205(d) is not in the Act. Some commenters expressed concern that this requirement forces an LEA to choose between providing early intervening services and directing local funds toward nondisabled children. One commenter stated that linking the use of funds for early intervening services to reduction in maintenance of effort in §300.205 is not logical and was not the intent of Congress. Discussion: The link between reductions in local maintenance of effort (reflected in §300.205(d)) and the amount of Part B funds that LEAs may use to provide early intervening services (reflected in §300.226) is established in the Act. Section 300.205(d) tracks the statutory language in section 613(a)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act and §300.226(a) tracks the statutory language in section 613(f)(1) of the Act. Section 300.205(d) states that the amount of funds expended by an LEA for early intervening services under §300.226 counts toward the maximum amount of expenditures that an LEA may reduce in its local maintenance of effort. Section 300.226(a) clearly states that the amount of Part B funds an LEA may use to provide early intervening services may not exceed 15 percent of the funds the LEA receives under Part B of the Act less any amount reduced by the LEA under §300.205. As noted in the NPRM, the Department believes it is important to caution LEAs that seek to reduce their local maintenance of effort in accordance with §300.205(d) and use some of their Part B funds for early intervening services under §300.226 because the local maintenance of effort reduction provision and the authority to use Part B funds for early intervening services are interconnected. The decision that an LEA makes about the amount of funds that it uses for one purpose affects the amount that it may use for the other. Appendix D to Part 300—Maintenance of Effort and Early Intervening Services includes examples that illustrate how §§300.205(d) and 300.226(a) affect one another. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46625 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Changes: We have added a reference to Appendix D in §300.226(a). Schoolwide Programs Under Title I of the ESEA (§300.206) Comment: A few commenters recommended specifying in §300.206(b) that LEAs can use only funds provided under section 611 of the Act (and not section 619 of the Act) to carry out a schoolwide program under section 1114 of the ESEA. The commenters stated that this change is necessary so that the per capita amount of Federal Part B funds used to carry out a schoolwide program is not artificially inflated by including preschool grant funds that are used to serve children ages three through five who are not placed in a title I school. Discussion: Section 613(a)(2)(D) of the Act specifically provides that an LEA may use any funds it receives under Part B of the Act to carry out schoolwide programs under title I of the ESEA. Part B funds include any funds an LEA receives under sections 611 and 619 of the Act. Changes: None. Personnel Development (§300.207) Comment: A few commenters suggested requiring LEAs to train their personnel through research-based practices in order to ensure that personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared to implement Part B of the Act. Discussion: We believe the regulations already address the commenters’ concern and reflect the Department’s position that high-quality professional development, including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, is important to ensure that personnel have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities. Section 300.207, consistent with section 613(a)(3) of the Act, requires each LEA to ensure that all personnel necessary to carry out Part B of the Act are appropriately prepared, subject to the requirements in §300.156 and section 2122 of the ESEA. Section 300.156(a), consistent with section 612(a)(14) of the Act, clearly states that each State must establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. Further, section 2122(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA requires an LEA’s application to the State for title II funds (Preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals) to address how the LEA’s activities will be based on a review of scientifically based research. Changes: None. Purchase of Instructional Materials (§300.210) Comment: One commenter recommended requiring LEAs to hold public hearings that meet the requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act before adopting its policies and procedures to purchase instructional materials. The commenter stated that all interested members of the public, including parents of children with disabilities, are entitled to participate in designing the plan to meet the requirements in §300.210. Discussion: The Act does not require LEAs to hold public hearings before implementing new policies and procedures. This is a matter for each State to determine, based on its rules governing public hearings and public comment. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate for these regulations to require LEAs to hold public hearings and receive public comment on the LEA’s purchase of instructional materials, as requested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements in §300.210(b)(3) are unnecessary and should be removed because the Act does not require LEAs to provide accessible materials for children with disabilities for whom assistance is not available from the NIMAC. Discussion: We believe that §300.210(b)(3) is necessary because timely access to appropriate and accessible instructional materials is an inherent component of an LEA’s obligation under the Act to ensure that FAPE is available for all children with disabilities and that children with disabilities participate in the general curriculum as specified in their IEPs. Because the NIMAC is not required to serve all children with disabilities who need accessible materials, we believe it is important that the regulations make clear that LEAs are still responsible for ensuring that children with disabilities who need instructional materials in accessible formats, but who do not fall within the definition of children who are eligible to receive materials produced from NIMAS files obtained through the NIMAC, receive them in a timely manner. We, therefore, decline to delete §300.210(b)(3). Changes: None. Comment: A significant number of commenters expressed concern about allowing LEAs to choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters stated that coordination with the NIMAC should be mandatory for all LEAs. Other commenters recommended that LEAs that cannot demonstrate a history of providing instructional materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner should be required to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: It would be inconsistent with section 613(a)(6)(B) of the Act to make coordination with the NIMAC mandatory for all LEAs or to require certain LEAs to coordinate with the NIMAC (e.g., LEAs that do not have a history of providing instructional materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner). Section 613(a)(6)(B) of the Act provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to require any LEA to coordinate with the NIMAC. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested that the regulations clearly define the process LEAs must go through if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters requested additional details on what assurances LEAs must provide if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters requested that LEA assurances provide the public with information to evaluate the capacity of the LEA to provide materials to children who are blind or have print disabilities. Some commenters stated that the assurances provided by LEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC should be done annually and in writing. Several commenters requested that the regulations provide a means for the public to obtain information about which LEAs choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. A few commenters recommended requiring LEAs to report to the Department whether they choose to coordinate with the NIMAC. Some commenters requested that the Department publish the assurances made in accordance with §300.210(b) by LEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: The process by which LEAs choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC and the assurances that LEAs must provide if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC are determined by each State. Section 300.210(b)(2), consistent with section 613(a)(6)(B) of the Act, states that, if an LEA chooses not to coordinate with the NIMAC, the LEA must provide an assurance to the SEA that the LEA will provide instructional materials to blind persons or other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. Therefore, it would be unnecessary and burdensome to require LEAs to provide VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46626 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations assurances to the Department or to require LEAs to report to the Department whether they choose to coordinate with the NIMAC. Each State has its own mechanisms and processes for obtaining assurances from its LEAs, and we believe it would be inappropriate for these regulations to define the process by which LEAs inform the SEA that they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC or to specify the content of the assurances that LEAs must provide to the SEA if they choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Similarly, it is up to each State to determine whether and how the State will provide information to the public about LEAs in the State that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters proposed that the regulations require LEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC to annually report to the public on when children with disabilities receive their materials, how print materials are provided in a timely manner, and the steps the LEA has taken to ensure that materials are provided at the same time as materials are provided to children without disabilities. Other commenters recommended requiring LEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC to develop and publish their policies and procedures that govern how they maintain and distribute NIMAS files. Discussion: We believe that imposing additional data collection and reporting requirements, such as those requested by the commenters, on LEAs that choose not to coordinate with the NIMAC is a matter that is best left to the States. States are responsible for ensuring that accessible instructional materials are provided in a timely manner to all children with disabilities who need them, and are, therefore, in the best position to know what controls, if any, are needed in their State to ensure that LEAS comply with the requirements in §300.210(b)(3). All LEAs, regardless of whether they choose to coordinate with the NIMAC, must ensure that children with disabilities who need instructional materials in accessible formats receive them in a timely manner, consistent with §300.210(b)(3). Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department provide information to LEAs on the NIMAC and the NIMAS so that LEAs can make an informed choice regarding whether to coordinate with the NIMAC. Discussion: The Department recognizes the need to provide information to LEAs regarding the NIMAC and the NIMAS. The Department has already provided numerous informational sessions on the NIMAC and NIMAS and more are planned following the publication of the regulations and approval of the NIMAC procedures. Information about the NIMAC Technical Assistance Center is available at the following Web site: http://www.aph.org/nimac/index.html. Information on the NIMAS can be obtained at: http://nimas.cast.org. Changes: None. Early Intervening Services (§300.226) Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying that early intervening services should not be used to delay the evaluation of children suspected of having a disability. Discussion: We believe that §300.226(c), which states that nothing in §300.226 will be construed to delay appropriate evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability, makes clear that early intervening services may not delay an appropriate evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirements for early intervening services do not adequately protect the child’s right to FAPE and recommended that the requirements include provisions regarding notice, consent, and withdrawal of consent, as well as guidelines for referrals for evaluation. Discussion: Children receiving early intervening services do not have the same rights and protections as children identified as eligible for services under sections 614 and 615 of the Act. Section 300.226(c), consistent with section 613(f)(3) of the Act, is clear that early intervening services neither limit nor create a right to FAPE. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended that the regulations specify how long a child may receive early intervening services before an initial evaluation for special education services under §300.301 is conducted. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to specify how long a child can receive early intervening services before an initial evaluation is conducted. If a child receiving early intervening services is suspected of having a disability, the LEA must conduct a full and individual evaluation in accordance with §§300.301, 300.304 and 300.305 to determine if the child is a child with a disability and needs special education and related services. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters suggested clarifying that Part B funds for early intervening services should not be used for any child previously identified as being a child with a disability. Discussion: A child previously identified as being a child with a disability who currently does not need special education or related services would not be prevented from receiving early intervening services. For example, a child who received special education services in kindergarten and had services discontinued in grade 1 (because the public agency and the parent agreed that the child was no longer a child with a disability), could receive early intervening services in grade 2 if the child was found to be in need of additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in the general education environment. We believe that language should be added to §300.226 to clarify that early intervening services are for children who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services. Changes: We have modified §300.226(a) to clarify that early intervening services are available to children who currently are not identified as needing special education or related services. Comment: One commenter recommended specifying that unless LEAs have significant over- identification and over-representation of minority students in special education, LEAs may not use Federal Part B funds for early intervening services unless they can demonstrate that all eligible children are receiving FAPE. Another commenter suggested prohibiting the use of Part B funds for early intervening services if an LEA is not providing FAPE to all eligible children. Discussion: The Act does not restrict the use of funds for early intervening services only to LEAs that can demonstrate that all eligible children with disabilities are receiving FAPE. Section 613(f)(1) of the Act generally permits LEAs to use funds for early intervening services for children in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on children in kindergarten through grade 3) who have not been identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. No other restrictions on this authority, such as a requirement that the LEA first demonstrate that it is providing FAPE to all eligible children, are specified or appropriate. The authority to use some Part B funds for early intervening VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46627 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations services has the potential to benefit special education, as well as the education of other children, by reducing academic and behavioral problems in the regular educational environment and reducing the number of referrals to special education that could have been avoided by relatively simple regular education interventions. Therefore, we believe the use of Part B funds for early intervening services should be encouraged, rather than restricted. In one instance, however, the Act requires the use of funds for early intervening services. Under section 618(d)(2)(B) of the Act, LEAs that are identified as having significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity with respect to the identification of children with disabilities, the placement of children with disabilities in particular educational settings, and the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions taken against children with disabilities, including suspensions and expulsions, are required to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f)(1) of the Act to provide early intervening services to children in the LEA, particularly to children in those groups that were significantly over-identified. This requirement is in recognition of the fact that significant disproportionality in special education may be the result of inappropriate regular education responses to academic or behavioral issues. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended permitting LEAs to spend funds for early intervening services on literacy instruction programs that target at-risk limited English proficient students. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that would preclude LEAs from using Part B funds for early intervening services, including literacy instruction, that target at-risk limited English proficient students who have not been identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether ESAs or other public institutions or agencies, in addition to LEAs, have the authority to provide early intervening services. Discussion: We do not believe any clarification is necessary because §300.226, consistent with section 613(f) of the Act, states that LEAs may use Part B funds to develop and implement coordinated early intervening services. As defined in §300.28(b), local educational agency or LEA includes ESAs and any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school, including a public nonprofit charter school that is established as an LEA under State law. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters suggested modifying the regulations to permit children age 3 through 21 to receive early intervening services. The commenters stated that this change would allow schools to provide early academic and behavioral supports to preschool children. Discussion: Early intervening services may not be used for preschool children. Section 300.226(a) tracks the statutory language in section 613(f)(1) of the Act, which states that early intervening services are for children in kindergarten through grade 12, with a particular emphasis on children in kindergarten through grade 3. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying in the regulations that early intervening services are not equivalent to early intervention services. Discussion: We do not believe any changes are necessary to the regulations to clarify the difference between early intervening services provided under Part B of the Act and early intervention services provided under Part C of the Act. Following is a description of the two types of services: Early intervening services provided under section 613(f) of the Act are services for children in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on children in kindergarten through grade 3) who have not been identified as needing special education and related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Early intervention services, on the other hand, are services for children birth through age two that are designed to meet the developmental needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities under section 632 in Part C of the Act. Section 632(5)(A) of the Act defines infant or toddler with a disability as a child under the age of three years who (a) is experiencing developmental delays in one or more of the areas of cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional development, and adaptive development, or (b) has a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay. In addition, some States also provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers who are at risk of having a developmental delay. The Part C regulations will address, in detail, the early intervention services provided under section 632 of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether the reference to scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions in §300.226(b) means that such interventions must be aligned with recommended practices and peer- reviewed research. Discussion: Section 300.226(b) follows the specific language in section 613(f)(2) of the Act and requires that in implementing coordinated, early intervening services, an LEA may provide, among other services, professional development for teachers and other personnel to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions. The use of the term scientifically based in §300.226(b) is intended to be consistent with the definition of the term scientifically based research in section 9101(37) of the ESEA. Because this definition of scientifically based research is important to the implementation of Part B of the Act, a reference to section 9101(37) of the ESEA has been added in new §300.35, and the full definition of the term has been included in the discussion of new §300.35. Under the definition, scientifically based research must be accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. We expect that the professional development activities authorized under §300.226(b)(1) will be derived from scientifically based research. The statute and regulations do not refer to ‘‘recommended practices,’’ which is a term of art that, generally, refers to practices that the field has adopted as ‘‘best practices,’’ and which may or may not be based on evidence from scientifically based research. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested including related services personnel, including speech pathologists and school psychologists, in the development and delivery of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports for teachers and other school staff to enable them to deliver coordinated, early intervening services. Discussion: State and local officials are in the best position to make decisions regarding the provision of early intervening services, including the specific personnel to provide the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46628 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations services and the instructional materials and approaches to be used. Nothing in the Act or regulations prevents States and LEAs from including related services personnel in the development and delivery of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports for teachers and other school staff to enable them to deliver coordinated, early intervening services. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended revising the regulations to allow public agencies to use Part B funds for early intervening services to purchase supplemental instructional materials to support the activities in §300.226(b). Discussion: We agree that supplemental instructional materials may be used, where appropriate, to support early intervening activities. The Conf. Rpt. in note 269 provides that [E]arly intervening services should make use of supplemental instructional materials, where appropriate, to support student learning. Children targeted for early intervening services under IDEA are the very students who are most likely to need additional reinforcement to the core curriculum used in the regular classroom. These are in fact the additional instructional materials that have been developed to supplement and therefore strengthen the efficacy of comprehensive core curriculum. We believe the terms ‘‘services’’ and ‘‘supports’’ in §300.226(b)(2) are broad enough to include the use of supplemental instructional materials. Accordingly, we believe that it is unnecessary to add further clarification regarding the use of supplemental instructional materials in §300.226. Of course, use of funds for this purpose is subject to other requirements that apply to any use of funds, such as the limitation on purchase of equipment in section 605 of the Act and applicable requirements in 34 CFR Parts 76 and 80. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested requiring LEAs to provide parents with written notice regarding their child’s participation in early intervening services, the goals for such services, and an opportunity to refuse services. Some commenters requested requiring LEAs to inform parents of their child’s progress in early intervening services at reasonable intervals. Discussion: Section 300.226, consistent with section 613(f) of the Act, gives LEAs flexibility to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services for children who are not currently receiving special education services, but who require additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a regular education environment. Early intervening services will benefit both the regular and special education programs by reducing academic and behavioral problems in the regular education program and the number of inappropriate referrals for special education and related services. It would be overly restrictive and beyond the Department’s authority to modify the regulations to include the additional requirements suggested by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that data should be collected regarding the effectiveness of early intervening services. Several commenters requested requiring LEAs to report to the SEA, and make available to the public, the number of children receiving early intervening services, the length of time the children received the services, the impact of the services, and the amount of Federal Part B funds used for early intervening services. Discussion: Section 300.226(d), consistent with section 613(f)(4) of the Act, requires LEAs that develop and maintain coordinated, early intervening services to annually report to their SEA on the number of children receiving early intervening services and the number of those children who eventually are identified as children with disabilities and receive special education and related services during the preceding two year period (i.e., the two years after the child has received early intervening services). We believe that these data are sufficient to provide LEAs and SEAs with the information needed to determine the impact of early intervening services on children and to determine if these services reduce the number of referrals for special education and related services. Requiring LEAs to collect and report data on the implementation of early intervening services beyond what is specifically required in section 613(f)(4) of the Act is unnecessary and would place additional paperwork burdens on LEAs and SEAs. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the meaning of the terms ‘‘subsequently’’ and ‘‘preceding two year period’’ in §300.226(d)(2) be clarified. Discussion: Section 300.226(d)(2), consistent with section 613(f)(4)(B) of the Act, requires LEAs to report on the number of children who are provided early intervening services who subsequently receive special education and related services under Part B of the Act during the preceding two years to determine if the provision of these services reduces the number of overall referrals for special education and related services. The Department intends for LEAs to report on children who began receiving special education services no more than two years after they received early intervening services. For the preceding two year period, the LEA would report on the number of children who received both early intervening services and special education services during those two years. Changes: None. Direct Services by the SEA (§300.227) Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulations specify that SEAs providing direct services must make placement decisions based on the child’s individual needs and must comply with all requirements for providing FAPE in the LRE. Discussion: We do not believe any changes to the regulations are necessary because §300.227(b), consistent with section 613(g)(2) of the Act, clearly states that SEAs providing direct special education and related services must do so in accordance with Part B of the Act. Accordingly, the special education and related services provided under §300.227 would be subject to the placement requirements in §300.116 and the LRE requirements in §300.114 and section 612(a)(5) of the Act. Changes: None. Disciplinary Information (§300.229) Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying that not all student disciplinary records can be transmitted by public agencies. Discussion: We believe that §300.229 is clear that not all student disciplinary records can be transmitted by public agencies. Section 300.229(a) provides that public agencies can transmit disciplinary information on children with disabilities only to the extent that the disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the student records of nondisabled children. Section 300.229(b) specifies the disciplinary information that may be transmitted, which includes a description of any behavior engaged in by the child that required disciplinary action, a description of the disciplinary action taken, and any other information that is relevant to the safety of the child and other individuals involved with the child. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters requested that the required transmission of student records include both the child’s current IEP and any statement of VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46629 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations current or previous disciplinary action related to weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury that has been taken against the child. Discussion: It is important to clarify that the Act does not require the transmission of student disciplinary information when the child transfers from one school to another. Rather, section 613(i) of the Act allows each State to decide whether to require its public agencies to include disciplinary statements in student records and transmit such statements with student records when a child transfers from one school to another. The State’s policy on transmitting disciplinary information must apply to both students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Section 300.229(b) provides that if a State requires its public agencies to include disciplinary statements in student records, these disciplinary statements may include a description of any behavior engaged in by the child that required disciplinary action, a description of the disciplinary action taken, and any other information that is relevant to the safety of the child and other individuals involved with the child; disciplinary actions taken against a child related to weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury also could be included in these descriptions. If a State adopts such a policy, §300.229(c) requires that the transmission of any of the child’s student records include the child’s current IEP and any statement of current or previous disciplinary action that has been taken against the child. Therefore, with regard to the commenters’ request that the transmission of student records include any statement of current or previous disciplinary action related to weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury that has been taken against the child, this information would be transmitted only to the extent that disciplinary statements are included in, and transmitted with, the student records of nondisabled children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that the transmission of a student’s records include functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans. Discussion: Any existing functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans would be part of the materials that must be transmitted under §300.323(g). In addition, if a State requires student records to include disciplinary information and the child transfers from one school to another, §300.229(c) requires that the transmission of any of the child’s student records include the child’s current IEP. Functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans are not required components of the IEP under §300.320. However, if a State considers functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans to be part of a student’s IEP, this information would be required to be transmitted when the child transfers from one school to another, consistent with §300.229(c). Changes: None. Subpart D—Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements Parental Consent Parental Consent (§300.300) Comment: A few commenters noted that the terms, ‘‘consent,’’ ‘‘informed consent,’’ ‘‘agree,’’ and ‘‘agree in writing’’ are used throughout the regulations and stated that differences between the terms should be clarified. One commenter recommended that the regulations include the term ‘‘informed’’ every time the term ‘‘parental consent’’ is used. Discussion: The use of these terms throughout the regulations is consistent with their use in the Act. The definition of consent in §300.9 includes the requirement that a parent be fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. The definition also requires that a parent agree in writing to carrying out the activity for which the parent’s consent is sought. Therefore, whenever the term ‘‘consent’’ is used in these regulations, it means that the consent is both ‘‘informed’’ and ‘‘written.’’ Similarly, the terms ‘‘consent,’’ ‘‘informed consent,’’ ‘‘parental consent,’’ and ‘‘written informed consent,’’ as used in these regulations, all are intended to have the same meaning. The meaning of the terms ‘‘agree’’ or ‘‘agreement’’ is not the same as ‘‘consent.’’ ‘‘Agree’’ or ‘‘agreement’’ refer to an understanding between the parent and the LEA about a particular question or issue. There is no requirement that an agreement be in writing unless specifically stated in the Act and regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify what the required safeguards are if parents elect to receive notices electronically or provide electronic or digital signatures for consents, such as consent for an initial evaluation. Discussion: Section 300.505, consistent with section 615(n) of the Act, permits parents to elect to receive prior written notices, procedural safeguards notices, and due process complaint notices by an electronic mail communication, if the public agency makes that option available. The Act does not specify documentation requirements if the public agency makes the electronic notice delivery option available to parents, and we believe that this is a matter that is best left to States and LEAs that choose to use the electronic communication option. In addition, States that wish to utilize electronic or digital signatures for consent may do so if they choose. Consent under §300.9(b) requires a parent to understand and agree in writing to the carrying out of the activity for which the parent’s consent is sought. Therefore, States that permit the use of electronic or digital signatures for parental consent would need to take the necessary steps to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards to protect the integrity of the process. Changes: None. Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation (§300.300(a)) Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require a public agency to conduct the following activities to obtain parental consent for an initial evaluation: identify the child’s parents and their address and phone number; contact social service providers for children who are wards of the State; provide parents with copies of the Act; and inform parents of the consequences of withholding consent. Discussion: The regulations already provide sufficient safeguards regarding consent, and we believe that the changes requested would be unduly burdensome. As a matter of practice, public agencies begin the process of obtaining parental consent by identifying the parent and contacting the parent by phone or through written correspondence, or speaking to the parent in parent-teacher conferences. We do not believe it is necessary to regulate to require public agencies to contact social service agencies to obtain consent for children who are wards of the State because it may not always be necessary or appropriate, for example, when a child who is a ward of the State has a foster parent who can act as a parent, consistent with §300.30(a)(2). Additionally, section 614(a)(1)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act provides that the public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain informed parental consent for children who are wards of the State and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46630 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations not residing with the parent. Public agencies are in the best position to determine, on a case-by-case basis, when it is necessary to contact social service providers to assist in obtaining parental consent for children who are wards of the State. We also do not believe that additional regulations are necessary to require public agencies to inform parents of the consequences of withholding consent for an initial evaluation or to provide parents with copies of the Act. Section 300.503, consistent with section 615(c)(1) of the Act, already requires that prior written notice be provided to parents before an initial evaluation, which will explain, among other things, why the agency is proposing to conduct the evaluation; a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for proposing to conduct the evaluation; and sources for the parent to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions under the Act. Additionally, §300.504(a)(1), consistent with section 615(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, requires the public agency to provide a copy of the procedural safeguards to parents upon initial referral for an evaluation, which provides information about parents’ rights under the Act. Although we do not believe the recommended requirements should be added to the regulations, we will add the cross- references to the consent requirements in §300.9, and the requirements for prior written notice and the procedural safeguards notice in §§300.503 and 300.504, respectively, to §300.300(a). Changes: We have added cross- references to §§300.9, 300.503, and 300.504 in §300.300(a). Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.300(a)(1)(ii) and using the statutory language in section 614(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act to require that parental consent for evaluation may not be construed as consent for placement for receipt of special education and related services. Discussion: We believe it is appropriate to use the phrase, ‘‘initial provision of services’’ in §300.300(a)(1)(ii), rather than the statutory phrase ‘‘consent for placement for receipt of special education and related services,’’ in section 614(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Act to clarify that consent does not need to be sought every time a particular service is provided to the child. In addition, the distinction between consent for an initial evaluation and consent for initial services is more clearly conveyed in §300.300(a)(1)(ii) than in the statutory language, and is consistent with the Department’s longstanding position that ‘‘placement’’ refers to the provision of special education services, rather than a specific place, such as a specific classroom or specific school. We, therefore, decline to change the regulation, as requested by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify whether the reference to ‘‘parent’’ in §300.300(a)(2) means ‘‘biological or adoptive parent’’ or anyone who meets the definition of parent in §300.30. Discussion: Section 300.300(a)(2) applies to circumstances in which the child is a ward of the State and is not residing with the child’s parents, and requires the public agency to make reasonable efforts to obtain parental consent from the parent for an initial evaluation. The reference to ‘‘parent,’’ in this context, refers to anyone who meets the definition of parent in §300.30, consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(iii) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the interplay between new §300.300(a)(2) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)), regarding circumstances when the public agency is not required to obtain informed parental consent for an initial evaluation of a child who is a ward of the State, and the requirements in §300.519(c), which require that a surrogate parent be appointed for a child who is a ward of the State. Discussion: New §300.300(a)(2) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act, creates an exception to the parental consent requirements for initial evaluations for a child who is a ward of the State who is not residing with the child’s parent if the public agency has made reasonable efforts to obtain the parent’s consent, but is unable to discover the whereabouts of the parent, the rights of the parent of the child have been terminated under State law, or the rights of the parent to make educational decisions have been subrogated by a judge under State law and consent for the initial evaluation has been given by an individual appointed by the judge to represent the child. New §300.300(a)(2) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)) permits the public agency to proceed with the child’s initial evaluation without first obtaining the requisite parental consent only in the circumstances detailed in §300.300(a)(2). Therefore, when one or more of the circumstances in §300.300(a)(2) are met and a surrogate has not yet been appointed, the public agency need not postpone the child’s evaluation to await the appointment of a surrogate. This is appropriate because in situations involving requests for initial evaluations, in most cases a surrogate parent has not yet been appointed and delaying an initial evaluation until after a surrogate is appointed and has given consent may not be in the best interests of the child. In contrast, in most situations involving consent for reevaluation, a surrogate parent should already have been appointed under §300.519 if no parent can be identified, the public agency has been unable to locate a parent, the child is a ward of the State or the child is an unaccompanied homeless youth. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to apply the provisions in §300.300(a)(2) to reevaluation situations. Nothing in this section is intended to relieve a public agency of its obligation to ensure that the rights of a child who is a ward of the State are protected through the appointment of a surrogate parent in accordance with the procedures in §300.519(b) through (h). Once a surrogate parent is appointed in accordance with the procedures in §300.519(b) through (h), that person assumes the responsibilities of a parent under the Act, and the public agency must seek consent from that individual. Moreover, if a child has a foster parent who can act as a parent, as defined in §300.30(a)(2), or a person such as a grandparent or step-parent who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare, and that person’s whereabouts are known or the person can be located after reasonable efforts by the public agency, parental consent would be required for the initial evaluation. We believe that the phrase ‘‘except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (regarding consent for wards of the State)’’ in proposed §300.300(a)(1)(i) may incorrectly convey that a public agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent of a child who is a ward of the State, or from a surrogate parent, foster parent, or other person meeting the definition of a parent in §300.30(a). Therefore, we will remove the phrase. To clarify that the provisions in §300.300(a)(2) apply only to initial evaluations, and not reevaluations, we will modify both §§300.300(a)(2) and (c)(1). Changes: We have removed the phrase ‘‘except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (regarding consent for wards of the State)’’ in §300.300(a)(1)(i), for clarity. We have also added introductory language to VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46631 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations §300.300(a)(2) to specify that it applies only to initial evaluations, and we have changed the cross-reference in §300.300(c)(1) to refer to §300.300(a)(1). Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations specify the minimum steps that public agencies must take to obtain consent for initial evaluations from parents of children who are wards of the State. Another commenter recommended that the regulations define ‘‘reasonable efforts,’’ as used in new §300.300(a)(1)(iii) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(i)). One commenter recommended requiring LEAs to maintain documentation of their efforts to obtain parental consent for initial evaluations, including attempts to obtain consent by telephone calls, visits to the parent’s home, and correspondence in the parent’s native language. Several commenters requested that the requirements in current §300.345(d) be included in new §300.300(a)(2)(i) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)(A)). Current §300.345(d) requires a public agency to document the specific steps it has taken to arrange a mutually convenient time and place for an IEP Team meeting (e.g., detailed records of telephone calls, any correspondence sent to the parents, visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment) and it is cross- referenced in current §300.505(c)(2) to identify documentation of the reasonable measures that an LEA took to obtain consent for a reevaluation. Discussion: We believe it is important to emphasize that a public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent for an initial evaluation to determine whether the child is a child with a disability. This includes the parent of a child who is a ward of the State. Therefore, we will add a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to §300.300 to make clear that a public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain informed parental consent whenever a public agency seeks to conduct an initial evaluation of a child to determine whether the child is a child with a disability. This requirement applies to all children including children who are wards of the State. With the addition of this new paragraph, the requirement for public agencies to make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent for an initial evaluation for children who are wards of the State in §300.300(a)(2)(i) is no longer necessary and will be removed. We also agree with the commenters that a public agency should document and make the same reasonable efforts to obtain consent for an initial evaluation from a parent, including a parent of a child who is a ward of the State, that are required when a public agency attempts to arrange a mutually convenient time and place for an IEP Team meeting (e.g., detailed records of telephone calls, any correspondence sent to the parents, visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment), and will add a new paragraph (d)(5) to make this clear. We recognize that the statute uses both ‘‘reasonable measures’’ and ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ when referring to a public agency’s responsibility to obtain parental consent for an evaluation, initial services, and a reevaluation. We believe these two phrases, when used in this context, have the same meaning and, therefore, have used ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ throughout the regulations related to parental consent for consistency. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to §300.300 to require a public agency to make reasonable efforts to obtain informed parental consent for an initial evaluation. We will remove §300.300(a)(2)(i) because it is redundant with the new paragraph. Section 300.300(a)(2) has been reformatted consistent with the removal of paragraph (a)(2)(i). We also have added a new paragraph (d)(5) to §300.300 to require a public agency to document its attempts to obtain parental consent using the procedures in §300.322(d). Comment: A few commenters asked whether a public agency must obtain consent for an initial evaluation from the biological or adoptive parent of the child when there is another person who meets the definition of parent in §300.30. Another commenter recommended the regulations clarify whether a public agency must seek informed consent for an initial evaluation from a biological or adoptive parent when a surrogate parent has already been appointed. Discussion: Section 300.30(b)(1) provides that, when more than one party is qualified to act as a parent, the biological or adoptive parent, when attempting to act as the parent under the Act, must be presumed to be the parent, unless the biological or adoptive parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child. If a surrogate parent already has been appointed because the public agency, after reasonable efforts, could not locate a parent, the public agency would not have to again attempt to contact other individuals meeting the definition of parent in §300.30 to seek consent. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify whether the qualifications of a judge-appointed surrogate parent in §300.519(c) would apply to new §300.300(a)(2)(iii) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)(C)), regarding consent for an initial evaluation for a child who is a ward of the State. Discussion: Section 614(a)(1)(D)(iii)(II)(cc) of the Act, which is the basis for new §300.300(a)(2)(iii) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)(C)), provides that the public agency is not required to obtain informed consent from the parent for an initial evaluation of a child who is a ward of the State and is not living with the child’s parent if the rights of the parent to make educational decisions have been subrogated by a judge in accordance with State law and consent for an initial evaluation has been given by an individual appointed by the judge to represent the child. This is a special situation, limited only to children who are wards of the State not living with a parent and limited only to the situation of seeking consent for an initial evaluation. A person appointed under this provision is not a surrogate parent as that term is used in these regulations. The requirements of §300.519(c) do not apply to persons authorized to provide consent for initial evaluations under this provision. It is noteworthy that the provision in new §300.300(a)(2)(iii) (proposed §300.300(a)(2)(ii)(C)) is only a limited exception to the requirement to obtain informed parental consent for an initial evaluation. Most children will not have a surrogate parent already appointed at this stage of their involvement with services under the Act. However, if a child has a surrogate parent appointed under §300.519(c), and the rights of that person to make educational decisions for the child have not been subrogated by a judge under State law, the public agency would have to seek informed parental consent from that person. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.300(a)(3) to prohibit a public agency from pursuing an initial evaluation without parental consent. Another commenter recommended requiring a public agency to use the due process procedures to conduct an initial evaluation if the parent does not provide consent and the public agency believes that the child would not otherwise receive needed services. A few commenters stated that §300.300(a)(3) is inconsistent with statutory language and opposed language stating that the public agency may, but is not required to, pursue the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46632 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations initial evaluation of a child whose parents have refused to consent or failed to respond to a request for consent. Discussion: Section 300.300(a)(3) is consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii) of the Act, which states that a public agency may pursue the initial evaluation of a child using the procedural safeguards if a parent does not provide consent or fails to respond to a request to provide consent for an initial evaluation. Consistent with the Department’s position that public agencies should use their consent override procedures only in rare circumstances, §300.300(a)(3) clarifies that a public agency is not required to pursue an initial evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability if the parent does not provide consent for the initial evaluation. State and local educational agency authorities are in the best position to determine whether, in a particular case, an initial evaluation should be pursued. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended clarifying the parental consent requirements for an initial evaluation. Many commenters recommended that LEAs maintain documentation that the parent has been fully informed and understands the nature and scope of the evaluation. One commenter recommended that the regulations require that informed parental consent for an initial evaluation be documented in writing. Discussion: Section 300.300(a)(1)(i), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the Act, is clear that the public agency proposing to conduct an initial evaluation to determine if a child qualifies as a child with a disability under §300.8 must obtain consent from the parent of the child before conducting the evaluation. Consent, as defined in §300.9, means that the parent has been fully informed in his or her native language, or other mode of communication, and understands and agrees in writing to the initial evaluation. The methods by which a public agency seeks to obtain parental consent for an initial evaluation (beyond the requirement that the public agency use the parent’s native language or mode of communication) and how a public agency documents its efforts to obtain the parent’s written consent are appropriately left to the discretion of SEAs and LEAs. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations include language clarifying that a public agency is not in violation of the FAPE requirements if the public agency does not pursue an initial evaluation when the parent refuses to consent or fails to respond to a request for consent. One commenter recommended adding language to the regulations to clarify that if a parent refuses to consent to an initial evaluation, the child would not be considered to be a child with a disability. Discussion: While we agree that a public agency would not be in violation of the FAPE requirements for failing to pursue an initial evaluation through due process, we do not believe that a change to the regulations is necessary. The FAPE requirements in §§300.101 through 300.112, consistent with section 612(a) of the Act, apply only to a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8 and section 602(3) of the Act. A child would not be considered a child with a disability under the Act if the child has not been evaluated in accordance with §§300.301 through 300.311 and determined to have one of the disabilities in §300.8(a), and because of that disability, needs special education and related services. Further, §300.534(c)(1), consistent with section 615(k)(5)(C) of the Act, provides that a public agency would not be deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability, for disciplinary purposes, if a parent has not allowed the child to be evaluated or refuses services under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations clarify that the public agency is not in violation of the child find requirements if the public agency does not pursue an initial evaluation when the parent refuses to consent or fails to respond to a request for consent. Discussion: We agree that States and LEAs should not be considered to be in violation of their obligation to locate, identify, and evaluate children suspected of being children with disabilities under §300.111 and section 612(a)(3) of the Act if they decline to pursue an evaluation (or reevaluation) to which a parent has refused or failed to consent. We will add language to the regulations to make this clear. Changes: We have added language to §300.300(a)(3) and (c)(1) to clarify that a State or public agency does not violate the requirements of §300.111 and §§300.301 through 300.311 if it declines to pursue an evaluation or reevaluation to which a parent has refused or failed to consent. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations define ‘‘fails to respond’’ as used in §300.300(a)(3). Discussion: Section 300.300(a)(3), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii)(I) of the Act, states that if a parent of a child enrolled in public school, or seeking to be enrolled in public school, does not provide consent for an initial evaluation, or the parent ‘‘fails to respond’’ to a request to provide consent, the public agency may, but is not required to, pursue the initial evaluation of the child by utilizing the procedural safeguards, if appropriate, except to the extent inconsistent with State law relating to such parental consent. The meaning of ‘‘fails to respond,’’ in this context, is generally understood to mean that, in spite of a public agency’s efforts to obtain consent for an initial evaluation, the parent has not indicated whether the parent consents or refuses consent to the evaluation. We believe the meaning is clear in the regulations and, therefore, decline to define the phrase in these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations include language to require a public agency to provide the following information (in the parent’s native language) to a parent who refuses consent or fails to respond to a request for consent for an initial evaluation: The reasons why the public agency believes the child may be eligible for special education; confirmation that the requested evaluation and any subsequent special education services will be provided at no cost and scheduled in cooperation with parents with transportation provided; The nature of the evaluations and credentials of evaluators; the types of special education services that the child could receive if eligible; and the risks of delaying an evaluation. Discussion: The prior written notice requirements in §300.503, consistent with section 615(c)(1) of the Act, address many of the concerns raised by the commenter. Consistent with §300.503(b) and (c), prior notice must be given to the parents when a public agency proposes to evaluate a child and would explain why the public agency believes the child needs an evaluation to determine whether the child is a child with a disability under the Act; describe each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for proposing that the child needs an evaluation; explain that the parents have protection under the Act’s procedural safeguards; provide sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of the Act; and describe other factors that are relevant to the agency’s proposal to conduct the evaluation of the child. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46633 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations In addition to the prior written notice, §300.504(a)(1), consistent with section 615(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, requires that a copy of the procedural safeguards notice be given to parents upon an initial referral or parental request for an evaluation. Consistent with §300.503(c) and §300.504(d), the prior written notice and the procedural safeguards notice, respectively, must be written in language understandable to the general public and be provided in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. As a matter of practice, public agencies provide parents with general information about the special education and related services that are available to eligible children with disabilities and inform the parent that the public agency’s evaluation is provided at no cost. We believe that this information, along with the information provided in the prior written notice and procedural safeguards notice, will help a parent determine whether there are any risks of delaying an evaluation. Therefore, we do not believe additional regulations are necessary. With regard to information regarding an evaluator’s credentials, we do not believe it is necessary to require public agencies to provide this information to parents because §300.304(c)(1)(v) and section 614(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Act require the public agency to ensure that the evaluation is conducted by trained and knowledgeable personnel. If transportation to an evaluation outside the school environment is necessary, the public agency would have to provide it, as a part of its obligation to ensure that all eligible children are located, identified, and evaluated. However, we do not believe that the parents need to be notified of this fact because, in most cases, children can be evaluated at school during the school day and there is no requirement that a parent be present during the evaluation. Thus, requiring that all parents be notified about transportation to evaluations would be unnecessarily burdensome. Changes: None. Parental Consent for Services (§300.300(b)) Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department address situations in which a child is receiving special education services and a parent wants to withdraw consent or refuse services because the parent believes the child no longer needs special education services. A few commenters stated that public agencies should not be allowed to use the procedural safeguards to continue to provide special education and related services to a child whose parents withdraw consent for the continued provision of special education and related services. Discussion: We are considering the question of whether parents who previously consented to the initiation of special education services should have the right to subsequently remove their child from special education services. We anticipate publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future seeking public comment on this issue. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended changing the regulations to allow the public agency to provide services in anticipation of receiving parental consent when the public agency initiates a due process hearing to obtain parental consent for initial services. Discussion: To implement the change requested by the commenter would be inconsistent with the Act. Section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires a public agency to obtain informed parental consent before providing initial special education and related services to a child. In addition, a public agency may not initiate a due process hearing to provide special education and related services to a child when a parent refuses to consent to initial services, consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act. A child whose parent has refused consent for initial services would not be provided special education and related services and would continue to receive general education services. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested that the regulations clarify the meaning of ‘‘initial provision of services’’ as used in §300.300(b). Discussion: We believe §300.300(b) is clear that the ‘‘initial provision of services’’ means the first time a parent is offered special education and related services after the child has been evaluated in accordance with the procedures in §§300.301 through 300.311, and has been determined to be a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations permit mediation when a parent of a child refuses to consent to the provision of special education and related services. A few commenters recommended revising the regulations to require a public agency to use the due process procedures, or other alternative dispute resolution procedures, if a parent refuses to consent to initial services. Discussion: Section 300.300(b)(2), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II) of the Act, is clear that if a parent fails to respond or refuses to consent to initial services, the public agency may not use the mediation procedures in §300.506 or the due process procedures in §§300.507 through 300.516 in order to obtain agreement or a ruling that the services may be provided to a child. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that additional documentation is necessary if a parent does not provide consent for initial services and suggested adding language to the regulations to require public agencies to document the steps they have taken to obtain parental consent for initial services and to maintain them in the child’s permanent file. Another commenter recommended requiring that the parent’s refusal to consent for initial services occur during a properly convened IEP Team meeting. The commenter also suggested requiring that the documentation of a parent’s refusal to provide consent include evidence that all options waived by the parent have been explained, that the parent has refused services, and the reasons for the parent’s refusal. Discussion: We believe that a public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent for the initial provision of special education and related services to the child and will make this clear in §300.300(b). We noted in our discussion regarding the reasonable efforts that a public agency must make to obtain parental consent for an initial evaluation to determine whether the child is a child with a disability, that we added a new paragraph (d)(5) to §300.300 that provides that to meet the reasonable efforts requirement, a public agency must document its attempts to obtain consent using the procedures in §300.322(d). We believe a public agency should make these same reasonable efforts to obtain parental consent for initial services, and will include this in new §300.300(d)(5). We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require a public agency to maintain additional documentation, beyond that required in new §300.300(d)(5), of a parent’s refusal to provide consent for initial services or to prescribe where this documentation must be obtained or maintained. Public agencies understand the importance of properly documenting a parent’s refusal to consent to the initial provision of special education and related services and are in the best position to determine any additional documentation that is VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46634 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations necessary and where to obtain and maintain such documentation. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (b)(2) to §300.300 to clarify that the public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the parent for the initial provision of special education and related services to the child. Subsequent paragraphs have been renumbered accordingly. We also have included a reference to new §300.300(b)(2) in new §300.300(d)(5) that requires a public agency to document its attempts to obtain consent using the procedures in §300.322(d). Comment: One commenter recommended adding language to clarify that if a parent does not consent to initial services, the child would be considered a part of the general education enrollment and subject to the same disciplinary provisions as nondisabled children. Discussion: The language requested by the commenter is not necessary because section 615(k)(5)(C) of the Act already provides for situations in which a parent refuses consent for initial services and the child subsequently engages in behavior that violates a code of student conduct. Section 300.534(c)(1), consistent with section 615(k)(5)(C) of the Act, provides that a public agency would not be deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if the parent of the child has not allowed an evaluation of the child pursuant to §§300.301 through 300.311, or has refused services under this part. Therefore, such a child would not be able to assert any of the protections provided to children with disabilities under the Act, and would be subject to the same disciplinary procedures as any other child. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended requiring a public agency to refer parents who do not provide consent for initial services to the State’s PTI center so that the parents can be advised of the benefits of special education and their rights and responsibilities under the Act. Discussion: We do not believe it would be appropriate to require a public agency to refer parents to a particular agency or program. Such matters are best left to States and LEAs to decide and should not be included in the regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require a public agency to report a parent for suspected child abuse or neglect to the appropriate agency if the public agency believes that the parent’s failure or refusal to consent to initial services meets the definition of child abuse or neglect under the State’s mandatory reporting law. Discussion: It is not necessary to include the requirement recommended by the commenter in these regulations, as the issue would already be addressed by State law, if under State law a parent’s failure to consent to initial services under the Act was considered child abuse or neglect. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern about new §300.300(b)(4)(ii) (proposed §300.300(b)(3)(ii)), which provides that if a parent fails to consent for initial services or refuses to respond to a request for consent, the public agency is not required to convene an IEP Team meeting or develop an IEP for the child. A few commenters stated that this should be permitted only when a parent refuses services, but not when a parent fails to respond to a request for consent for initial services. A few commenters stated that the regulations should be revised to clarify that this applies only to subsequent IEP Team meetings, not the initial IEP Team meeting. One commenter recommended revising the regulations to require an IEP Team meeting to be held and an IEP developed to provide a basis for informed consent. Discussion: New 300.300(b)(4)(ii) (proposed §300.300(b)(3)(ii)) follows the specific language in section 614(a)(1)(D)(ii)(III)(bb) of the Act and reflects the new provision in the Act that relieves public agencies of any potential liability for failure to convene an IEP Team meeting or develop an IEP for a child whose parents have refused consent or failed to respond to a request for consent to the initial provision of special education and related services. It does not, however, prevent a public agency from convening an IEP Team meeting and developing an IEP for a child as a means of informing the parent about the services that would be provided with the parent’s consent. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters questioned how a parent could be adequately informed of the services the parent is refusing if the public agency is not required to develop an IEP when the parent refuses to consent to the initial provision of special education and related services. Discussion: We understand the commenters’ concern that a parent of a child with a disability who refuses to consent to the provision of special education and related services may not fully understand the extent of the special education and related services their child would receive without the development of an IEP for their child. However, we do not view the consent provisions of the Act as creating the right of parents to consent to each specific special education and related service that their child receives. Instead, we believe that parents have the right to consent to the initial provision of special education and related services. ‘‘Fully informed,’’ in this context, means that a parent has been given an explanation of what special education and related services are and the types of services that might be found to be needed for their child, rather than the exact program of services that would be included in an IEP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the regulations should include sanctions for parents who repeatedly fail to respond to requests for consent from public agencies, such as paying the costs incurred by agencies attempting to obtain consent. Discussion: The Act does not authorize sanctions against parents who fail to respond to requests for consent. Changes: None. Parental Consent for Reevaluations (§300.300(c)) Comment: Several commenters recommended allowing public agencies to use the due process procedures to override a parent’s refusal to consent to a reevaluation. Discussion: Override of parental refusal to consent to a reevaluation is already addressed in the regulations. Section 300.300(c) states that each public agency must obtain informed parental consent in accordance with §300.300(a)(1) prior to conducting any reevaluation of a child with a disability. Section 300.300(a)(3) allows a public agency to override parental refusal to consent to an initial evaluation by utilizing the mediation procedures under §300.506 or the due process procedures under §§300.507 through 300.516. The cross-reference in §300.300(c)(1)(i) to the provision in §300.300(a)(1) provides the basis for allowing a public agency to override the parent’s refusal of consent to a reevaluation. However, we believe it is important to state this more directly and will, therefore, add language to §300.300(c)(1) to clarify that if a parent refuses to consent to a reevaluation, the public agency may, but is not required to, pursue the reevaluation by using the procedural safeguards in subpart E of this part. Changes: We have restructured §300.300(c)(1) and added a new VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46635 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations §300.300(c)(1)(ii) to clarify that a public agency may, but is not required to, pursue a reevaluation using the procedural safeguards. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify a public agency’s responsibilities for a reevaluation if the agency has taken reasonable measures to obtain consent and the parent has failed to respond. Discussion: We do not believe that further clarification in the regulations is necessary. Section 300.300(c)(2), consistent with section 614(c)(3) of the Act, is clear that a public agency may conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability, if the public agency can demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to obtain such consent and the child’s parent has failed to respond to a request for consent. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require a public agency to obtain parental consent for any tests needed for a reevaluation that were not used for the initial evaluation or previous reevaluations. Discussion: We do not agree that a change should be made. Section 614(c)(3) of the Act, which is incorporated in §300.300(c), already requires a public agency to obtain parental consent before conducting any tests needed for a reevaluation, regardless of whether the tests differ from tests used in previous evaluations of the child. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended retaining current §300.505(c)(2), which requires a public agency to document the specific reasonable measures it has taken to obtain parental consent for a reevaluation, including detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; copies of any correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. One commenter suggested that if the requirements in current §300.505(c)(2) were not retained, the regulations should define reasonable measures as at least three good-faith attempts to contact a parent. Many commenters stated that current §300.505(c)(2) must be retained because it is protected by section 607(b) of the Act, which provides that the Secretary may not publish final regulations that would procedurally or substantively lessen the protections provided to children with disabilities in the regulations that were in effect on July 20, 1983. Discussion: We agree that the requirements in current §300.505(c)(2) should be retained. We noted in our discussions regarding the reasonable efforts that a public agency must make to obtain parental consent for an initial evaluation and the initial provision of services, that we added a new paragraph (d)(5) to §300.300 that provides that to meet the reasonable efforts requirement, a public agency must document its attempts to obtain consent using the procedures in §300.322(d). These are the same procedures in current §300.505(c)(2). Therefore, we will include a reference to §300.300(c)(2)(i) in new §300.300(d)(5). Changes: We included a reference to §300.300(c)(2)(i) in new §300.300(d)(5). Other Consent Requirements (§300.300(d)) Comment: Many commenters recommended that the regulations include language clarifying that a public agency is not authorized to override the lack of parental consent for an initial evaluation for children who are home schooled or placed in a private school by the parents at their own expense. One commenter recommended removing the phrase ‘‘public school or seeking to enroll in public school’’ in §300.300(a)(3) to permit a public agency to override lack of parental consent for children who are home schooled or placed in a private school by parents at their own expense. Discussion: We agree with the commenters who recommended that, for children who are home schooled or placed in a private school by their parents at their own expense, consent override should not be permitted. We will add a new paragraph (4) to §300.300(d) to make this clear. There are compelling policy reasons why the Act’s consent override procedures should be limited to children who are enrolled, or who are seeking to enroll, in public school. Because the school district has an ongoing obligation to educate a public school child it suspects has a disability, it is reasonable for a school district to provide the parents with as much information as possible about their child’s educational needs in order to encourage them to agree to the provision of special education services to meet those needs, even though the parent is free, ultimately, to reject those services. The school district is accountable for the educational achievement of all of its children, regardless of whether parents refuse the provision of educationally appropriate services. In addition, children who do not receive appropriate educational services may develop behavioral problems that have a negative impact on the learning environment for other children. By contrast, once parents opt out of the public school system, States and school districts do not have the same interest in requiring parents to agree to the evaluation of their children. In such cases, it would be overly intrusive for the school district to insist on an evaluation over a parent’s objection. The Act gives school districts no regulatory authority over private schools. Moreover, the Act does not require school districts to provide FAPE to children who are home schooled or enrolled in private schools by their parents. Public agencies do have an obligation to actively seek parental consent to evaluate children attending private schools (including children who are home schooled, if a home school is considered a private school under State law) who are suspected of being children with disabilities under the Act, in order to properly identify the number of private school children with disabilities and consider those children as eligible for equitable services under §§300.132 through 300.144. However, this obligation does not extend to overriding refusal of parental consent to evaluate parentally-placed private school children. Section 300.300(a)(3) provides that a public agency may override parental consent for an initial evaluation only for children who are enrolled in public school or seeking to be enrolled in public school, so we are not making the suggested change in §300.300(a)(3). Changes: We have added a new paragraph (4) to §300.300(d) to clarify that consent override is not permitted for children who are home schooled or placed in private schools by their parents. Evaluations and Reevaluations Initial Evaluations (§300.301) Request for Initial Evaluation (§300.301(b)) Comment: Several commenters recommended that teachers and related services providers be included as individuals who can refer a child for an initial evaluation. A few commenters requested clarification as to whether States can authorize other individuals who are acting on behalf of a public agency (e.g., family court, probation officers, staff from other public agencies) to refer a child for an initial evaluation, and whether individuals responsible for protecting the welfare of a child who are not acting on behalf of an SEA or LEA, such as physicians and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46636 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations social workers, can refer a child for an initial evaluation. Discussion: Section 614 (a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that an SEA, other State agency, or LEA shall conduct a full and individual evaluation of a child before the provision of special education and related services. In §300.301(a), we interpret this language as requiring public agencies, as that term is defined in §300.33, to conduct evaluations, because those are the only agencies in the State responsible for providing FAPE to eligible children. The same language is used in section 614(a)(1)(B) of the Act to describe the agencies that may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if a child is a child with a disability. We similarly interpret this language to be referring to the entities that are public agencies under §300.33. Therefore, §300.301(b) states that either a parent or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation. The language does not include employees of SEAs or LEAs (e.g., teachers and related services providers), unless they are acting for the SEA or LEA, or of other State agencies (e.g., probation officers, social workers, or staff from State agencies that are not public agencies as defined in §300.33). The requirements in §300.301(b) pertain to the initiation of an evaluation under §§300.301 through 300.305 and should not be confused with the State’s child find responsibilities in §300.111 and section 612(a)(3) of the Act. The child find requirements permit referrals from any source that suspects a child may be eligible for special education and related services. Child find activities typically involve some sort of screening process to determine whether the child should be referred for a full evaluation to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Therefore, persons such as employees of the SEA, LEA, or other public agencies responsible for the education of the child may identify children who might need to be referred for an evaluation. However, it is the parent of a child and the public agency that have the responsibility to initiate the evaluation procedures in §§300.301 through 300.311 and section 614 of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that the regulations should clarify that the 60-day timeframe in §300.301(c) to complete an evaluation does not begin if a parent requests an initial evaluation, the LEA denies the request, and the parent challenges the LEA’s decision in a due process hearing. Discussion: We believe the regulations already address the commenters’ concern. Section 300.301(b) provides that a parent may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability. If the public agency agrees to conduct the evaluation, §300.304(a) requires the public agency to provide notice to the parents, in accordance with §300.503, that describes any evaluation procedures that the agency proposes to conduct. The public agency must obtain informed consent for the evaluation, consistent with §§300.9 and 300.300, prior to conducting the evaluation. The 60-day timeframe begins when the public agency receives the consent for evaluation. If, however, the public agency does not suspect that the child has a disability and denies the request for an initial evaluation, the public agency must provide written notice to the parents, consistent with §300.503(b) and section 615(c)(1) of the Act, which explains, among other things, why the public agency refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used as the basis to make that decision. The parent may challenge such a refusal by requesting a due process hearing, but the timeline for conducting the evaluation does not begin prior to parental consent for evaluation. A parent would not be able to give consent under this part without knowing what specific evaluation procedures the public agency is proposing to conduct. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations clarify whether a public agency has the right to deny a parent’s request for an initial evaluation. Discussion: The regulations are sufficiently clear on this point. Section 300.503(a), consistent with section 615(b)(3) of the Act, provides that a public agency may refuse to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the child, if the public agency provides written notice. This includes situations in which a public agency wishes to deny a parent’s request for an initial evaluation. The written notice must meet the requirements in §300.503(b). Thus, for situations in which a public agency wishes to deny a parent’s request for an initial evaluation, the written notice would provide, among other things, an explanation of why the public agency refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used to make that decision. A parent may challenge the public agency’s refusal to conduct an initial evaluation by requesting a due process hearing. Changes: None. Procedures for Initial Evaluation (§300.301(c)) Comment: Numerous commenters requested that the regulations clarify when the 60-day timeframe for a public agency to conduct an initial evaluation begins. One commenter requested that the 60-day timeframe include completing both the evaluation and eligibility determination. Several commenters recommended reducing the timeframe for evaluations from 60 days to 30 days. Some commenters recommended that the 60- day timeframe be 60 school days. A few commenters stated that the timeframe for evaluation should be longer if additional time is required for specific assessments, such as behavioral assessments or other assessments based on scientific practices. Discussion: It would be inconsistent with the Act to reduce the timeframe from 60 days to 30 days, require the 60- day timeframe to be 60 school days, extend the timeframe for particular types of assessments, or require that the 60-day timeframe cover both the evaluation and determination of eligibility. Section 614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) of the Act requires an initial evaluation to be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. The regulations in §300.301(c) reflect this requirement. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters asked whether a State could establish a timeframe of more than 60 days to complete an initial evaluation. A significant number of commenters recommended that if a State establishes its own timeframe within which an evaluation must be conducted, that the timeframe be less, but not more, than 60 days. Several commenters recommended that if a State has its own timeframe for evaluation, the timeframe should be reasonable and ‘‘reasonable’’ should be defined. Some commenters recommended that if a State’s timeframe is greater than 60 days, the Department should provide guidance to the State and to parents in that State. One commenter recommended that if a State establishes its own timeframe, the State must offer parents an adequate opportunity to assert their procedural rights. Discussion: Section 300.301(c), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) of the Act, requires an initial evaluation to be completed within 60 days of receiving parental consent for evaluation or, if the State establishes a VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46637 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within such timeframe. The Department declines to require that a State-established timeframe be less than 60 days or to place additional requirements on States with timeframes of greater than 60 days because the Act gives States the authority to establish different timeframes and imposes no restrictions on State exercise of that authority. We believe this is evidence of an intent to permit States to make reasoned determinations of the appropriate period of time in which evaluations should be conducted based on particular State circumstances. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters requested clarification regarding the timeframe to complete an initial evaluation and convene the IEP Team. A few commenters stated that the timeframe from referral to IEP development could be as long as 120 calendar days (30 days from referral to consent; 60 days from consent to the eligibility determination; and 30 days from the eligibility determination to development of the IEP), and recommended that this timeframe be 60 days. One commenter recommended that public agencies provide consent forms to parents promptly after a referral for evaluation has been made so that the child’s evaluation is not delayed. A few commenters asked how promptly an LEA must seek parental consent following a referral for evaluation, and whether an LEA can wait until September to obtain consent if a referral is made in June or July. Discussion: We cannot change the timeframe for an initial evaluation specified in section 614(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Section 614(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires that an initial evaluation be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or within the timeframe established by the State. Section 300.323(c) is a longstanding requirement that a meeting be held to develop the child’s IEP within 30 days of determining that a child needs special education and related services. We decline, however, to specify the timeframe from referral for evaluation to parental consent, or the timeframe from the completion of an evaluation to the determination of eligibility, as we are not in a position to determine the maximum number of days that should apply to these periods in all circumstances. However, it has been the Department’s longstanding policy that evaluations be conducted within a reasonable period of time following the agency’s receipt of parental consent, if the public agency agrees that an initial evaluation is needed to determine whether a child is a child with a disability. Likewise, the Department believes that eligibility decisions should be made within a reasonable period of time following the completion of an evaluation. The child find requirements in §300.111 and section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act require that all children with disabilities in the State who are in need of special education and related services be identified, located, and evaluated. Therefore, it would generally not be acceptable for an LEA to wait several months to conduct an evaluation or to seek parental consent for an initial evaluation if the public agency suspects the child to be a child with a disability. If it is determined through the monitoring efforts of the Department or a State that there is a pattern or practice within a particular State or LEA of not conducting evaluations and making eligibility determinations in a timely manner, this could raise questions as to whether the State or LEA is in compliance with the Act. With regard to the total timeframe from referral to IEP development, this will vary based on a number of factors, including the timing of parental consent following referral for an evaluation and whether a State establishes its own timeframe to conduct an initial evaluation. Given such factors, we do not believe it is feasible to further regulate on this timeframe. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that an initial evaluation be conducted in an expedited timeframe for children who are homeless or in the custody of a child welfare agency. The commenters stated that public agencies should take into consideration the date on which the child was first referred for evaluation by any public agency. Discussion: Congress recognized the unique problems homeless children face and included several new provisions in the Act to ensure that homeless children and youth with disabilities have access to the same services and supports as all other children with disabilities. The Department recognizes that the high mobility rates of some homeless children with disabilities (as well as other children, including some children who are in the custody of a State child welfare agency) pose unique challenges when a child is referred for an evaluation, but moves to another district or State before an evaluation can be initiated or completed. In such cases, the Department believes it is important that the evaluations be completed as expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration the date on which the child was first referred for evaluation in any LEA. However, the high mobility rate of these children and their potential range of evaluation needs means that any specific expedited timeframe could be both too long to ensure that all children are evaluated before they move, and too short to be reasonable in all circumstances. There is nothing, however, in Part B of the Act or these regulations that would prohibit a State from establishing its own policies to address the needs of homeless children, including adopting a timeframe for initial evaluations that is less than 60 days. Changes: None. Exception (§300.301(d)) Comment: Numerous commenters requested clarification regarding whether the 60-day timeframe for initial evaluations could be extended by mutual agreement between the parent and the public agency. A few commenters asked whether the 60-day timeframe could be extended for reasons other than the exceptions listed in §300.301(d), and whether a State could include other exceptions in its State policies and procedures. Discussion: Congress was clear in limiting the exceptions to the 60-day timeframe to the situations in section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to include in the regulations other exceptions, such as permitting a parent and a public agency to mutually agree to extend the 60-day timeframe or to include exceptions to the timeframe, that would be in addition to those in the Act and listed in §300.301(d). However, the Act gives States considerable discretion with a State-adopted timeframe. A State could adopt a timeframe of 60 days or some other number of days, with additional exceptions. Changes: None. Comment: A number of comments were received requesting clarification on the provision in §300.301(d)(1), which allows an extension of the 60-day or State-established timeframe to complete an initial evaluation if the parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for an evaluation. A few commenters asked whether the exception applies when a child is not available because of absences on the days the evaluation is scheduled. Several commenters stated that ‘‘produce’’ does not necessarily mean the child’s physical presence in school. Other commenters requested that the regulations define ‘‘repeatedly VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46638 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations fails’’ and ‘‘refuses to produce’’ so that LEAs do not have to engage in exhaustive efforts to obtain access to the child to complete the evaluation. One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that an LEA must document that it has made several attempts to address the parent’s concerns and clarify any confusion the parent may have about the evaluation, as well as address issues that make it difficult for the parent to bring the child to a scheduled evaluation, such as lack of transportation and childcare. Discussion: Section 300.301(d) follows the specific language in section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act. We do not believe it is appropriate or reasonable to define ‘‘repeatedly fails’’ or ‘‘refuses to produce’’ because the meaning of these phrases will vary depending on the specific circumstances in each case. For example, situations in which a child is absent on the days the evaluation is scheduled because the child is ill would be treated differently than if a parent repeatedly fails to keep scheduled appointments. Similarly, situations in which a parent fails to keep scheduled appointments when a public agency repeatedly schedules the evaluation to accommodate the parent’s schedule would be treated differently than situations in which a public agency makes no attempt to accommodate a parent’s schedule. We do not believe it is necessary to clarify that an LEA must document that it has made several attempts to address a parent’s concerns and issues about the evaluation. As a matter of practice, LEAs attempt to address parent’s concerns and issues prior to scheduling an evaluation because repeated cancellations of appointments or repeated failures to produce the child for an evaluation are costly in terms of staff time and effort. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that there be an exception to the 60-day timeframe when a child transfers to a new school before an evaluation is completed. Discussion: The exception referred to by the commenters is already in the regulations. Section 300.301(d)(2), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, states that the 60-day or State-established timeframe does not apply when a child transfers to a new school before an evaluation is completed, if the new public agency is making sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and new public agency agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed. While the exception to the 60-day timeframe, as stated in section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act and paragraph (d)(2) of this section, only applies when a child transfers to a school located in another public agency, we do not believe the language in paragraph (d)(2), as proposed in the NPRM, is necessarily clear on this matter. We, therefore, have added language in paragraph (d)(2) to provide additional clarity. We believe it is important that it is understood that the 60-day or State-established timeframe does not apply when a child transfers from one school to another school in the same public agency. When a child transfers from one school to another school in the same public agency, we expect that an initial evaluation will be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or within the State-established timeframe. Changes: We have added language to §300.301(d)(2) to clarify that the exception to the 60-day or State- established timeframe only applies when a child transfers to a new school located in another public agency. Comment: Several comments were received on the provision in new §300.301(e) (proposed §300.301(d)(2)(ii)) that allows an exception to the 60-day or State- established timeframe, only if the new public agency is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parent and new public agency agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed. One commenter stated that schools would be unable to meet the 60- day timeframe for children who transfer from another public agency if the new public agency has not been notified of the evaluation timeframe. Another commenter recommended that exceptions to the 60-day timeframe should not be permitted because the term ‘‘sufficient progress’’ is not defined. A few commenters requested that the regulations define ‘‘sufficient progress.’’ One commenter stated that there might be legitimate reasons for not completing an evaluation within the 60- day timeframe, such as differences in the assessment instruments used in the previous and new public agency, and requested that the regulations provide guidance on how a public agency should determine if appropriate progress is being made. One commenter recommended that if there is no date certain when an evaluation must be completed when a child transfers public agencies, the new public agency should conduct an evaluation within 60 days of the enrollment date of the child; make reasonable efforts to obtain evaluation information from the previous public agency; and consider any available evaluation information from the previous public agency. One commenter recommended requiring the new public agency to contact the previous public agency within five days to request a report of any actions taken to transfer the child’s records, copies of completed evaluations, a copy of the child’s file, and an estimate as to when the information will be sent. The commenter stated that public agencies should be required to keep records of such attempts to inform parents of all actions through written communication. The commenter stated that if the information is not received within 15 days, the new public agency should be required to begin a new evaluation and complete it within the 60-day or State- established timeframe. Discussion: The exceptions to the 60- day or State-established timeframe must be permitted because they are statutory. Section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, which is incorporated in §300.300(d)(2), provides that the 60-day or State-established timeframe does not apply if a child enrolls in a school served by the public agency after the relevant timeframe has begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous public agency as to whether the child is a child with a disability. The exception applies only if the subsequent public agency is making sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and subsequent public agency agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed. We do not believe it is necessary to define the phrase ‘‘sufficient progress’’ because the meaning will vary depending on the specific circumstances in each case. As one commenter noted, there may be legitimate reasons for not completing the evaluation within the 60-day timeframe, such as differences in assessment instruments used in the previous and new public agencies, and the length of time between a child leaving one school and enrolling in the next school. Therefore, we believe that whether a new public agency is making sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of an evaluation is best left to the discretion of State and local officials and parents to determine. It would be over-regulating to specify the number of days within which a new public agency must request a child’s records from the previous public agency or to require the new public agency to document its attempts to obtain the records and keep parents informed of all VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46639 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations actions through written communication. We note, however, that §300.304(c)(5), consistent with section 614(b)(3)(D) of the Act, requires each public agency to ensure that the evaluations of children with disabilities who transfer from one school district to another school district in the same school year are coordinated with the children’s prior and subsequent schools, as necessary, and as expeditiously as possible, to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations. Additionally, new §300.323(g) (proposed §300.323(e)(2)), consistent with section 614(d)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, requires the new school in which the child enrolls to take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child’s records (including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child) from the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled. The previous public agency in which the child was enrolled must also take reasonable steps to promptly respond to the request from the new public agency. We believe that these requirements will help to ensure that a child’s records are promptly received by the new public agency. The Act does not require the evaluation of a child who is transferring to a new school to be completed within 60 days of the enrollment date of the child, as recommended by one commenter, and we do not believe that such a requirement should be included in the regulations. The completion of evaluations for children who transfer to another school are subject to multiple factors and we decline to regulate on a specific timeframe that would apply in all circumstances. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended sanctions against a new public agency that fails to make an effort to complete an evaluation of a child who transfers to another school that was begun by a previous public agency. The commenter stated that the previous public agency should also be sanctioned for failure to cooperate with a new public agency or for otherwise impeding the ability of the new public agency to complete the evaluation promptly. Discussion: As part of its general supervisory responsibilities in §300.149 and section 612(a)(11) of the Act, each SEA is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are followed, including the requirements for children who transfer from one public agency to another public agency within the school year. Whether sanctions against a particular LEA are appropriate should be determined by the SEA in the first instance, as they are in the best position to determine what sanctions, technical assistance, or combination of the two are likely to lead to future compliance. For that reason, we decline to regulate with more specificity in this area. Changes: None. Screening for Instructional Purposes Is Not Evaluation (§300.302) Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the difference between screening and evaluation and recommended that the regulations include specific examples of what constitutes screening, including testing instruments that are appropriate to be used for screening to determine appropriate instructional strategies. Many commenters recommended permitting States to determine the screening process for identifying appropriate instructional strategies. One commenter stated that ‘‘screening’’ is too loosely defined and may be confused with State regulations that require screening for a child’s entrance into school. The commenter recommended that the regulations address issues such as the need for parental consent prior to screening and a timeframe for screening subsequent to a request. Discussion: An ‘‘evaluation,’’ as used in the Act, refers to an individual assessment to determine eligibility for special education and related services, consistent with the evaluation procedures in §§300.301 through 300.311. ‘‘Screening,’’ as used in §300.302 and section 614(a)(1)(E) of the Act, refers to a process that a teacher or specialist uses to determine appropriate instructional strategies. Screening is typically a relatively simple and quick process that can be used with groups of children. Because such screening is not considered an evaluation under §§300.301 through 300.311 to determine eligibility for special education services, parental consent is not required. Section 300.302 does not address screening for a child’s entrance into school under a State’s rules. Screening required under a State’s rules for a child’s entrance into school is the responsibility of the State and is not within the purview of the Act. We believe that the provisions in §§300.301 through 300.311, regarding evaluations, and §300.302, regarding screening for instructional purposes, are clear, and therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add language to the regulations. We decline to provide specific examples of testing instruments to determine appropriate instructional strategies because this will vary based on the age of the child and the subject matter, and is best left to State and local officials to determine. Likewise, the process for screening, including the timeframe to complete the screening process, is a decision that is best left to State and local officials to determine, based on the instructional needs of the children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether the provisions in §300.302, regarding screening, apply to a child with a disability, as well as a child who has not been identified as a child with a disability. One commenter noted that §300.302 refers to screening of a child by a teacher or a specialist and asked who would be considered a specialist. Another commenter requested clarification regarding the term ‘‘instructional strategies for curriculum implementation,’’ as used in §300.302. Discussion: Section 300.302, consistent with section 614(a)(1)(E) of the Act, states that the screening of a child by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies is not considered an evaluation for purposes of determining eligibility for special education and related services. This applies to a child with a disability, as well as a child who has not been identified as a child with a disability. Such screening, therefore, could occur without obtaining informed parental consent for screening. We believe the determination of who is considered a ‘‘specialist’’ should be left to the discretion of the public agency and should not be specified in the regulations. The term, ‘‘instructional strategies for curriculum implementation’’ is generally used to refer to strategies a teacher may use to more effectively teach children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended clarification regarding whether States can develop and implement policies that permit screening of children to determine if evaluations are necessary. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that requires a State to, or prohibits a State from, developing and implementing policies that permit screening children to determine if evaluations are necessary. However, screening may not be used to delay an evaluation for special education and related services. If a child is referred for an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education and related services, the public agency must implement the requirements in §§300.301 through 300.311 and adhere to the 60-day or the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46640 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations State-established timeframe to complete the evaluation. Changes: None. Reevaluations (§300.303) Comment: A few commenters recommended clarifying that a parent is not required to provide a reason for requesting a reevaluation. Several commenters recommended that the regulations require a public agency to provide prior written notice if a parent requests a reevaluation within a year and the public agency refuses the request. Discussion: Section 300.303(b), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, states that a reevaluation may occur if the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. There is no requirement that a reason for the reevaluation be given and we agree that a reevaluation cannot be conditioned on the parent providing a reason for requesting a reevaluation. Section 300.303(b), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(B) of the Act, provides that a reevaluation may occur not more than once a year and must occur at least once every three years, unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise. If a parent requests more than one reevaluation in a year and the public agency does not believe a reevaluation is needed, we believe the regulations are clear that the public agency must provide the parents with written notice of the agency’s refusal to conduct a reevaluation, consistent with §300.503 and section 615(c)(1) of the Act. We do not believe additional regulations are necessary to address this specific instance of a public agency’s refusal to initiate a reevaluation and the written notice requirements in §300.503. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested clarification regarding whether an evaluation that assesses skills that were not previously assessed in the same related services area would be considered an evaluation or reevaluation. One commenter, asked, for example, if a speech-language evaluation was conducted to assess a child’s speech impairment one year, would an evaluation the following year to assess the child’s language abilities be considered an evaluation or reevaluation? Discussion: An initial evaluation of a child is the first complete assessment of a child to determine if the child has a disability under the Act, and the nature and extent of special education and related services required. Once a child has been fully evaluated, a decision has been rendered that a child is eligible for services under the Act, and the required services have been determined, any subsequent evaluation of a child would constitute a reevaluation. In the example provided by the commenter, the second evaluation would be considered a reevaluation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that reevaluations be required at least once every three years because a child’s mental and physical profile changes in three years, and thus, so would the child’s educational needs. Another commenter recommended requiring LEAs to inform parents that information from the most recent evaluation, which could be three or more years old if the parent agrees that a reevaluation is unnecessary, will be used in the development of a child’s IEP. A few commenters recommended an accountability process for LEAs that do not conduct reevaluations at least every three years. The commenters recommended requiring LEAs to report to the State the number of children with disabilities who qualified for, but were not given a three-year reevaluation; provide prior written notice to parents if the LEA determines that a three-year reevaluation is not necessary, including the justification for such determination; and inform the parent in writing in the parent’s language that a three-year reevaluation will be conducted if the parent disagrees with the LEA’s determination. One commenter recommended requiring an LEA that does not conduct a reevaluation at least once every three years to justify the reasons in writing, especially if there is evidence that the child is not meeting the State’s academic achievement standards. Discussion: Section 300.303(b)(2), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, requires a reevaluation to occur at least once every three years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. It would be overly burdensome to require an LEA to report to the State the number of children with disabilities who qualified for, but were not given a three-year reevaluation. Similarly, it would be overly burdensome to require LEAs to inform parents that information from the most recent evaluation will be used to develop a child’s IEP or to justify to the parent in writing the LEA’s reasons for not conducting a reevaluation every three years if the parent and the agency have already agreed that a reevaluation is unnecessary. If a parent requests a reevaluation and the public agency disagrees that a reevaluation is needed, the public agency must provide prior written notice to the parent, consistent with §300.503, that explains, among other things, why the agency refuses to conduct the reevaluation and the parent’s right to contest the agency’s decision through mediation or a due process hearing. In situations where a public agency believes a reevaluation is necessary, but the parent disagrees and refuses consent for a reevaluation, new §300.300(c)(1)(ii) is clear that the public agency may, but is not required to, pursue the reevaluation by using the consent override procedures described in §300.300(a)(3). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended the following requirements for the reevaluation of a child with the most significant cognitive disabilities who is assessed based on alternate achievement standards: (a) Prohibiting the public agency from automatically determining that a three- year reevaluation is not needed; (b) requiring the public agency to consider whether the child has been correctly identified to be assessed against alternate achievement standards; and (c) requiring a review of evaluation data to determine whether the child is, to the extent possible, being educated in the general curriculum and assessed with instruments aligned with that curriculum. Discussion: We do not believe changes to the regulations are necessary to address the commenter’s concerns. The Act does not include any special requirements for the reevaluation of a child with the most significant cognitive disabilities who is assessed against alternate achievement standards. It would be inconsistent with the individualized evaluation and reevaluation procedures in section 614(b) and (c) of the Act for a public agency to automatically determine that reevaluations are unnecessary for a specific group of children. In determining whether a reevaluation is needed, the parent and the public agency must consider the child’s educational needs, which may include whether the child is participating in the general education curriculum and being assessed appropriately. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying that parents have the right to prevent the over-testing of their child and that the requirements for reevaluations do not diminish the rights of parents to make decisions regarding the reevaluation. Several commenters recommended that the regulations require States to establish VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46641 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations additional procedural safeguards to ensure that parents who agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary are aware of the implications of their decision. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act to suggest that the requirements for reevaluations in §300.303 diminish the rights of parents. As stated in §300.303, consistent with section 614(a)(2) of the Act, a parent can request a reevaluation at any time, and can agree with the public agency to conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once a year. Likewise, a parent and a public agency can agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. We believe that in reaching an agreement that a reevaluation is unnecessary, as provided for in §300.303(b), the parent and public agency will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conducting a reevaluation, as well as what effect a reevaluation might have on the child’s educational program. Therefore, we do not agree with the commenter that additional procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that parents who agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary are aware of the implications of their decision. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters requested that the opportunity to waive a reevaluation occur only after the IEP Team has reviewed extant data to determine whether additional data are needed to determine the child’s eligibility and the educational needs of the child. Discussion: The review of existing data is part of the reevaluation process. Section 300.305(a), consistent with section 614(c)(1) of the Act, is clear that, as part of any reevaluation, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must review existing evaluation data, and on the basis of that review, and input from the child’s parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether the child continues to have a disability, and the educational needs of the child. Therefore, the opportunity for a parent and the public agency to agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary occurs before a reevaluation begins. It would be inconsistent with the Act to implement the commenters’ recommendation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that waiving a three-year reevaluation must not be adopted as routine agency policy or practice and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Another commenter recommended that the regulations require the LEA to offer parents a reevaluation at least annually when a parent agrees that a three-year reevaluation is not needed. Another commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that a reevaluation may be warranted more than once a year if the child’s condition changes or new information becomes available that has an impact on the child’s educational situation. Discussion: It is not necessary to add language clarifying that waiving three- year reevaluations must not be a routine agency policy or practice because the regulations are clear that this is a decision that is made individually for each child by the parent of the child and the public agency. Section 300.303(b)(2), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, states that a reevaluation must occur at least once every three years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. When a parent and a public agency agree that a three-year reevaluation is unnecessary, there is no requirement that the public agency offer the parent a reevaluation each year. We do not believe that it is necessary to have such a requirement because if parents who have waived a three year reevaluation later decide to request an evaluation, they can do so. Also, public agencies have a continuing responsibility to request parental consent for a reevaluation if they determine that the child’s educational or related services needs warrant a reevaluation. We do not believe additional regulations are needed to clarify that a reevaluation can occur more than once a year. Section 300.303(b)(1), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, already provides that a reevaluation can occur more than once a year if the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is needed. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether the agreement between the parent and the public agency that a reevaluation is unnecessary is the same as parental consent in §300.9. Discussion: An agreement between a parent and a public agency is not the same as parental consent in §300.9. Rather, an agreement refers to an understanding between a parent and the public agency and does not need to meet the requirements for parental consent in §300.9. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that when a parent obtains an independent educational evaluation (IEE) and provides new information to the public agency, a reevaluation could be conducted more than once a year so that the public agency can verify the results of the IEE. Discussion: The changes recommended by the commenter are unnecessary. Section 300.303(b)(1), consistent with section 614(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, is clear that a reevaluation can be conducted more than once a year if the parent and the public agency agree that it is necessary. Therefore, in the situation presented by the commenter, if the results of an IEE provide new information that the public agency and the parent agree warrant a reevaluation, the parent and the public agency could agree to conduct a reevaluation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether an IEE is considered a reevaluation and whether an IEE is prohibited within less than a year of the public agency’s most recent evaluation. Discussion: An IEE would be considered as a potential source of additional information that the public agency and parent could consider in determining whether the educational or related services needs of the child warrant a reevaluation, but it would not be considered a reevaluation. There is no restriction on when a parent can request an IEE. Changes: None. Evaluation Procedures (§300.304) Notice (§300.304(a)) Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that the regulations clarify that the requirement for prior written notice to parents in §300.304(a) is satisfied if the public agency notifies the parent of the type(s) of assessment(s) that will be conducted. One commenter stated that the prior written notice requirements for evaluations should be satisfied if the public agency notifies the parent of the type(s) of assessment(s) that will be conducted, the method(s) of assessment, and the persons who will conduct the assessment(s). Discussion: It would be inconsistent with the Act for a public agency to limit the contents of the prior written notice in the manner requested by the commenters. In addition to describing the evaluation procedures the agency proposes to use, as required in §300.303(a), section 615(c)(1) of the Act requires the prior written notice to include an explanation of why the agency proposes to evaluate the child; a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for requesting the evaluation; a statement that the parents have protection under the procedural safeguards of the Act, and if this notice is not an initial referral for VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46642 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations evaluation, the means by which a copy of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; sources for the parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of the Act; a description of other options that were considered and why these reasons were rejected; and a description of other factors that are relevant to the agency’s proposal to request consent for an evaluation. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the notice to parents regarding the evaluation procedures the agency proposes to use must be provided in the native language of the parents, and recommended that this requirement be clarified in §300.304. Discussion: Information regarding the evaluation procedures the agency proposes to use, as required in §300.303(a), is included in the prior written notice required in §300.503(c)(1)(ii). Section 300.503(c)(1)(ii) requires, that the prior written notice to parents be provided in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. We see no need to repeat these requirements in §300.304 and believe that doing so could cause confusion about the status of other applicable requirements that would not be repeated in this section. Changes: None. Conduct of Evaluation (§300.304(b)) Comment: One commenter asked whether the ‘‘procedure’’ referred to in §300.304(b)(2) is the same as the ‘‘measure or assessment’’ referred to in section 614(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Another commenter recommended changing §300.304(b)(2) to follow the statutory language. Discussion: Section 300.304(b)(2), as proposed, states that the public agency may not use any single ‘‘procedure’’ as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child. Section 614(b)(2)(B) of the Act states that in conducting an evaluation, the LEA must not use any single ‘‘measure or assessment’’ as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability or determining an appropriate educational program for the child. We agree that the statutory language should be used in §300.304(b)(2) because use of the term ‘‘procedure,’’ rather than ‘‘measurement or assessment,’’ could be confusing. Changes: We have changed ‘‘procedure’’ to ‘‘measurement or assessment’’ in §300.304(b)(2), consistent with the statutory language. Comment: One commenter recommended adding the word ‘‘always’’ to §300.304(b) to state that the public agency must ‘‘always’’ conduct an evaluation in accordance with the requirements in §300.304(b)(1) through (b)(3). Discussion: Adding the word ‘‘always’’ to §300.304(b) would not change the requirements for conducting an evaluation consistent with §300.304(b). The regulation already requires a public agency to conduct the evaluation in accordance with §300.304(b)(1) through (b)(3) and there are no exceptions to that requirement. Therefore, we decline to change §300.304(b) in the manner recommended by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations define ‘‘technically sound instruments’’ and ‘‘relative contribution’’ in §300.304(b)(3). Another commenter recommended that the instruments used in reevaluations to determine whether the child continues to have a disability should be based on scientific research methods. Discussion: Section 300.304(b)(3) follows the specific language in section 614(b)(2)(C) of the Act and requires that the evaluation of a child use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical and developmental factors. ‘‘Technically sound instruments’’ generally refers to assessments that have been shown through research to be valid and reliable. Therefore, it would be redundant to add language requiring that instruments used in reevaluations be based on scientific research methods, as recommended by one commenter. The phrase ‘‘relative contribution,’’ as used in §300.304(b)(3), generally means that assessment instruments that allow the examiner to determine the extent to which a child’s behavior is a result of cognitive, behavioral, physical, or developmental factors may be used in evaluating a child in accordance with §300.304. Because the meaning of ‘‘relative contribution’’ is context specific, we do not believe it should be defined in these regulations. Changes: None. Other Evaluation Procedures (§300.304(c)) Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying that differences in language and socialization practices must be considered when determining eligibility for special education and related services, including biases related to the assessment. Discussion: We do not believe that the clarification requested by the commenter is necessary. The Act and these regulations recognize that some assessments may be biased and discriminatory for children with differences in language and socialization practices. Section 614(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under the Act are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. Additionally, in interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining eligibility of a child for special education and related services, §300.306(c) requires each public agency to draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, teacher recommendations, as well as information regarding a child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior. We believe that these provisions provide adequate protection for the concerns raised by the commenter. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that a public agency should not use the ‘‘not clearly feasible’’ exception in §300.304(c)(1)(ii) to improperly limit a child’s right to be evaluated in the child’s native language or other mode of communication. Discussion: Section 300.304(c)(1)(ii), consistent with section 614(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, requires that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child be provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer. We agree that this provision should not be improperly used to limit evaluations in a child’s native language, but we do not believe that a change to the regulations is necessary or that it would prevent inappropriate application of the existing rule. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended including ‘‘behavior’’ in the list of areas to be evaluated in §300.304(c)(4). Another commenter recommended requiring a functional behavioral assessment to be part of a child’s evaluation whenever any member of the IEP Team requests it or raises concerns about the child’s behavior. One commenter asked why physical assessments were not included VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46643 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations in the list of assessments that should be conducted. Discussion: Section 300.304(c)(4) requires the public agency to ensure that the child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. This could include, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. This is not an exhaustive list of areas that must be assessed. Decisions regarding the areas to be assessed are determined by the suspected needs of the child. If a child’s behavior or physical status is of concern, evaluations addressing these areas must be conducted. No further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended that the evaluation report include a description of the extent to which an assessment varied from standard conditions because there are few assessments that produce valid and reliable information for English language learners suspected of having a disability. Several commenters stated that it is standard practice for professionals administering assessments to include information in their reports when assessments are conducted using nonstandard conditions. One commenter recommended that the regulations require all evaluation reports to clearly indicate the language or other mode of communication used in assessing a child and a determination of whether using such language or other mode of communication yielded accurate information. Discussion: As stated by several commenters, it is standard test administration practice to include in the evaluation report the extent to which an assessment varied from standard conditions, including the language or other mode of communication that was used in assessing a child. It is, therefore, unnecessary to include this requirement in the regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended that the regulations require public agencies to provide parents with evidence that the assessments to be used are reliable and valid for their particular use, as well as assurances that the assessments will be administered in the child’s primary language or mode of communication. The commenters also recommended that public agencies be required to provide parents with information regarding the assumptions being made about the tests and the inferences that can be drawn from the test results. Discussion: Section 300.304(a), consistent with section 614(b)(1) of the Act, requires the public agency to provide notice to the parents of a child with a disability, in accordance with §300.503, that describes the evaluation procedures the agency proposes to conduct. To require public agencies to provide all parents with the specific information recommended by the commenters would be burdensome for public agencies, and could be overwhelming for some parents, and therefore, we decline to add such a requirement to the regulations. While we understand that some parents will want the detailed information mentioned by the commenter, parents can always request such additional information before providing informed written consent for the evaluation or reevaluation. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters recommended that the regulations require comprehensive psychological and educational evaluations to rule out alternate causes of functional impairments in academic achievement. Discussion: We believe the regulations already address the commenters’ concerns and we do not believe any further clarification is necessary. Section 300.304(c)(6) requires that evaluations are sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been identified. In addition, §300.306(b), consistent with section 614(b)(5) of the Act, states that a child must not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, or limited English proficiency. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that the requirements in new §300.301(d)(2) and (e) (proposed §300.301(d)(2)(i) and (ii)), regarding children who transfer to another public agency before an initial evaluation is completed, should be cross-referenced in §300.304(c)(5). Discussion: We agree that a cross- reference in §300.304(c)(5) is appropriate. Changes: We have added ‘‘consistent with §300.301(d)(2) and (e),’’ following ‘‘possible’’ in §300.304(c)(5). Comment: None. Discussion: In reviewing §300.304(c)(5), we determined that §300.304(c)(5) should be amended to refer to children with disabilities who transfer to another public agency ‘‘in the same school year’’ rather than ‘‘in the same academic year’’ because that is the term most commonly understood by parents and school officials. Changes: We have changed ‘‘academic year’’ to ‘‘school year’’ in §300.304(c)(5). Comment: One commenter recommended adding language regarding scientifically based special education and related services to §300.304(c)(6). Discussion: Section 300.304(c)(6) requires that the evaluation of a child with a disability be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified. We believe that the focus on providing scientifically based special education and related services is clear in the Act and these regulations and do not believe it is necessary to refer to ‘‘scientifically based’’ services each time we refer to special education and related services. Therefore, we decline to add this language in §300.304(c)(6), as requested by the commenter. Changes: None. Additional Requirements for Evaluations and Reevaluations (§300.305) Review of Existing Evaluation Data (§300.305(a)) Comment: One commenter stated that a comma should be added after ‘‘current classroom-based’’ in §300.305(a)(1)(ii) to clarify that a review of existing evaluation data for a child must include, as appropriate, data from three types of assessments: Current classroom-based, local, or State assessments. Discussion: We agree with the commenter and will revise the language consistent with the commenter’s suggestion and consistent with section 614(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. The changes will clarify that a review of existing evaluation data on a child must include, as appropriate, current classroom-based, local, or State assessment data. Changes: We have inserted a comma following ‘‘classroom based’’ and ‘‘local’’ in §300.305(a)(1)(ii), consistent with the statutory language. Comment: One commenter asked whether a public agency must conduct a reevaluation when a reevaluation is requested to determine the child’s educational and functional needs, but the child’s eligibility for special education and related services is not in question. Discussion: Section 300.305(a)(2), consistent with section 614(c)(1)(B) of VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46644 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations the Act, states that one of the purposes of a reevaluation is to determine the educational needs of the child, including whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the child’s IEP goals and to participate in the general education curriculum. Thus, if a reevaluation is requested to determine the child’s educational needs when the child’s continued eligibility is not in question, the public agency must either conduct the reevaluation or provide notice to the parents as to why the public agency believes a reevaluation is unnecessary. Changes: None. Requirements if Additional Data Are Not Needed (§300.305(d)) Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations define or remove the phrase ‘‘qualified professionals, as appropriate’’ in §300.305(d)(1). Discussion: Section 300.305(d)(1) follows the specific language in section 614(c)(1) of the Act and refers to the decision made by the IEP Team and ‘‘other qualified professionals, as appropriate’’ regarding whether additional data are needed to determine whether a child continues to be a child with a disability and the child’s educational needs. The phrase, ‘‘qualified professionals, as appropriate’’ is used to provide flexibility for public agencies to include other professionals who may not be a part of the child’s IEP Team in the group that determines if additional data are needed to make an eligibility determination and determine the child’s educational needs. We believe that public agencies should have flexibility in determining how to define ‘‘qualified professionals’’ and we do not believe a definition should be included in the regulations. Changes: None. Evaluations Before Change in Eligibility (Proposed Evaluations Before Change in Placement) (§300.305(e)) Comment: One commenter stated that the heading for §300.305(e), ‘‘Evaluations before change in placement’’ should be changed because the regulations that follow do not deal with changes in placement. Another commenter requested clarification regarding the meaning of the term ‘‘placement.’’ The commenter stated that §300.305(e) uses the term to mean that special education services are no longer required, but that this is not the meaning when used in the context of alternative educational placements. The commenter also asked whether moving a child from a self-contained classroom to a resource room is a change of placement. Discussion: We agree that the heading for §300.305(e) should be changed to more accurately reflect the requirements in this subsection. We will, therefore, change the heading to ‘‘Evaluations before change in eligibility,’’ which is consistent with the heading in section 614(c)(5) of the Act. With regard to the commenter’s question about whether moving a child from a self-contained classroom to a resource room would be a change of placement, we believe that it would be, as it would change the child’s level of interaction with his or her nondisabled peers. However, as noted previously, the term ‘‘change of placement’’ should not have been used in connection this regulation. In the example provided by the commenter, generally, if a child is moved from a self-contained classroom to a resource room, it is likely that the child’s current IEP cannot be implemented in the resource room, because the educational program in the resource room is likely to be substantially and materially different than the educational program in the self-contained classroom or the educational program in the resource room would change the level of interaction with nondisabled peers. Therefore, this situation would likely be a change of placement under the Act. Changes: We have removed the heading ‘‘Evaluations before change in placement’’ in §300.305(e) and replaced it with ‘‘Evaluations before change in eligibility’’ for clarity and consistency with the heading in section 614(c)(5) of the Act. Comment: Many commenters recommended that evaluations for other institutions (e.g., vocational rehabilitation agencies, colleges and universities) should be required before a child graduates from secondary school with a regular diploma or exceeds the age limit for FAPE. However, a number of commenters disagreed and stated that public agencies should not be required to conduct evaluations that will be used to meet the entrance or eligibility requirements of another institution or agency. One commenter requested clarification regarding whether schools must provide updated evaluations for college testing and admissions purposes and recommended including language in the regulations that explicitly states that public agencies are not required to conduct tests that are needed for admission to postsecondary programs. Another commenter recommended that the regulations clarify that LEAs have responsibility for providing the postsecondary services that are included in the summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance. One commenter requested requiring a reevaluation before a child exits the school system. Another commenter recommended clarifying that a comprehensive evaluation is not required for children aging out of special education. A number of commenters provided recommendations on the information that should be included in the summary of a child’s academic and functional performance required in §300.305(e)(3). Commenters suggested that the summary report should include information about the child’s disability; the effect of the disability on the child’s academic and functional performance (sufficient to establish eligibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, if appropriate); any needed modifications or adaptations essential to the child’s success; the child’s most recent evaluations by professionals, including the child’s academic achievement and functional performance levels; assistive technology and other supports used by the child; and any modifications and supports that would facilitate the child’s successful transition to postsecondary education or employment. Discussion: We do not believe that the regulations should require public agencies to conduct evaluations for children to meet the entrance or eligibility requirements of another institution or agency because to do so would impose a significant cost on public agencies that is not required by the Act. While the requirements for secondary transition are intended to help parents and schools assist children with disabilities transition beyond high school, section 614(c)(5) in the Act does not require a public agency to assess a child with a disability to determine the child’s eligibility to be considered a child with a disability in another agency, such as a vocational rehabilitation program, or a college or other postsecondary setting. The Act also does not require LEAs to provide the postsecondary services that may be included in the summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance. We believe it would impose costs on public agencies not contemplated by the Act to include such requirements in the regulations. It would be inconsistent with the Act to require public agencies to conduct evaluations for children who are exiting the school system because they exceed the age for eligibility under State law. Section 300.305(e)(2), consistent with VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46645 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations section 614(c)(5)(B)(i) of the Act, is clear that an evaluation in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility under the Act due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma or due to exceeding the age eligibility for FAPE under State law. Section 300.305(e)(3), consistent with section 614(c)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, states that the summary required when a child graduates with a regular diploma or exceeds the age eligibility under State law must include information about the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, as well as recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals. The Act does not otherwise specify the information that must be included in the summary and we do not believe that the regulations should include a list of required information. Rather, we believe that State and local officials should have the flexibility to determine the appropriate content in a child’s summary, based on the child’s individual needs and postsecondary goals. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that public agencies should not be required to conduct an evaluation of a child who graduates with a regular diploma because a regular diploma means that the child has met the same requirements and achieved the same or similar level of competency as the child’s nondisabled classmates. The commenter also requested that the regulations define a regular diploma to mean that the child has reached a comparable level of achievement as the child’s nondisabled classmates. Discussion: Section 300.305(e)(2) specifically states that a public agency does not need to evaluate a child with a disability who graduates with a regular diploma. In addition, as noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart B, we have clarified in §300.101(a)(3)(iv) that a regular diploma does not include alternate degrees, such as a general educational development (GED) credential. We do not believe that any further clarification with respect to the definition of ‘‘regular diploma’’ is necessary. Changes: None. Determination of Eligibility (§300.306) Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require public agencies to provide parents with copies of all evaluations at no cost. However, another commenter stated that evaluations are often lengthy and requested clarification as to whether public agencies must provide copies of evaluations to parents at no cost. Discussion: Section 300.306(a)(2), consistent with section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Act, requires that a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility be given to the parent. We have added language to §300.306(a)(2) to clarify that the public agency must provide these copies at no cost to the parent. With regard to providing parents with copies of all evaluations, §300.501(a), consistent with section 615(b)(1) of the Act, affords parents an opportunity to inspect and review all education records with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child, and the provision of a FAPE to the child. Specific procedures for access to records are contained in the confidentiality provisions in §§300.610 through 300.627. Section 300.613 requires a public agency to permit a parent to inspect and review any education records relating to their child that are collected, maintained, or used by the agency under the Act. The right to inspect and review records includes the right to a response from the agency to reasonable requests for explanations and interpretations of the records; the right to request that the agency provide copies of the records containing the information if failure to provide those copies would effectively prevent the parent from exercising the right to inspect and review the records; and the right to have a representative of the parent inspect and review the records. To the extent that the commenters may have been concerned about free copies of evaluation documents that would not be provided under the above regulations, we decline to regulate further, as we believe that the cited provisions adequately balance the interests of the parents for free copies and the public agencies in controlling costs. Changes: We have added language to §300.306(a)(2) to clarify that the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility must be provided at no cost to the parent. Comment: One commenter recommended that parents receive evaluation reports prior to an IEP Team meeting because the reports may have information that parents need to participate in making decisions about the IEP. The commenter stated that, if parents receive reports at meetings, rather than before the meetings, they cannot be active participants. Another commenter stated that parents should be provided with copies of documents related to the determination of eligibility at least five days prior to the eligibility determination meeting. Discussion: The Act does not establish a timeline for providing a copy of the evaluation report or the documentation of determination of eligibility to the parents and we do not believe that a specific timeline should be included in the regulations because this is a matter that is best left to State and local discretion. It is, however, important to ensure that parents have the information they need to participate meaningfully in IEP Team meetings, which may include reviewing their child’s records. Section 300.613(a) requires a public agency to comply with a parent request to inspect and review existing education records, including an evaluation report, without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP, and in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made. This includes the right to a response from the public agency to reasonable requests for explanations and interpretations of records, consistent with §300.613(b)(1). While it would be appropriate for parents to review documents related to the determination of eligibility prior to the eligibility determination, there is no requirement that eligibility be determined at an IEP Team meeting and it would not be appropriate for a public agency to provide documentation of the determination of eligibility prior to discussing a child’s eligibility for special education and related services with the parent. Section 300.306(a)(1) and section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act require that a group of qualified professionals and the parent determine whether the child is a child with a disability. Therefore, providing documentation of the eligibility determination to a parent prior to a discussion with the parent regarding the child’s eligibility would indicate that the public agency made its determination without including the parent and possibly, qualified professionals, in the decision. Changes: None. Special Rule for Eligibility Determination (§300.306(b)) Comment: A number of commenters recommended other factors that should be ruled out before a child is determined to be a child with a disability. Many commenters stated that a child should not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is lack of instruction in English language development or lack of access to State content standards. A VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46646 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations few commenters expressed concern regarding subjective judgments about the definition of ‘‘appropriate instruction.’’ One commenter stated that determining the quality of reading instruction that children received in the past might be difficult, if not impossible, especially when children are referred for an evaluation after they enter middle school or are highly mobile. Discussion: We agree that a child should not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is lack of access to State content standards, and we believe this is implicit in section 614(b)(5) of the Act, which states that a child must not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading (including the essential components of reading instruction, as defined in the ESEA) or lack of instruction in math. During the Department’s internal review of these regulations, we noted that, while §300.306(b)(1)(i) refers to lack of ‘‘appropriate’’ instruction in reading, there is no similar qualifier for math. We believe it is equally important that a child not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is the lack of ‘‘appropriate’’ instruction in math. Therefore, we will revise §300.306(b)(1)(ii) to make this clear. We are unclear what the commenter means by lack of instruction in English language development. However, if a child’s low achievement is a result of limited English proficiency or lack of access to instruction in reading, the child must not be determined to be a child with a disability, consistent with section 614(b)(5) of the Act. Whether a child has received ‘‘appropriate instruction’’ is appropriately left to State and local officials to determine. While information regarding the quality of instruction a child received in the past may be helpful in determining whether a child is eligible for special education services, it is not essential. Schools, however, must ensure that the determinant factor in deciding that a child is a child with a disability is not a lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math. Changes: We have added ‘‘appropriate’’ in §300.306(b)(1)(ii) to refer to a ‘‘lack of appropriate instruction in math.’’ Comment: Some commenters requested that we include in the regulations the essential components of reading instruction defined in the ESEA. Discussion: For reasons set forth elsewhere in this preamble, we are not adding definitions to these regulations from statutes other than the Act. However, the definition of the essential components of reading instruction from section 1208(3) of the ESEA is included here for reference. Essential Components of Reading Instruction—The term ‘‘essential components of reading instruction’’ means explicit and systematic instruction in— (A) Phonemic awareness; (B) Phonics; (C) Vocabulary development; (D) Reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and (E) Reading comprehension strategies. Changes: None. Procedures for Determining Eligibility and Educational Need (Proposed Procedures for Determining Eligibility and Placement) (§300.306(c)) Comment: None. Discussion: During the review of these regulations, we noted that section 614(b)(4) of the Act refers to procedures for determining eligibility and ‘‘educational need,’’ rather than procedures for determining eligibility and ‘‘placement,’’ as in the heading for proposed §300.306(c). Therefore, we will change the heading in §300.306(c) to be consistent with section 614(b)(4) of the Act. Changes: We have replaced ‘‘placement’’ with ‘‘educational need’’ in the heading to §300.306(c), consistent with section 614(b)(4) of the Act. Additional Procedures for Identifying Children With Specific Learning Disabilities Specific Learning Disabilities (§300.307) Comment: Numerous commenters supported proposed §300.307(a)(1), which allowed States to prohibit LEAs from using a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement (discrepancy models) to determine eligibility under the specific learning disability (SLD) category. However, many commenters supported the use of discrepancy models and requested that the regulations allow discrepancy models to continue to be used. Numerous commenters stated that §300.307(a)(1) exceeds statutory authority and that LEAs should be permitted to use discrepancy models. Many commenters cited Conf. Rpt. 108– 779 and stated that Congress did not intend to prohibit LEAs from using discrepancy models. Discussion: The Department agrees that proposed §300.307(a)(1) should be removed. We believe this will improve the clarity of the regulations and make it easier for parents and professionals to understand. With respect to permitting LEAs to use discrepancy models, even with the removal of §300.307(a)(1), States are responsible for developing criteria to determine whether a child is a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8 and section 602(3) of the Act, including whether a particular child meets the criteria for having an SLD. Under section 614(b)(6) of the Act, States are free to prohibit the use of a discrepancy model. States, including States that did not use a discrepancy model prior to the Act, are not required to develop criteria that permit the use of a discrepancy model. Changes: We have removed §300.307(a)(1) and redesignated the subsequent provisions in §300.307. Comment: Many commenters stated that response to intervention (RTI) should be considered one component of the evaluation process and not the sole component. Another commenter stated that neither a discrepancy model nor an RTI model alone can correctly identify children with SLD and that other data are needed, such as informal and formal assessments, histories, and observations. One commenter stated that all relevant and available evaluation data, such as the nature and type of evaluation, evaluator qualifications, and outcome data should be considered. One commenter recommended that RTI be tied to the general evaluation procedures. Another commenter recommended referencing the evaluation procedures in §300.309 to clarify that RTI must be used as one component of the evaluation process to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Several commenters stated that relying solely on an RTI model would result in larger numbers of children being identified with an SLD. Discussion: Consistent with §300.304(b) and section 614(b)(2) of the Act, the evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability, including an SLD, must include a variety of assessment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any single procedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility for special education and related services. This requirement applies to all children suspected of having a disability, including those suspected of having an SLD. To simplify new §300.307(a)(2) (proposed §300.307(a)(3)) and remove unnecessary repetition, we will: (a) Remove the phrase ‘‘as part of the VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46647 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 1Tilly III, W. D. (2002). School psychology as a problem solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV. Washington D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists; VanDerHeyden, A.M, Witt, J.C, & Gilbertson, D. (in press). Effect of a problem solving intervention on the accurate identification of children. Journal of School Psychology; Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187–200; Gresham, F., VanDerHeyden, A.M, & Witt, J.C. (in press). Response to intervention in the identification of learning disabilities: Empirical support and future challenges. School Psychology Review; National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005). Response to intervention: policy considerations and implementations. Alexandria VA: Author. evaluation procedures described in §300.304;’’ and (b) replace ‘‘process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention’’ with ‘‘process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.’’ Section 300.311(a)(7) will also be revised, consistent with this language. Changes: We have revised new §300.307(a)(2) (proposed §300.307(a)(3)) and §300.311(a)(7) for clarity. Comment: Several commenters recommended changing new §300.307(a)(2) (proposed §300.307(a)(3)) to require that State criteria ‘‘may’’ rather than ‘‘must’’ permit a process that determines if a child responds to research-based intervention in order to be consistent with section 614(b)(6)(B) of the Act. Discussion: Making the requested change to new §300.307(a)(2) (proposed §300.307(a)(3)) would be inconsistent with the Act. Section 614(b)(6)(B) of the Act gives LEAs the option of using a process that determines if a child responds to research-based interventions. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that the regulations include a statement that discrepancy models have been discredited and that there is no evidence that they can be applied in a valid and reliable manner. Several commenters recommended that the Department urge States, at least through guidance, to eliminate provisions under State laws that permit the use of discrepancy models. Discussion: We do not believe it is appropriate to add language in the regulations discouraging the use of discrepancy models to identify children with SLD. We removed current §300.541(a)(2), which required States to use a discrepancy model to determine whether a child has an SLD, because section 614(b)(6) of the Act now specifies that an LEA shall not be required to consider a severe discrepancy in determining whether a child has an SLD. New §300.307(a)(2) (proposed §300.307(a)(3)) requires States to permit the use of a process that examines whether the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the information reviewed to determine whether a child has an SLD. The regulations reflect the Department’s position on the identification of children with SLD and our support for models that focus on assessments that are related to instruction and promote intervention for identified children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that any guidance the Department issues on RTI models should emphasize that RTI represents a shift in how children are identified for special education services and not just an additional task that special education teachers must do. Discussion: Consensus reports and empirical syntheses indicate a need for major changes in the approach to identifying children with SLD. Models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children with SLD because the children who are identified under such models are most likely to require special education and related services. We will consider addressing this issue in future guidance. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters stated that the elimination of discrepancy models would result in an inability to identify children with SLD who are gifted. One commenter stated that a scatter of scores should be used to identify children with SLD who are gifted. Discussion: Discrepancy models are not essential for identifying children with SLD who are gifted. However, the regulations clearly allow discrepancies in achievement domains, typical of children with SLD who are gifted, to be used to identify children with SLD. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters opposed the use of RTI models to determine whether a child has an SLD, stating that there is a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that RTI models correctly identify children with SLD. One commenter stated that RTI is a subjective method of determining whether treatment is effective and is not a treatment itself. A few commenters requested additional research demonstrating the efficacy of the wide- scale use of RTI models. Some commenters stated that research on the use of RTI models has been conducted only in the area of reading in the primary grades and pointed to the lack of scientific data on achievement gains or long-term success. One commenter stated that there is no evidence that RTI is effective for non-native speakers of English and minority populations. Another commenter stated that RTI would fail to identify young children with SLD. One commenter stated that when a child fails to respond to an intervention, it is unclear why the child failed (e.g., inappropriate intervention, ineffective teaching, unreasonable expectations). One commenter stated that longitudinal data are needed to determine if children who succeed in an RTI process later become eligible under the category of SLD based on reading fluency and comprehension difficulties, or difficulties in other academic areas, such as mathematics problem-solving or written expression. Discussion: The Act requires that LEAs be permitted to use a process that determines if a child responds to research-based interventions. Further, there is an evidence base to support the use of RTI models to identify children with SLD on a wide scale, including young children and children from minority backgrounds. These include several large-scale implementations in Iowa (the Heartland model; Tilly, 2002); the Minneapolis public schools (Marston, 2003); applications of the Screening to Enhance Equitable Placement (STEEP) model in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, in press); and other examples (NASDE, 2005). 1While it is true that much of the research on RTI models has been conducted in the area of reading, 80 to 90 percent of children with SLD experience reading problems. The implementation of RTI in practice, however, has included other domains. RTI is only one component of the process to identify children in need of special education and related services. Determining why a child has not responded to research-based interventions requires a comprehensive evaluation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about how LEAs will conduct evaluations for children suspected of having an SLD who attend private schools because requiring an RTI process could become entangled with the private school’s instructional practices. The commenter recommended clarifying that child find does not require an LEA to use RTI to VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46648 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations identify children with SLD who are attending private schools. Discussion: An RTI process does not replace the need for a comprehensive evaluation. A public agency must use a variety of data gathering tools and strategies even if an RTI process is used. The results of an RTI process may be one component of the information reviewed as part of the evaluation procedures required under §§300.304 and 300.305. As required in §300.304(b), consistent with section 614(b)(2) of the Act, an evaluation must include a variety of assessment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any single procedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility for special education and related services. It is up to each State to develop criteria to determine whether a child has a disability, including whether a particular child has an SLD. In developing their criteria, States may wish to consider how the criteria will be implemented with a child for whom systematic data on the child’s response to appropriate instruction is not available. However, many private schools collect assessment data that would permit a determination of how well a child responds to appropriate instruction. The group making the eligibility determination for a private school child for whom data on the child’s response to appropriate instruction are not available may need to rely on other information to make their determination, or identify what additional data are needed to determine whether the child is a child with a disability. However, under §300.306(b), a public agency may not identify any public or private school child as a child with a disability if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that adoption of new procedures for evaluating children suspected of having an SLD should not penalize or declassify children who under prior procedures were found to have an SLD. The commenter recommended using the requirements in §300.305, rather than data from a child’s response to a scientific, research-based intervention process, to consider whether a child continues to have an SLD. Discussion: An RTI process does not replace the need for a comprehensive evaluation, and a child’s eligibility for special education services cannot be changed solely on the basis of data from an RTI process. Consistent with §300.303 and section 614(a)(2) of the Act, a child with a disability must be reevaluated if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs of the child warrant a reevaluation or if the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. A reevaluation must occur no more than once a year, unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise, and at least once every three years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary, to determine whether the child continues to have a disability and to determine the educational needs of the child. Reevaluations must be conducted in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311. In addition, as noted in §300.305(e)(1), except for children at the end of their secondary school career, a reevaluation must be done before determining that a child is no longer a child with a disability. In conducting a reevaluation, as noted in §300.305, consistent with section 614(c) of the Act, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals must review existing evaluation data on the child including evaluations provided by the parents of the child; current classroom- based, local, or State assessments and classroom-based observations; and observations by teachers and related services providers. The results of an RTI process may be one component of the information reviewed as part of the reevaluation process. It is up to each State to develop criteria to determine whether a child continues to have a disability, including whether a particular child has an SLD. States that change their eligibility criteria for SLD may want to carefully consider the reevaluation of children found eligible for special education services using prior procedures. States should consider the effect of exiting a child from special education who has received special education and related services for many years and how the removal of such supports will affect the child’s educational progress, particularly for a child who is in the final year(s) of high school. Obviously, the group should consider whether the child’s instruction and overall special education program have been appropriate as part of this process. If the special education instruction has been appropriate and the child has not been able to exit special education, this would be strong evidence that the child’s eligibility needs to be maintained. Changes: None. Alternative Research-Based Procedures (New §300.307(a)(3)) (Proposed §300.307(a)(4)) Comment: Many commenters expressed support for allowing the use of alternative research-based procedures to determine whether a child has an SLD. However, a few commenters stated that the use of alternative research- based procedures should be removed because there is no indication that these procedures will assist in identifying a child with an SLD and because the Act does not use this term. Discussion: New §300.307(a)(3) (proposed §300.307(a)(4)) recognizes that there are alternative models to identify children with SLD that are based on sound scientific research and gives States flexibility to use these models. For example, a State could choose to identify children based on absolute low achievement and consideration of exclusionary factors as one criterion for eligibility. Other alternatives might combine features of different models for identification. We believe the evaluation procedures in section 614(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Act give the Department the flexibility to allow States to use alternative, research- based procedures for determining whether a child has an SLD and is eligible for special education and related services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that alternative research-based procedures are not based on scientific research and should therefore be removed. Discussion: The Department does not support the use of identification procedures that are not based on scientific research. Models or procedures that claim to assist in identifying a child with an SLD, but which are not based on sound scientific research, are not appropriate and should not be adopted by LEAs or States. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the meaning of alternative research- based procedures is unclear and should be defined. One commenter stated that there would be inappropriate interventions and procedures without further clarification as to the meaning of alternative research-based procedures. Discussion: As noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section for subpart A, we have added the definition of scientifically based research from section 9101(37) of the ESEA to the definitions section of these regulations. This definition is the most appropriate definition to include in these regulations, given the importance Congress placed on aligning the Act with the ESEA. The Department does not intend to dictate how extensive the research must be or who, within an LEA or State, should determine that the research is of high quality. We believe that this is a matter best left to State and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46649 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations local officials because determining the presence of an appropriate instructional process is part of the State-adopted criteria. This addition should provide the clarity requested by the commenters. Changes: We have added a definition of scientifically based research to §300.35, giving the term the definition in section 9101(37) of the ESEA. Consistency With State Criteria (§300.307(b)) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about allowing States to decide on the approach to determining whether a child has an SLD, and requested the Department develop criteria to be used across the nation. However, numerous commenters supported the development of State criteria and requiring public agencies to use the State criteria to determine whether a child has an SLD. Many commenters stated that this requirement is necessary to prevent inconsistent eligibility requirements among LEAs in a State. Other commenters stated that the requirement exceeds statutory authority and that LEAs should be allowed to make decisions about the criteria and methods to identify children with SLD. Discussion: The Department believes that eligibility criteria must be consistent across a State to avoid confusion among parents and school district personnel. The Department also believes that requiring LEAs to use State criteria for identifying children with disabilities is consistent with the State’s responsibility under section 612(a)(3) of the Act to locate, identify, and evaluate all eligible children with disabilities in the State. We believe this provides the Department with the authority to require a public agency to use State criteria in determining whether a child has an SLD, consistent with §§300.307 through 300.311. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters requested requiring States to adopt and implement only one model to determine whether a child has an SLD. However, several commenters requested that States and LEAs have the flexibility to use more than one model. One commenter noted that States need flexibility to determine eligibility criteria until there is greater understanding of the effectiveness of evidence-based protocols in identifying children with SLD. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that would require a State to use one model of identification to identify a child with an SLD. We do not believe the regulations should include such a requirement, because section 614(b)(6) of the Act indicates that some flexibility in the selection of models of identification by LEAs can be appropriate, if permitted by the State. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require States to develop a plan to implement Statewide eligibility criteria that includes dissemination of research- based models, collecting data on the use of such models, providing professional development on the State’s criteria, and implementing appropriate services and instruction. Discussion: We agree that it could be helpful for States to develop a plan to implement any new SLD criteria, as recommended by the commenter. However, we do not believe States should be required to adopt such a plan, as this is a matter that is best left to individual States to decide. Changes: None. Group Members (§300.308) Comment: Several commenters requested an explanation of the use of ‘‘group members’’ rather than ‘‘team members’’ to describe the group that determines whether a child suspected of having an SLD is a child with a disability. One commenter stated that the eligibility determination is an IEP Team function and, therefore, using the term ‘‘group members’’ is inappropriate. One commenter stated that §300.308 is confusing because the group seems to be the same as the IEP Team. Discussion: The change from ‘‘team members’’ to ‘‘group members’’ was made in the 1999 regulations to distinguish this group from the IEP Team, because the team of qualified professionals and the parent in §300.306(a)(1) that makes the eligibility determination does not necessarily have the same members as an IEP Team. In some States, this group of professionals may have the same individuals as the IEP Team, but in other States, this is not the case. We inadvertently referred to ‘‘team members’’ in 300.309(a)(2)(ii) and, therefore, will change this to ‘‘group.’’ Changes: We have changed ‘‘team members’’ to ‘‘group’’ in §300.309(a)(2)(ii) to be consistent with §300.306(a)(1). Comment: Several commenters stated that the requirements for the qualifications of the group members in proposed §300.308(a) are unnecessary and should be removed because they are not included in the Act, are overly prescriptive, and add another set of procedural requirements. On the other hand, a number of commenters recommended additional or different qualifications that should be required of the group members in §300.308. Several commenters recommended that the group members be qualified to conduct assessments in the area of ‘‘cognition’’ rather than ‘‘intellectual development’’ to ensure that specific cognitive abilities are assessed, rather than global intellectual abilities. Several commenters recommended that proposed §300.308(a)(2), requiring group members to apply ‘‘critical analysis’’ to the data, be changed to require group members to apply ‘‘clinical’’ analysis to the data. One commenter stated that clinical analysis should be defined and suggested a definition that includes professional judgment informed by empirical research, training, and experience, and guided by interpretation of patterns in evaluation findings from a number of sources (e.g., test scores; interviews; work samples; observational data; and information from parents, school personnel, and other related services providers). A few commenters recommended requiring evaluations to be completed by certified speech-language pathologists and school psychologists to ensure that qualified professionals conduct the assessments. One commenter recommended that the examples of the areas for diagnostic assessments be preceded by ‘‘such as’’ to avoid a misinterpretation that a speech-language pathologist, for example, is mandated to participate in every SLD determination. Several commenters agreed with the professional competencies for the group members described in §300.308(a). However, one commenter stated that ‘‘collectively qualified’’ is too broad a term and should be more narrowly defined. Another commenter stated that there is no way to ensure that the group members possess the necessary expertise unless there is a mechanism to determine whether the group members have the specified competencies in proposed §300.308(a). One commenter stated that, although professionals from more than one discipline may be qualified to administer certain assessments, they do not bring the same expertise to the process. One commenter asked if a special education teacher, a regular education teacher, and parent were all that would be necessary if they collectively met the competency requirements. Several commenters stated that the list of professionals in proposed §300.308(b) for the eligibility group should be removed and decisions about group members left to schools and VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46650 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Bradley, L., Danielson, & Hallahan, D.P. (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum; Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H.L (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta- analytic review of the published literature. The School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119; Steubing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shoywitz B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy, classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518. districts. Other commenters stated that the requirements for the eligibility group should be the same as those for the group that determines the eligibility of children suspected of all other disabilities. Many commenters recommended that additional or different professionals should be included in the group. Numerous commenters recommended including speech-language pathologists in the group because of their expertise in reading and conducting individual diagnostic assessments in the areas of speech and language. A few commenters stated that a school psychologist should be a required member of the group, rather than listed as ‘‘if appropriate.’’ One of these commenters stated that, even if school psychologists are no longer required to administer assessments to determine whether there is a discrepancy between the child’s achievement and ability, school psychologists conduct assessments related to cognitive functioning, behavior, and other issues that may affect a child’s learning. Numerous commenters recommended requiring the special education teacher who is part of the eligibility group to have expertise in the area of SLD. However, one commenter stated that it is unnecessary for a special education teacher to be part of the group because the teacher would not have any instructional experience with the yet-to- be identified child and nothing in the Act requires special education teachers to possess any diagnostic expertise in the area of SLD. One commenter recommended that the group include a teacher with experience in teaching children who are failing or at-risk for failing, in addition to a general education and special education teacher. Several commenters recommended adding a reading specialist as a required member. A few commenters recommended including a social worker as a required member, stating that it is important that one of the members examine the child’s home and community environment to rule out environmental and economic factors as a primary source of the child’s learning difficulties. Another commenter recommended adding a guidance counselor as a required member. One commenter recommended including a school nurse and stated that a school nurse can contribute information about educationally relevant medical findings. One commenter stated that a reading teacher and an educational therapist should always be included in the group. A few commenters were not familiar with the role of an educational therapist and requested a definition or elimination of the term from the list of ‘‘other professionals.’’ One commenter stated that two of the three professionals listed as ‘‘other professionals’’ (school psychologist, reading teacher, educational therapist) are not credentialed and questioned why they were included in the group. Discussion: The Department has considered the diversity of comments received and, given the lack of consensus about which individuals should be included in the group that makes eligibility determinations for children suspected of having an SLD, believes that the requirements in current §300.540 should be retained. Current §300.540 states that the eligibility group for children suspected of having SLD must include the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals, which must include the child’s regular teacher (or if the child does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of his or her age) or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the SEA to teach a child of his or her age; and at least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist or remedial reading teacher. We believe this allows decisions about the specific qualifications of the members to be made at the local level, so that the composition of the group may vary depending on the nature of the child’s suspected disability, the expertise of local staff, and other relevant factors. For example, for a child suspected of having an SLD in the area of reading, it might be important to include a reading specialist as part of the eligibility group. However, for a child suspected of having an SLD in the area of listening comprehension, it might be appropriate for the group to include a speech- language pathologist with expertise in auditory processing disorders. Current §300.540 provides flexibility for schools and districts, and ensures that the group includes individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to interpret the evaluation data and make an informed determination as to whether the child is a child with an SLD, and the educational needs of the child. Changes: Section 300.308 has been changed to include the requirements from current §300.540. Determining the Existence of a Specific Learning Disability (§300.309) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no authority in the Act for the SLD eligibility requirements outlined in §300.309. Discussion: We agree that the statutory language is broad and does not include the specific requirements to determine whether a child suspected of having an SLD is a child with a disability. The purpose of these regulations, however, is to provide details to assist States in the appropriate implementation of the Act. We believe the requirements in §300.309 are necessary to ensure that States have the details necessary to implement the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that RTI was Congress’ preference for determining eligibility under SLD, and therefore, the criteria for RTI should be the first paragraph of §300.309 (Determining the existence of a specific learning disability). Discussion: The Department believes that the criteria in §300.309 are presented in a logical order and are consistent with the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that a discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement can differentiate between children with disabilities and children with general low achievement, and noted that the problems with discrepancy models have been in implementation, rather than in the concept itself for identifying children with SLD. Discussion: There is a substantial research base summarized in several recent consensus reports (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Bradley et al., 2003) and meta-analyses (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Steubing et al., 2002) that does not support the hypothesis that a discrepancy model by itself can differentiate children with disabilities and children with general low achievement. 2Therefore, we disagree with the comment because such a differentiation is not possible with any single criterion, including RTI. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested retaining the language in current §300.541, regarding the use of discrepancy models. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46651 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 3Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D.P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 4Bijou, S.W. (1942). The psychometric pattern approach as an aid to clinical assessment—a review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 46, 354–362. 5Kavale, K. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 370–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 6Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. 7Fletcher, J.M., Denton, C., & Francis, D.J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552; Reschly, D.J., & Tilly, W.D. (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D.J. Reschly, W.D. Tilly, III, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Discussion: Section 614(b)(6) of the Act prohibits States from requiring a discrepancy approach to identify children with SLD. Current §300.541 requires a discrepancy determination and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the eligibility group be allowed to consider the results from standardized, individualized testing (not just criterion-based testing or functional assessments) in the eligibility determination. Discussion: Nothing in the Act or these regulations would preclude the eligibility group from considering results from standardized tests when making eligibility determinations. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended adding the concept of psychological processing disorders to the eligibility criteria in §300.309. Several commenters noted that the criteria in §300.309 do not fully address the definition of SLD in §300.8(c)(10), which includes a processing disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes. Several commenters stated that, without requiring documentation of a basic psychological processing disorder, the number of children identified with SLD will significantly increase and the use of assessment tools that have the potential to significantly guide instruction will decrease. Several commenters stated that failure to consider individual differences in cognitive processing skills reverses more than 20 years of progress in cognitive psychology and developmental neuroscience. One commenter stated that identifying a basic psychological processing disorder would help ensure that children identified with an SLD are not simply victims of poor instruction. One commenter stated that the shift away from requiring diagnostic assessments in the area of cognition would make it conceptually impossible to document that a child has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes, as required in the definition of SLD in §300.8(c)(10). Discussion: The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions. However, §300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits, but does not require, consideration of a pattern of strengths or weaknesses, or both, relative to intellectual development, if the evaluation group considers that information relevant to an identification of SLD. In many cases, though, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions. As summarized in the research consensus from the OSEP Learning Disability Summit (Bradley, Danielson, and Hallahan, 2002), ‘‘Although processing deficits have been linked to some SLD (e.g., phonological processing and reading), direct links with other processes have not been established. Currently, available methods for measuring many processing difficulties are inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring processing difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible * * *. Processing deficits should be eliminated from the criteria for classification * * *.’’ (p. 797). 3Concerns about the absence of evidence for relations of cognitive discrepancy and SLD for identification go back to Bijou (1942; 4see Kavale, 2002) 5. Cronbach (1957) 6characterized the search for aptitude by treatment interactions as a ‘‘hall of mirrors,’’ a situation that has not improved over the past few years as different approaches to assessment of cognitive processes have emerged (Fletcher et al., 2005; Reschly & Tilly, 1999) 7. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested that the regulations include a definition of ‘‘intellectual development.’’ Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to define ‘‘intellectual development’’ in these regulations. Intellectual development is included in §300.309(a)(2)(ii) as one of three standards of comparison, along with age and State-approved grade-level standards. The reference to ‘‘intellectual development’’ in this provision means that the child exhibits a pattern on strengths and weaknesses in performance relative to a standard of intellectual development such as commonly measured by IQ tests. Use of the term is consistent with the discretion provided in the Act in allowing the continued use of discrepancy models. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that intra-individual differences, particularly in cognitive functions, are essential to identifying a child with an SLD and should be included in the eligibility criteria in §300.309. Discussion: As indicated above, an assessment of intra-individual differences in cognitive functions does not contribute to identification and intervention decisions for children suspected of having an SLD. The regulations, however, allow for the assessment of intra-individual differences in achievement as part of an identification model for SLD. The regulations also allow for the assessment of discrepancies in intellectual development and achievement. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested guidance on how to determine whether a child was provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age, as required in §300.309(a)(1). Discussion: While such guidance might be helpful, we believe SEAs and LEAs are in the best position to provide guidance on age-appropriate learning experiences. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the requirements in §300.309(a)(1) and stated that the first element of determining eligibility for an SLD is a finding that the child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age in one or more of the eight areas when provided with learning experiences appropriate to the child’s age. However, several commenters requested requiring that eligibility determinations for an SLD include evidence that the child’s achievement level is not commensurate with the child’s age and ability (emphasis added). One commenter indicated that knowledge of a child’s ability level is important to ensure that a determination is not based on deficits in areas not related to cognitive processing (e.g., lack of opportunity to learn, social or emotional disturbances), and to prevent misdiagnosis of children with mental VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46652 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 8Burns, M., Appleton, J., Stehouwer, J. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to- intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394. retardation and SLD. One commenter stated that §300.309(a)(1) would allow any child who failed to achieve commensurate with his or her age to be considered to have an SLD, and this will increase the number of children referred for special education and related services. Several commenters expressed concern that the eligibility determination for SLD is based on whether the child achieves commensurate with his or her age because current practice uses normative data that are based on grade level. These commenters recommended clarifying that grade level or classmate performance should also be considered. Discussion: The first element in identifying a child with SLD should be a child’s mastery of grade-level content appropriate for the child’s age or in relation to State-approved grade-level standards, not abilities. This emphasis is consistent with the focus in the ESEA on the attainment of State-approved grade-level standards for all children. State-approved standards are not expressed as ‘‘norms’’ but represent benchmarks for all children at each grade level. The performance of classmates and peers is not an appropriate standard if most children in a class or school are not meeting State- approved standards. Furthermore, using grade-based normative data to make this determination is generally not appropriate for children who have not been permitted to progress to the next academic grade or are otherwise older than their peers. Such a practice may give the illusion of average rates of learning when the child’s rate of learning has been below average, resulting in retention. A focus on expectations relative to abilities or classmates simply dilutes expectations for children with disabilities. We will modify §300.309(a)(1) to clarify that, as a first element in determining whether a child has an SLD, the group must determine that the child does not demonstrate achievement that is adequate for the child’s age or the attainment of State-approved grade-level standards, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas listed in §300.309(a)(1). The reference to ‘‘State-approved grade-level standards’’ is intended to emphasize the alignment of the Act and the ESEA, as well as to cover children who have been retained in a grade, since age level expectations may not be appropriate for these children. The reference to ‘‘instruction’’ will be added to emphasize that children may not be identified as having SLD if there is no documentation of appropriate instruction, consistent with the Act and the ESEA. Consistent with this change, we will add a reference to ‘‘State- approved grade-level standards’’ in §§300.309(a)(2)(i) and (ii). We will also combine proposed §300.311(a)(5) and (6) into §300.311(a)(5) to ensure consistency with the requirements in §300.309(a). Changes: We have modified §300.309(a)(1) and §§300.309(a)(2)(i) and (ii), and combined proposed §300.311(a)(5) and (6) into §300.311(a)(5) to ensure consistency with the requirements in §300.309(a). Comment: Several commenters expressed support for including reading fluency in the list of areas to be considered when determining whether a child has an SLD. However, several commenters recommended removing reading fluency from the list in §300.309(a)(1), stating that a weakness in reading fluency, in isolation, does not indicate a reading disability. Discussion: No assessment, in isolation, is sufficient to indicate that a child has an SLD. Including reading fluency in the list of areas to be considered when determining whether a child has an SLD makes it more likely that a child who is gifted and has an SLD would be identified. Fluency assessments are very brief and highly relevant to instruction. We, therefore, do not believe that reading fluency should be removed from §300.309(a)(1). Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters stated that eligibility criteria based on RTI models will result in dramatic increases in referrals, special education placements, and legal problems. One commenter stated that the eligibility criteria in §300.309 do not provide sufficient checks and balances to ensure that only those children who truly require special education are identified as having SLD. A few commenters stated that using an RTI model would result in incorrectly identifying underachieving children as having SLD. Discussion: We do not believe that eligibility criteria based on RTI models will result in dramatic increases in referrals and special education placements. Well-implemented RTI models and models that identify problems early and promote intervention have reduced, not increased, the number of children identified as eligible for special education services and have helped raise achievement levels for all children in a school. 8We believe that the regulations do provide sufficient checks to ensure that only children who need special education and related services are identified as having SLD. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that the language in §300.309(a)(2)(ii) is very confusing and should be rewritten. Many commenters stated that the word ‘‘or’’ instead of ‘‘and’’ should be used between §300.309(a)(2)(i) and §300.309(a)(2)(ii), because otherwise a child could be identified with an SLD because he or she failed to meet passing criteria on a State assessment, and failure to make sufficient progress on a State-approved assessment alone is not grounds for a determination that a child has an SLD. Several commenters stated that the phrase, ‘‘pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both’’ is a typographical error because it is repeated twice. Discussion: We do not agree that ‘‘and’’ should be used instead of ‘‘or’’ between §300.309(a)(2)(i) and (ii), because this would subject the child to two different identification models. We agree that failing a State assessment alone is not sufficient to determine whether a child has an SLD. However, failing a State assessment may be one factor in an evaluation considered by the eligibility group. As required in §300.304(b)(1), consistent with section 614(b)(2)(A) of the Act, the evaluation must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the child. Further, §300.304(b)(2), consistent with section 614(b)(2)(B) of the Act, is clear that determining eligibility for special education and related services cannot be based on any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability. We agree that §300.309(a)(2)(ii) could be stated more clearly and will rewrite it to state that the eligibility group can determine that a child has an SLD if the child meets the criteria in §300.309(a)(1) and exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age and State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of an SLD. Changes: We have changed §300.309(a)(2)(ii) for clarity. VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46653 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Comment: Several commenters requested a definition of ‘‘State- approved results.’’ One commenter stated that the language was extremely confusing and that ‘‘State-approved results’’ could be interpreted to mean approved results that are equivalent to proficiency on State assessments under the ESEA, and this could lead to eligibility determinations for a very large group of older children with poor reading performance for whom it would be nearly impossible to make sufficient progress to become proficient readers. This commenter recommended changing the language to refer to a child’s failure to achieve a rate of learning to make sufficient progress based on ‘‘State-defined criteria.’’ Another commenter recommended substituting ‘‘State achievement standards’’ for ‘‘State approved results.’’ Discussion: The intention is to refer to State assessments approved under the ESEA. We have changed ‘‘State- approved results’’ to ‘‘State-approved grade-level standards.’’ We believe this change adequately addresses the commenters concerns. Changes: We have removed ‘‘State- approved results’’ and inserted in its place ‘‘State-approved grade-level standards’’ in §300.309 and §300.311. Comment: One commenter stated that including ‘‘State-approved results’’ in §300.309(a)(2)(i) means that there is no Federal definition of SLD. Discussion: States must develop criteria for determining whether a child has an SLD that are consistent with the Federal requirements in §§300.307 through 300.311 and the definition of SLD in §300.8(c)(10). Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that using the criteria in §300.309(a)(2), a child could meet State standards and still be identified as a child with an SLD. Discussion: We agree with the commenters. Accelerated growth toward, and mastery of, State-approved grade-level standards are goals of special education. Furthermore, as stated in §300.101, the fact that a child is advancing from grade to grade does not make a child with a disability ineligible for special education and related services. However, consistent with §300.8, the group making the eligibility determination must conclude both that the child has an SLD and, that, because of that disability, the child needs special education and related services. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters requested more detail and specific guidelines on RTI models, such as information on who initiates the RTI process and who should be involved in the process; how one ensures there is a strong leader for the RTI process; the skills needed to implement RTI models; the role of the general education teacher; how to determine that a child is not responsive to instruction, particularly a child with cultural and linguistic differences; the number of different types of interventions to be tried; the responsibility for monitoring progress; the measurement of treatment integrity; and ways to document progress. One commenter stated that it is imperative that the regulations allow the flexibility necessary to accommodate the array of RTI models already in use. Several commenters requested that the Department define and set a standard for responsiveness that calls for demonstrated progress and improvement in the rate of learning, to indicate that a child can function in the classroom. Several commenters stated that there would be a dramatic increase in the number of children identified with an SLD without a clearly defined system in place. Discussion: There are many RTI models and the regulations are written to accommodate the many different models that are currently in use. The Department does not mandate or endorse any particular model. Rather, the regulations provide States with the flexibility to adopt criteria that best meet local needs. Language that is more specific or prescriptive would not be appropriate. For example, while we recognize that rate of learning is often a key variable in assessing a child’s response to intervention, it would not be appropriate for the regulations to set a standard for responsiveness or improvement in the rate of learning. As we discussed earlier in this section, we do not believe these regulations will result in significant increases in the number of children identified with SLD. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that, without additional clarity, eligibility criteria will vary substantially among States and that States will have definitions that are suited to their individual preferences, rather than a universal sense of what constitutes eligibility under SLD based on the research and national standards of professional practice. Discussion: State eligibility criteria must meet the requirements in §§300.307 through 300.111 and LEAs must use these State-adopted criteria. We believe that, although these provisions allow States some flexibility in how children with SLD are identified, the requirements in these provisions will ensure that SLD criteria do not vary substantially across States. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that, without more clarity in the requirements for RTI models, there would be an increase in the number of eligibility disputes between parents and school districts. Discussion: We do not believe more clarity in the requirements for RTI models is necessary. States can avoid disputes over eligibility determinations by developing clear criteria, consistent with the regulatory parameters, and providing staff with the necessary guidance and support to implement the criteria. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter urged the Department to encourage States to convene a group of education, disability, and parent stakeholders to discuss and design a model approach to early identification of children with SLD. Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to identify children with SLD early and to provide the necessary instruction and supports to avoid referrals to special education. The extent to which States involve other interested parties (e.g., disability groups, parent groups) in the design or development of such a system is a decision that should be made by each State. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that professional development requirements to implement RTI models should be incorporated into the regulations so RTI models are not haphazardly implemented. One commenter stated that before RTI can be used systematically as part of the special education identification process, school districts must have administrative support at all levels, ongoing professional development for all staff, and coordination with institutions of higher education. Several commenters recommended encouraging States to develop efficient, collaborative evaluation systems. One commenter recommended requiring regular education teachers to address the needs of children with different learning styles, identify early and appropriate interventions for children with behavioral challenges, and understand and use data and assessments to improve classroom practices and learning. Discussion: We agree that administrative support, professional development, and coordination with teacher training programs would be VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46654 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations helpful in the effective implementation of RTI models. We also agree that efficient and collaborative evaluation systems should be developed, and that all teachers, including regular education teachers, should be trained to address the needs of children with different learning styles, identify early and appropriate interventions for children with behavioral challenges, and understand and use data and assessments to improve classroom practices and learning. However, professional development requirements are a State responsibility, consistent with §300.156 and section 612(a)(14) of the Act, and it would be inappropriate for the Department to include specific professional development requirements in these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that if a State prohibits the use of a discrepancy model, there would not be sufficient time or funds necessary to effectively train staff. Several commenters asked that there be a transition period so that personnel can be adequately trained in RTI or other forms of assessment and observation. Discussion: It is not necessary for these regulations to require a transition period for implementing RTI models, particularly because there are many schools and districts currently implementing RTI models. Under the requirements in section 614(b)(6) of the Act, which took effect July 1, 2005, States should have developed mechanisms to permit LEAs to use RTI models. States may need to make adjustments based on these final regulations. Nothing in these regulations requires an LEA to drop current practices in favor of a new model with no transition. Obviously, a plan would need to be developed when changing to an RTI model, including strategies for implementation and professional development. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters stated that the use of RTI models would be costly, requiring massive staff training and resources. Many commenters recommended ways in which the Department could support States in improving identification and interventions for children with SLD. Commenters’ recommendations included the following: long-term, Statewide pilot studies on assessments and interventions for children with SLD; methods to increase the use of RTI; guidance on establishing appropriate timelines for instructional interventions; and information on new scientifically based approaches to identifying children with SLD. Discussion: The Department recognizes the need for technical assistance and training to implement RTI models and is directing technical assistance funds under Part D of the Act, administered by the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), toward this effort. OSEP plans to develop and disseminate an RTI resource kit and devote additional resources to technical assistance providers to assist States in implementing RTI models. OSEP will also continue to identify and develop model RTI implementation sites and evaluate SLD identification models in math and reading. In addition, the Comprehensive Center on Instruction, jointly funded by OSEP and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), will provide technical assistance to States on RTI implementation. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters supported examining the pattern of strengths and weaknesses in determining whether a child is considered to have an SLD. A number of commenters stated that it is important that groups use a process to determine whether a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions, as well as consider relevant, empirically validated patterns of strengths and weaknesses in achievement, performance, or both, relative to intellectual development. One commenter stated that ‘‘pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance’’ in §300.309(a)(2)(ii) is insufficiently defined and without a clearer definition of ‘‘pattern,’’ schools will continue the wait-to-fail model. One commenter recommended clarifying the meaning of ‘‘weakness,’’ stating that weakness does not mean failure, and that there may be specific actions that could address weaknesses in performance that would result in failure if left alone. Discussion: Patterns of strengths and weaknesses commonly refer to the examination of profiles across different tests used historically in the identification of children with SLD. We believe that the meaning of ‘‘pattern of strengths and weaknesses’’ is clear and does not need to be clarified in these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters stated that using a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in a child’s performance to identify a child with an SLD could be misinterpreted to identify children, other than children with disabilities, who are underperforming due to cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or low effort. Discussion: Section 300.309(a)(3) is clear that children should not be identified with SLD if the underachievement is primarily the result of a visual, hearing, or motor disability; mental retardation; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; or environmental or economic disadvantage. The eligibility group makes the determination after the evaluation of the child is completed. Therefore, we believe that there is minimal risk that a child who is underachieving due to these factors will be identified as having an SLD. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended using ‘‘cognitive ability’’ in place of ‘‘intellectual development’’ because ‘‘intellectual development’’ could be narrowly interpreted to mean performance on an IQ test. One commenter stated that the term ‘‘cognitive ability’’ is preferable because it reflects the fundamental concepts underlying SLD and can be assessed with a variety of appropriate assessment tools. A few commenters stated that the reference to identifying a child’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses that are not related to intellectual development should be removed because a cognitive assessment is critical and should always be used to make a determination under the category of SLD. Discussion: We believe the term ‘‘intellectual development’’ is the appropriate reference in this provision. Section 300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits the assessment of patterns of strengths and weakness in performance, including performance on assessments of cognitive ability. As stated previously, ‘‘intellectual development’’ is included as one of three methods of comparison, along with age and State-approved grade-level standards. The term ‘‘cognitive’’ is not the appropriate reference to performance because cognitive variation is not a reliable marker of SLD, and is not related to intervention. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter reviewed the list of factors in §300.309(a)(3) that must be ruled out as primary reasons for a child’s performance and asked whether children with other health impairments (OHI), traumatic brain injury (TBI), or speech impairments would overlap with the SLD definition. Several commenters noted that many children with hearing, visual, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; or emotional disturbances (ED) also have concomitant learning disabilities that go unidentified, and that these children end up with lower academic and functional achievement levels than they VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46655 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations should because an important contributing factor to their learning problems has not been addressed. Several commenters recommended adding language to the regulations stating that a child with a disability other than an SLD may also be identified with an SLD. Discussion: Children with one of the disabilities in §300.8 should be identified as a child with a disability using the category that is most appropriate for the child. Some children may be identified under other disability categories, such as OHI, TBI, ED, or speech impairment, and may also have low achievement and even meet SLD criteria. Services must meet the child’s needs and cannot be determined by the child’s eligibility category. We believe it is unnecessary to add language regarding SLD as a concomitant disability. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked what kind of assessment identifies culture as a primary cause of academic performance deficits and recommended removing the requirement in §300.309(a)(3)(iv) unless there are objective methods to determine whether a child’s low performance is a result of cultural factors. Discussion: The identification of the effect of cultural factors on a child’s performance is a judgment made by the eligibility group based on multiple sources of information, including the home environment, language proficiency, and other contextual factors gathered in the evaluation. The Department believes that the identification of children with SLD will improve with models based on systematic assessments of a child’s response to appropriate instruction, the results of which are one part of the information reviewed during the evaluation process to determine eligibility for special education and related services. States and public agencies must follow the evaluation procedures in §§300.304 and 300.305 and section 614(b) of the Act, including using assessments and other evaluation materials that do not discriminate on a racial or cultural basis, consistent with §300.304(c)(1)(i) and section 614(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended that limited English proficiency be among the factors that the eligibility group must rule out as a primary factor affecting a child’s performance. Discussion: Section 300.306(b)(1)(iii), consistent with section 614(b)(5)(C) of the Act, is clear that a child must not be identified as a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is limited English proficiency. However, we agree that it is important to re-emphasize this requirement in §300.309 and will add this to the list of factors that the eligibility group must rule out as a primary factor affecting a child’s performance. Changes: We have added a new paragraph (vi) to §300.309(a)(3) to include ‘‘limited English proficiency’’ in the list of factors that must be ruled out as a primary factor affecting a child’s performance before determining that a child is eligible for special education services under the category of SLD. Comment: Numerous commenters supported the requirement in §300.309(b)(1) for data demonstrating that a child suspected of having an SLD has been provided with high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings delivered by qualified personnel. Several commenters stated that this requirement should apply to all children and asked why this requirement is confined to only children suspected of having SLD. One commenter stated that if schools would use proven best practices, there would be fewer children in need of special education in the later grades. However, one commenter stated that it is incorrect to assume that any child who is not responding to interventions must have an SLD when there are a myriad of reasons why children may not be responding to instruction. One commenter recommended adding ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ to acknowledge that scientific research-based interventions are not available in many areas, particularly in mathematics. One commenter recommended decreasing the emphasis on research-based instruction. Discussion: Sections 300.306(b)(1)(i) and (ii), consistent with section 614(b)(5)(A) and (B) of the Act, specifically state that children should not be identified for special education if the achievement problem is due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics. This issue is especially relevant to SLD because lack of appropriate instruction in these areas most commonly leads to identifying a child as having an SLD. All children should be provided with appropriate instruction provided by qualified personnel. This is an important tenet of the Act and the ESEA. Both the Act and the ESEA focus on doing what works as evidenced by scientific research and providing children with appropriate instruction delivered by qualified teachers. Changes: None. Comment: We received a number of comments concerning the requirement for high-quality, research-based instruction provided by qualified personnel. One commenter stated that it would be difficult for rural school districts to meet this requirement because of staffing requirements in the regular education setting. Several commenters stated that the requirement for high-quality, research-based instruction exceeds statutory authority and should be removed, because it provides a basis for challenging any determination under the category of SLD. One commenter asked for clarification regarding the legal basis for providing high-quality, research-based instruction if the child is not determined eligible for special education. Another commenter stated that attorneys will read §300.309(b) as providing a legal entitlement to ESEA, research-based instruction and data- based documentation for every child considered for eligibility under the category of SLD, and that when this standard is not met, will bring the matter to a due process hearing and request compensatory education. Numerous commenters requested a definition of high-quality, research- based instruction. One commenter asked who validates that the research meets the highest quality. Another commenter asked that the regulations specify how much research a program must undergo before it is deemed to be research-based. One commenter stated that the Department must address how States determine whether a child has been provided with a high-quality, research-based instructional program; whether appropriate classroom interventions were delivered; and whether an intervention has been successful. One commenter stated that the absence of additional clarification would result in great disparity in States’ policies and lead to inappropriate interventions and procedures. One commenter recommended that there be evidence that the instruction is effective for the child’s age and cultural background. A few commenters recommended that children who are not progressing because they have not received research-based instruction by a qualified teacher should immediately receive intensive, high-quality, research-based instruction by qualified personnel. One commenter expressed concern that §300.309(b) restricts referrals to only those children who have received high- quality, research-based instruction from qualified teachers. One commenter stated that a child’s eligibility to receive VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46656 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations special education services under the category of SLD appears to be contingent on the LEA’s commitment to providing effective regular education services by qualified staff, and, as such, a child with an SLD is held hostage by a system that is not working. One commenter asked whether the eligibility group can make a determination that a child has an SLD in the absence of a child’s response to high-quality research-based instruction. Several commenters stated that the lack of research-based instruction by a qualified teacher should not limit a child’s eligibility for services. Another commenter recommended clarifying that a child should not be found ineligible under the category of SLD because the child either did not respond to a scientific, research-based intervention during a truncated evaluation, or because the child was not provided an opportunity to respond to such an intervention. Discussion: Watering down a focus on appropriate instruction for any children, including children with disabilities or children living in rural areas would be counter to both the Act and the ESEA. However, we agree that the requirement for high quality, research-based instruction exceeds statutory authority. The Act indicates that children should not be eligible for special education if the low achievement is due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Therefore, we will change the regulations to require that the eligibility group consider evidence that the child was provided appropriate instruction and clarify that this means evidence that lack of appropriate instruction was the source of underachievement. The eligibility group should not identify a child as eligible for special education services if the child’s low achievement is the result of lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Eligibility is contingent on the ability of the LEA to provide appropriate instruction. Determining the basis of low achievement when a child has been given appropriate instruction is the responsibility of the eligibility group. Whether a child has received ‘‘appropriate instruction’’ is appropriately left to State and local officials to determine. Schools should have current, data-based evidence to indicate whether a child responds to appropriate instruction before determining that a child is a child with a disability. Children should not be identified as having a disability before concluding that their performance deficits are not the result of a lack of appropriate instruction. Parents of children with disabilities have due process rights that allow them to file a complaint on any matter that relates to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child with a disability, and the provision of FAPE to their child. Changes: We have revised the introductory material in §300.309(b) to emphasize that the purpose of the review is to rule out a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math as the reason for a child’s underachievement. We have also revised §300.309(b)(1) to refer to appropriate instruction rather than high- quality, research-based instruction, and removed the cross reference to the ESEA. Comment: One commenter stated that many reading programs claim to be research-based, but lack credible evidence of the program’s effectiveness. Discussion: Programs that claim to be research-based, but which are not based on sound scientific research, should not be considered research-based instruction by a State or LEA. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked what criteria should be used to determine that the child was provided with appropriate high quality, research- based instruction, especially when the child has been home schooled or attends a private school. One commenter asked about children referred for evaluation from charter schools and expressed concern that these children would not be eligible under the category of SLD because they did not have instruction delivered by qualified personnel. Discussion: As part of the evaluation, the eligibility group must consider whether the child received appropriate instruction from qualified personnel. For children who attend private schools or charter schools or who are home- schooled, it may be necessary to obtain information from parents and teachers about the curricula used and the child’s progress with various teaching strategies. The eligibility group also may need to use information from current classroom-based assessments or classroom observations. On the basis of the available information, the eligibility group may identify other information that is needed to determine whether the child’s low achievement is due to a disability, and not primarily the result of lack of appropriate instruction. The requirements for special education eligibility or the expectations for the quality of teachers or instructional programs are not affected, and do not differ, by the location or venue of a child’s instruction. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters requested a definition of ‘‘qualified personnel.’’ One commenter stated that teachers should be trained to deliver the program of instruction and simply saying they should be highly qualified is not sufficient. One commenter recommended removing the phrase ‘‘qualified personnel’’ in §300.309(b)(1), because it is likely to be interpreted to mean that instruction must be delivered by highly qualified teachers, as defined in the ESEA. Discussion: Section 300.156 and section 614(a)(14) of the Act are clear that each State is responsible for establishing and maintaining personnel qualifications to ensure that personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, including that those personnel have the content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities. Consistent with §300.18 and section 602(10) of the Act, a public school teacher, including a special education teacher, who teaches core academic subjects must meet the highly qualified teacher standards under the Act. The term that is used in §300.309(b)(1), ‘‘qualified personnel,’’ does not, and should not be interpreted to, require that private school teachers be ‘‘highly qualified’’ to deliver the instruction discussed in §300.309(b)(1). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether the regulations require an LEA to provide high-quality, research-based instruction in the regular education setting prior to, or as part of, the referral process before the group can determine whether a child has an SLD. One commenter recommended that research- based interventions occur prior to a referral to special education. Several commenters stated that an evaluation to assess all areas of suspected disability should follow an assessment of a child’s response to instruction. Discussion: What is important is that the group making the eligibility decision has the information that it needs to rule out that the child’s underachievement is a result of a lack of appropriate instruction. That could include evidence that the child was provided appropriate instruction either before, or as a part of, the referral process. Evidence of appropriate instruction, including instruction delivered in an RTI model, is not a substitute for a complete assessment of all of the areas of suspected need. As discussed earlier in this section, we have revised §300.309(b) to make this clear. Changes: As discussed previously, we have revised §300.309(b). VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46657 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Comment: One commenter recommended that data be maintained on the number of children identified with SLD. Discussion: Data are maintained on the number of children identified with SLD. Section 618 of the Act requires States to report annually to the Department the number and percentage of children with disabilities by disability category, in addition to race, ethnicity, limited English proficiency status, and gender. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended reinforcing the role of parents in determining whether a child has an SLD by adding language to §300.309(b) stating that the child’s parents and the group of qualified professionals must consider whether the child is a child with a disability. Discussion: Section 300.306(a)(1), consistent with section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act, is clear that the parent of the child is included in eligibility determinations. Section 300.309(a) cross-references the group in §300.306, which includes the parent. We believe this adequately addresses the role of the parent and that no changes are necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested a definition of ‘‘data-based documentation.’’ Discussion: Data-based documentation refers to an objective and systematic process of documenting a child’s progress. This type of assessment is a feature of strong instruction in reading and math and is consistent with §300.306(b)(1)(i) and (ii) and section 614(b)(5)(A) and (B) of the Act, that children cannot be identified for special education if an achievement problem is due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters supported requiring data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals to be provided to parents during the time the child is receiving instruction. One commenter emphasized the importance of documenting that the interventions used are data based and implemented with fidelity. One commenter stated that data-based documentation should be provided to all parents of children with disabilities, not just children suspected of having SLD. However, several commenters stated that requiring data-based documentation of repeated assessments is an additional bureaucratic requirement that is overly prescriptive and costly, and will require additional paperwork. Discussion: We believe that one of the most important aspects of good teaching is the ability to determine when a child is learning and then to tailor instruction to meet the child’s individual needs. Effective teachers use data to make informed decisions about the effectiveness of a particular instructional strategy or program. A critical hallmark of appropriate instruction is that data documenting a child’s progress are systematically collected and analyzed and that parents are kept informed of the child’s progress. Assessments of a child’s progress are not bureaucratic, but an essential component of good instruction. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested definitions for ‘‘repeated assessments’’ and ‘‘reasonable intervals.’’ Discussion: Instructional models vary in terms of the frequency and number of repeated assessments that are required to determine a child’s progress. It would be inappropriate for the Department to stipulate requirements in Federal regulations that would make it difficult for districts and States to implement instructional models they determine appropriate to their specific jurisdictions. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended removing the requirement for data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals because it would make it impossible to determine eligibility if a child is new to a school district and district personnel do not have a child’s records with such information. Discussion: We do not believe removing the requirement is the appropriate solution to the commenter’s problem. States will need to adopt criteria for determining how to provide such data for children new to a district. Children should not be identified as having SLD if there is no evidence of appropriate instruction. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that §300.309(b)(2), requiring parents to be informed of their child’s repeated failure to perform well on assessments, could be interpreted to refer to the assessments under the ESEA and that this would mean that a child must perform poorly over a period of several school years to be considered for eligibility under the category of SLD. Discussion: While the results of a child’s performance on assessments under the ESEA may be included as data documenting a child’s progress, relying exclusively on data from Statewide assessments under the ESEA would likely not meet the requirement for repeated assessments at ‘‘reasonable intervals,’’ as required by these regulations. It is possible that a State could develop other assessments tied to the State approved test that would meet these requirements. Changes: None. Comment: Numerous commenters asked how long an intervention should continue before determining a child has not made adequate progress and a referral for an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education is made. Several commenters recommended that if a child is not making progress within 45 days, an evaluation should take place. Other commenters recommended a time limit of 90 days. One commenter recommended the regulations include a range of active intervention days, not just a waiting period, within which the IEP Team expects to notice a change, and recommended between 45–75 school days. One commenter suggested 6–10 weeks as an appropriate period of time. A few commenters recommended requiring States to establish reasonable time limits for decision making. Several commenters recommended requiring the IEP Team and the parents to agree on an appropriate period of time. Several commenters stated that unless a timeline is specified in the regulations, there would be different standards occurring throughout the country. A few commenters expressed concern that if time limits were not clarified, school districts and parents would interpret the timelines differently, which would result in contentious situations and litigation. One commenter stated that a parent could sue for compensatory services if, after requesting an evaluation, the LEA requires an assessment of how the child responds to high quality research-based instruction. Several commenters stated that the lack of a specific timeline means that an evaluation could be indefinitely delayed and children denied services. Several commenters recommended adding language to the regulations to ensure that RTI models could not be used to delay an evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability, access to special education and related services, or protections under the Act. In addition to requesting a definition of an ‘‘appropriate period of time,’’ a few commenters requested a definition of ‘‘adequate progress’’ and recommended adding language to VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46658 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations require States to define ‘‘adequate progress.’’ One commenter stated that a child’s rate of learning needs to be examined carefully. One commenter offered a definition of a ‘‘developmentally appropriate rate’’ as the time or the number of repetitions required to have at least 85 percent of children at the same age or grade level acquire and retain the particular skill or academic levels, as established by research or by experience with the delivery of that curriculum or program. Discussion: Instructional models vary in terms of the length of time required for the intervention to have the intended effect on a child’s progress. It would not be appropriate for the Department to establish timelines or the other requirements proposed by the commenters in Federal regulations, because doing so would make it difficult for LEAs to implement models specific to their local school districts. These decisions are best left to State and local professionals who have knowledge of the instructional methods used in their schools. The Department believes that good instruction depends on repeated assessments of a child’s progress. This allows teachers to make informed decisions about the need to change their instruction to meet the needs of the child, and also provides parents with information about their child’s progress so that they can support instruction and learning at home. Parents should be informed if there are concerns about their child’s progress and should be aware of the strategies being used to improve and monitor their child’s progress. We understand the commenters’ requests for more specific details on timelines and measures of adequate progress. However, as noted above, these decisions are best left to professionals who have knowledge about the instructional models and strategies used in their States and districts. We also understand the commenters’ concerns that the requirements in §300.309(b) may result in untimely evaluations or services and that parents must be fully informed about the school’s concerns about their child’s progress and interventions provided by the school. Therefore, we will combine proposed §300.309(c) and (d), and revise the new §300.309(c) to ensure that the public agency promptly requests parental consent to evaluate a child suspected of having an SLD who has not made adequate progress when provided with appropriate instruction, which could include instruction in an RTI model, and whenever a child is referred for an evaluation. We will also add a new §300.311(a)(7)(ii) to ensure that the parents of a child suspected of having an SLD who has participated in a process that evaluates the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, are notified about the State’s policies regarding collection of child performance data and the general education services that will be provided; strategies to increase their child’s rate of learning; and their right to request an evaluation at any time. If parents request an evaluation and provide consent, the timeframe for evaluation begins and the information required in §300.309(b) must be collected (if it does not already exist) before the end of that period. Changes: We have combined proposed §300.309(c) and (d), and revised the new paragraph (c) in §300.309 to require the public agency to promptly request parental consent to evaluate a child suspected of having an SLD who has not made adequate progress when provided appropriate instruction, and whenever a child is referred for an evaluation. We also have added a new §300.311(a)(7)(ii) to require that the eligibility report include evidence that when a child has participated in an RTI process, the parents were informed of State policies regarding child performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; strategies to support the child’s rate of learning; and a parent’s right to request an evaluation at any time. Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying when parental consent for evaluation should be obtained and when the 60-day timeline to complete an evaluation begins. Several commenters recommended ensuring that the 60-day timeline for evaluation applies regardless of the evaluation model used. One commenter asked how scientific research-based interventions could be completed within a 60-day evaluation timeline. One commenter stated that 60 days may not be enough time to appropriately determine whether a child responds to instruction, particularly for children who have not had exposure to such interventions (e.g., children entering the public school system for the first time). One commenter asked if the intent of the regulations is to allow a determination that a child has an SLD to take place outside the timeline for an initial evaluation, and stated that without clarification of the intersection between an RTI process (that may, by definition, require additional time beyond that which is permitted for an evaluation) and the required period of time for an initial assessment, the regulations would cause confusion and result in improper evaluations and eligibility determinations. Several commenters recommended that the regulations address the need for an extension of the timeline and allow States to set an alternative timeline without a written agreement. Several commenters requested adding a provision for an extended timeline, with parental consent, in exceptional circumstances. Several commenters stated that the language regarding an extension of timelines is confusing. Discussion: Section 300.309(c), as revised, clarifies that if a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time, a referral for an evaluation must be made. As required in §300.301(c), the initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving consent for an evaluation (or if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be completed, within that timeframe). Models based on RTI typically evaluate the child’s response to instruction prior to the onset of the 60-day period, and generally do not require as long a time to complete an evaluation because of the amount of data already collected on the child’s achievement, including observation data. RTI models provide the data the group must consider on the child’s progress when provided with appropriate instruction by qualified professionals as part of the evaluation. Section 300.309(b)(1) requires that the eligibility group consider data on the child’s progress when provided with appropriate instruction by qualified professionals as part of this evaluation. These data, along with other relevant information, will assist the eligibility group in determining whether the child’s low achievement is attributable to a lack of appropriate instruction. As required in §300.306(b)(1)(i) and (ii), consistent with section 614(b)(5)(A) and (B) of the Act, a child cannot be identified as a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Based on their review of the existing data, and input from the child’s parents, the eligibility group must decide, on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the child and the information available regarding the child, what additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether the child is a child with a disability, and the educational needs of the child. If the eligibility group determines that additional data are needed and that these data cannot be VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46659 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations obtained within the 60-day timeframe (or the timeframe established by the State), new §300.309(c) (proposed §300.309(d)) allows the extension of the timeframe with mutual written agreement of the child’s parent and the eligibility group. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked how the 60-day timeframe would be followed if the time extends over school breaks. Discussion: The 60-day timeframe refers to 60 calendar days and would include school breaks. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that the regulations appear to set up a separate process and procedure for the evaluation and identification of children with SLD, and then impose the timeframe and procedures that apply to the evaluation of all other disability categories. One commenter stated that the timeframe for evaluating children with SLD is less stringent than for other disability categories and is, therefore, discriminatory. Discussion: Although there are additional criteria and procedures for evaluating and identifying children suspected of having SLD, the group must also comply with the procedures and timelines that apply to all evaluations, including evaluations for SLD. Evaluation of children suspected of having SLD must follow the same procedures and timeframes required in §§300.301 through 300.306, in addition to those in §§300.307 through 300.311. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that ‘‘appropriate period of time’’ should be replaced with ‘‘reasonable period of time’’ because courts are accustomed to deciding what constitutes a reasonable timeframe in various evaluation contexts. Discussion: It is not necessary to change ‘‘appropriate period of time’’ to ‘‘reasonable period of time,’’ because the terms here have similar meanings and are commonly understood to be synonymous. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations clarify who should refer a child for an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services. Discussion: Under §300.301(b), and consistent with the requirements in §300.300 and section 614(a)(1)(D) of the Act, either a parent of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an evaluation at any time to determine if the child is a child with a disability. We do not believe that further clarification is necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that a school district should retain its discretion not to evaluate a child subject to the parent’s right to contest the decision through due process procedures. Discussion: The commenter’s concern is already addressed in §300.111, which provides that an LEA must identify, locate, and evaluate children who are in need of special education and related services. If an LEA refuses to evaluate a child, the LEA must provide prior written notice, consistent with §300.503 and section 615(b)(3) of the Act. The parent can challenge this decision through a due process hearing. Changes: None. Observation (§300.310) Comment: Many commenters recommended removing the observation requirements in §300.310, stating that they are costly and overly prescriptive and have no statutory basis. One commenter stated that the requirements for determining eligibility under the category of SLD are so specific that the observation requirements are unnecessary. Discussion: The observation requirements for children suspected of having SLD have been in the regulations since before 1983. Important information can be obtained about a child through observation in the classroom, or for a child less than school age, in an environment appropriate for a child of that age. Objective observations are essential to assessing a child’s performance and should be a part of routine classroom instruction and are not costly or overly prescriptive. We believe the observation requirements are an important matter to regulate clearly. We will, therefore, change §300.310(a) through §300.310(c) to clearly state that the public agency must ensure appropriate observation and documentation of the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty to determine whether a child has an SLD. Changes: We have changed §300.310(a) through §300.310(c) to clearly state the observation requirements in determining whether a child has an SLD. Comment: Several commenters supported requiring a member of the group to be trained in observation. Many commenters requested clarification regarding what it means to be trained in observation. One commenter stated that there are no established training protocols or uniform professional standards for conducting an observation. Discussion: We agree that the requirement for an individual to be trained in observation is unclear and should be removed. States are responsible for determining specific personnel qualification requirements, and, for the reasons stated under §300.308, States and LEAs should determine appropriate group membership. Changes: We have removed the phrase ‘‘trained in observation’’ from §300.310(a). Comment: Several commenters stated that the public agency should determine the most appropriate individual to conduct the observation. One commenter recommended specifying a reading specialist to conduct the observation when the child’s learning problems involve reading. Another commenter stated that the observer should not be limited to a member of the eligibility group. One commenter stated that it is not necessary to obtain parental consent for the observation. Discussion: The person conducting the observation should be a member of the eligibility group because information from the observation will be used in making the eligibility determination. If information is available from an observation conducted as part of routine classroom instruction that is important for the eligibility group to consider, the eligibility group should include the person who conducted that routine classroom. This will eliminate redundant observations and save time and resources. Parental consent is not required for observations conducted as part of routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance before the child is referred for an evaluation. If an observation has not been conducted, or additional observation data are needed, the decision as to which person should conduct the observation is best left to members of the eligibility group, based on the type of information that is needed to make the eligibility determination and identify the child’s needs. Parental consent is required for observations conducted after the child is suspected of having a disability and is referred for an evaluation. We will revise §300.310 to clarify the different ways in which observation data may be obtained and to clarify that parental consent is required for observations conducted after the child is suspected of having a disability and is referred for an evaluation. Changes: We have revised §300.310 to specify in paragraph (a) that the public agency must ensure that the child is observed in the child’s learning environment. A new §300.310(b) has VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46660 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations been added to require the eligibility group to use the information obtained from the routine classroom observation or conduct a new observation and to require parental consent for observations conducted after the child is suspected of having a disability and is referred for an evaluation. Proposed §300.310(b) has been redesignated as new §300.310(c). Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the definition of an ‘‘appropriate’’ environment in which to conduct the observation of a child who is less than school age, as well as guidance in determining what such an environment would be for children who are out of school. Discussion: The eligibility group is in the best position to determine the environment appropriate for a child who is less than school age or out of school. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clear guidance about the working relationship between the special education teacher and the general education teacher in conducting an observation. Discussion: We decline to provide specific guidance on the working relationship between the special education teacher and the general education teacher in conducting an observation because this relationship will necessarily vary depending on how classrooms are structured and teacher responsibilities assigned. Such decisions are best made at the local level. Generally, we would expect that the child’s general education teacher would have data from routine classroom instruction and would work with the other members of the eligibility group to determine what additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether a child has an SLD. A special education teacher who is experienced in working with children with SLD, for example, might have suggestions on ways to structure a particular observation session to obtain any additional information that is needed, and may be able to assist the general education teacher in gathering the data. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring an observation for any child suspected of having a disability, not just those suspected of having an SLD. Discussion: Observation data will generally be a part of the existing data reviewed for any child suspected of having a disability. Section 300.305(a)(1) requires the eligibility group for any child suspected of having a disability to review existing evaluation data, including classroom-based observations and observations by teachers and related services providers. We do not believe that requiring an observation of children suspected of other disabilities is necessary, however, as identification of those other disabilities is not always as dependent on classroom performance and behavior as is identification of children with SLD. Changes: None. Specific Documentation for the Eligibility Determination (Proposed Written Report) (§300.311) Comment: Several commenters supported the requirements for the written report, stating that they provide a useful framework for practitioners. However, several commenters stated that the requirements for the written report should be removed because they go beyond the requirements of the Act and impose additional procedural and paperwork burdens for school personnel. Several commenters stated that the report is much more detailed than the evaluation and eligibility report for children with other disabilities, and stated that this could discourage schools from evaluating children suspected of having SLD. Discussion: Section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires the public agency to provide a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility to the parents for all children evaluated under the Act. Section 300.311 specifies the content for the evaluation report for children suspected of having SLD. States and LEAs have more discretion over the specific content of an evaluation report for children suspected of having a disability under the other disability categories. Therefore, whether the SLD evaluation report is more detailed or burdensome than other evaluation reports would depend on State and local requirements. We believe that the elements of the report specified in §300.311 provide important checks to prevent misidentification and ensure that children who actually have SLD are identified. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that the written report include statements regarding the existence of a psychological processing disorder and the basis for making the determination; whether the child achieved commensurate with the child’s age and ability; whether the child achieved commensurate with the child’s age and intellectual development; whether the child achieved commensurate with the child’s peers; and whether there are strengths and weaknesses in performance or cognitive abilities in one or more of the areas in §300.309(a) that require special education and related services. Discussion: We decline to change the content of the written report in the manner recommended by the commenters because the statements that commenters recommended be included in the written report are inconsistent with the eligibility requirements for children with SLD in §300.309. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended including an assurance that the eligibility determination was made in accordance with §300.306(c)(1), regarding procedures for determining eligibility and placement, and §300.8(c)(10), regarding the definition of specific learning disability. Discussion: Section 300.311(b) requires each member of the eligibility group to certify in writing whether the report reflects the particular member’s conclusion about whether the child has an SLD, and if it does not reflect his or her conclusion, submit a separate statement presenting his or her conclusions. There is no need for any additional assurances. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that including ‘‘evaluation report’’ in the description of the written report is confusing because it is unclear whether the evaluation report is something additional to the written report. Discussion: The information required in the written report in §300.311 is a part of the documentation of eligibility required in §300.306(a)(2). Section 300.306(b) and (c) lists the requirements for eligibility determinations for all children suspected of having a disability, including children suspected of having SLD. Section 300.311 provides specific elements that must be addressed in the report for children suspected of having SLD. Two separate reports are not necessary as long as the information in §300.311 is included in the documentation of the eligibility determination in §300.306(a)(2). We agree that this should be clarified. Therefore, we will change the heading for §300.311 from ‘‘Written report’’ to ‘‘Specific documentation for the eligibility determination’’ and will modify the language in §300.311(a) accordingly. Changes: We have changed the heading for §300.311 and modified §300.311(a) to clarify that the requirements in §300.311 are in addition to the requirements for the documentation of the eligibility VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46661 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations determination required in §300.306(a)(2). Comment: Several commenters requested that the written report include the determination of the group concerning the effects of cultural factors, limited English proficiency, and environmental or economic disadvantage to be consistent with all the elements in §300.309(a)(3). Discussion: We agree that it is important to emphasize the importance of considering such factors in determining eligibility under SLD and will add these factors in §300.311(a). Changes: We have added a new paragraph (6) to §300.311(a) to require the written report to include a statement on the effects of cultural factors, limited English proficiency, environmental, or economic disadvantage. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of what happens if a group member disagrees with the report and agreement is never reached. Other commenters asked whether services are delayed pending a group consensus; whether the submission of a separate statement is synonymous with a veto for eligibility; whether it matters which group member submits a separate report; and whether each group member has equal standing. Discussion: The eligibility group should work toward consensus, but under §300.306, the public agency has the ultimate responsibility to determine whether the child is a child with a disability. Parents and school personnel are encouraged to work together in making the eligibility determination. If the parent disagrees with the public agency’s determination, under §300.503, the public agency must provide the parent with prior written notice and the parent’s right to seek resolution of any disagreement through an impartial due process hearing, consistent with the requirements in §300.503 and section 615(b)(3) of the Act. Every effort should be made to resolve differences between parents and school staff through voluntary mediation or some other informal dispute resolution process. However, as stated in §300.506(b)(1)(ii) and section 615(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, mediation or other informal procedures may not be used to deny or delay a parent’s right to a due process hearing, or to deny any other rights afforded under Part B of the Act. Changes: None. Individualized Education Programs Definition of Individualized Education Program (§300.320) General (§300.320(a)) We received numerous comments requesting that we require the IEP to include additional content that is not in the Act. Under section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act, the Department cannot interpret section 614 of the Act to require public agencies to include additional information in a child’s IEP that is not explicitly required under the Act. Therefore, we generally have not included these comments in our analysis and discussion of §300.320. Comment: One commenter requested that §300.320 refer to a ‘‘student with a disability’’ instead of a ‘‘child with a disability.’’ Discussion: The words ‘‘child’’ and ‘‘student’’ are used interchangeably throughout the Act. The regulations follow the statutory language whenever possible. In §300.320, we used the term ‘‘child with a disability,’’ consistent with section 614(d) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended that the regulations include a definition of ‘‘functional’’ as it is used, for example, in ‘‘functional performance’’ in §300.320(a)(1) and ‘‘functional goals’’ in §300.320(a)(2). Some commenters suggested defining ‘‘functional’’ as the acquisition of essential and critical skills needed for children with disabilities to learn specific daily living, personal, social, and employment skills, or the skills needed to increase performance and independence at work, in school, in the home, in the community, for leisure time, and for postsecondary and other life long learning opportunities. One commenter recommended that the regulations include examples of functional skills and how functional skills should be measured. Discussion: It is not necessary to include a definition of ‘‘functional’’ in these regulations because we believe it is a term that is generally understood to refer to skills or activities that are not considered academic or related to a child’s academic achievement. Instead, ‘‘functional’’ is often used in the context of routine activities of everyday living. We do not believe it is necessary to include examples of functional skills in the regulations because the range of functional skills is as varied as the individual needs of children with disabilities. We also decline to include examples of how functional skills are measured because this is a decision that is best left to public agencies, based on the needs of their children. However, it should be noted that the evaluation procedures used to measure a child’s functional skills must meet the same standards as all other evaluation procedures, consistent with §300.304(c)(1). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended revising §300.320(a) to state that ‘‘an IEP includes’’ rather than ‘‘an IEP must include’’ in order to reflect the specific language in section 614(d) of the Act. The commenter stated that use of the word ‘‘must’’ limits the contents of an IEP to the items listed in §300.320(a). Discussion: The word ‘‘must’’ is used in §300.320(a) to clarify that an IEP is required to include the items listed in §300.320(a). We believe it is important to retain this language in §300.320(a). Under section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act, section 614 of the Act cannot be interpreted to require content in the IEP beyond that which is specified in the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarifying the meaning of ‘‘appropriate’’ as used, for example, in §300.320(a)(1)(ii) to refer to a child’s participation in ‘‘appropriate’’ activities. Discussion: The word ‘‘appropriate’’ in these regulations does not have a different meaning from its common usage. Generally, the word ‘‘appropriate’’ is used to mean ‘‘suitable’’ or ‘‘fitting’’ for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended requiring the IEP to include a statement of the relevant social and cultural background of a child and how those factors affect the appropriate participation, performance, and placement of the child in special education. Discussion: Section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act precludes the Department from interpreting section 614 of the Act to require public agencies to include information in a child’s IEP other than what is explicitly required in the Act. Therefore, we cannot require the IEP to include the statement requested by the commenters. However, a child’s social or cultural background is one of many factors that a public agency must consider in interpreting evaluation data to determine if a child is a child with a disability under §300.8 and the educational needs of the child, consistent with §300.306(c)(1)(i). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that adapted physical education should be part of a child’s IEP. Another VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46662 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations commenter recommended that travel training be required in the IEP. Discussion: The definition of special education in new §300.39 (proposed §300.38) includes adapted physical education and travel training. We do not believe adapted physical education and travel training should be mandated as part of an IEP because, as with all special education and related services, each child’s IEP Team determines the special education and related services that are needed to meet each child’s unique needs in order for the child to receive FAPE. In addition, section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act prohibits the Department from interpreting section 614 of the Act to require public agencies to include information in a child’s IEP that is not explicitly required under the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that IEPs include the array of new tools used with nondisabled children, so that children with disabilities have access to the materials they need to progress in the general education curriculum. Discussion: There is nothing in the Act that requires new tools or the same tools and materials used by nondisabled children to be used with children with disabilities or be specified in children’s IEPs. Therefore, we cannot make the requested change because section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act prohibits the Department from interpreting section 614 of the Act to require public agencies to include information in a child’s IEP that is not explicitly required under the Act. Each child’s IEP Team determines the special education and related services, as well as supplementary aids, services, and supports that are needed to meet the child’s needs in order to provide FAPE consistent with §300.320(a)(4) and section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) of the Act. Changes: None. Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (§300.320(a)(1)) Comment: A few commenters stated that §300.320(a)(1) requires an IEP to include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement, and recommended that the regulations define ‘‘academic achievement.’’ Discussion: ‘‘Academic achievement’’ generally refers to a child’s performance in academic areas (e.g., reading or language arts, math, science, and history). We believe the definition could vary depending on a child’s circumstance or situation, and therefore, we do not believe a definition of ‘‘academic achievement’’ should be included in these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended that the regulations clarify that not every child requires a functional performance statement or functional annual goals. Some commenters stated that requiring functional assessments for all children places an unnecessary burden on an LEA, does not add value for every child, and creates a potential for increased litigation. One commenter recommended that §300.320(a)(1), regarding the child’s present levels of performance, and §300.320(a)(2), regarding measurable annual goals, clarify that functional performance and functional goals should be included in a child’s IEP only if determined appropriate by the child’s IEP Team. Discussion: We cannot make the changes requested by the commenters. Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) of the Act requires an IEP to include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the regulations require a child’s present levels of performance to be aligned with the child’s annual goals. Another commenter stated that the content of the IEP should be aligned with the State’s core curriculum content standards and the knowledge and skills needed for children with disabilities to become independent, productive, and contributing members of their communities and the larger society. Discussion: The IEP Team’s determination of how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum is a primary consideration in the development of the child’s annual IEP goals. Section 300.320(a)(1)(i), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(aa) of the Act, requires the statement of a child’s present levels of performance in the IEP to include how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. This directly corresponds with the provision in §300.320(a)(2)(i)(A) and section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(aa) of the Act, which requires the IEP to include measurable annual goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. We do not believe further clarification is needed regarding the alignment of a child’s present levels of performance with the child’s annual goals. With regard to the alignment of the IEP with the State’s content standards, §300.320(a)(1)(i) clarifies that the general education curriculum means the same curriculum as all other children. Therefore, an IEP that focuses on ensuring that the child is involved in the general education curriculum will necessarily be aligned with the State’s content standards. Congress acknowledged, in section 601(c)(5)(A) of the Act, that ensuring access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible, is also effective in preparing children with disabilities to lead productive and independent adult lives. We do not believe further clarification is necessary to address the commenters’ concerns. Changes: None. Measurable Annual Goals (§300.320(a)(2)) Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether IEP goals must be specific to a particular discipline (e.g., physical therapy goals, occupational therapy goals). One commenter recommended that goals be explicitly defined and objectively measured. Another commenter recommended requiring IEP goals to have specific outcomes and measures on an identified assessment tool. One commenter recommended clarifying that an IEP Team is permitted, under certain circumstances, to write goals that are intended to be achieved in less than one year. Discussion: Section 300.320(a)(2)(i), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, requires the IEP to include measurable annual goals. Further, §300.320(a)(3)(i), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(III) of the Act, requires the IEP to include a statement of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured. The Act does not require goals to be written for each specific discipline or to have outcomes and measures on a specific assessment tool. Furthermore, to the extent that the commenters are requesting that we mandate that IEPs include specific content not in section 614(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, under section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I), we cannot interpret section 614 to require that additional content. IEPs may include more than the minimum content, if the IEP Team determines the additional content is appropriate. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters recommended requiring related services in every child’s IEP. The commenters stated that related services are necessary VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46663 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations to enhance the overall health and well- being of the child to prevent secondary conditions; ensure that the child progresses towards independent functioning and community integration; increase the child’s ability to function and learn in his or her educational environment; develop social interaction skills to enhance a child’s ability to communicate, build relationships, and reinforce other positive behavior skills; and further advance the child’s ability to complete his or her own educational requirements and goals. Discussion: To require related services for every child with a disability would be inconsistent with the concept of individualization that has been part of the Act since its inception in 1975. Related services are only required to the extent that such services are necessary to enable the child to benefit from special education. Related services, as with any other service in an IEP, are determined on an individual basis by the child’s IEP Team. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters opposed the removal of benchmarks and short- term objectives as required components of the IEP and recommended that States and LEAs be permitted to require benchmarks and short-term objectives for all children with disabilities. Many commenters recommended that the regulations allow the IEP Team to determine whether to include short- term objectives in a child’s IEP to measure progress in functional areas that are not measurable through other means. Discussion: Benchmarks and short- term objectives were specifically removed from section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act. However, because benchmarks and short-term objectives were originally intended to assist parents in monitoring their child’s progress toward meeting the child’s annual goals, we believe a State could, if it chose to do so, determine the extent to which short-term objectives and benchmarks would be used. However, consistent with §300.199(a)(2) and sections 608(a)(2) and 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act, a State that chooses to require benchmarks or short-term objectives in IEPs in that State would have to identify in writing to the LEAs located in the State and to the Secretary that such rule, regulation, or policy is a State-imposed requirement, which is not required by Part B of the Act or the Federal regulations. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters supported the requirement in §300.320(a)(2)(ii) for benchmarks or short-term objectives to be developed for children who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. However, a few commenters stated that limiting short- term objectives to children who take alternate assessments is not acceptable because the one percent limit on the percentage of children who may take alternate assessments is arbitrary. Discussion: The requirement to develop short-term objectives or benchmarks covers all children with disabilities who are assessed using alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act. The one percent cap referred to by the commenter is not a limit on the number of children who may take an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Rather, it is a limit on the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be included in calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the ESEA, consistent with 34 CFR §200.13(c)(1)(ii). As noted previously, the requirement to include benchmarks or short-term objectives for all children with disabilities was specifically removed from section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that the IEP should not include benchmarks for alternate achievement standards because this would be teaching to the test and would lower expectations for children. Discussion: Section 300.320(a)(2)(ii) requires benchmarks or short-term objectives only for children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. By ‘‘teaching to the test,’’ we assume that the commenter believes that a benchmark or short-term objective must be written for each alternate achievement standard. There is no such requirement in the Act or these regulations. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how schools should determine which children in kindergarten through grade two must have short-term objectives or benchmarks in their IEPs. Another commenter requested clarification on how the requirements for benchmarks or short-term objectives apply to preschoolers. Discussion: Section 300.320(a)(2)(ii), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act, requires an IEP to include benchmarks or short- term objectives for children with disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned to alternate achievement standards. This would apply to preschool children and children with disabilities in kindergarten through grade two only if these children are assessed in a State or districtwide assessment program and the State has opted to develop an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Under title I of the ESEA, States are only required to assess children in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, so it is unlikely that even States that choose to develop alternate achievement standards will include this age population in a Statewide assessment program or develop an alternate achievement standard for these children. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require IEP Team members, including the parents, to be involved in developing short-term objectives. Discussion: Sections 300.320 through 300.324 and section 614(d) of the Act are clear that the IEP Team, which includes the parent, is responsible for developing benchmarks or short-term objectives for children who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended clarifying that goals and objectives must be aligned with the State’s alternate assessment. Discussion: Section 612(a)(16)(C)(ii) of the Act requires alternate assessments to be aligned with the State’s challenging academic content standards and academic achievement standards, and if the State has adopted alternate academic achievement standards permitted under 34 CFR §200.1(d), to measure the achievement of children with disabilities against those standards. Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act requires the IEP to include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. However, there is nothing in the Act that requires a child’s IEP goals to be aligned with the State’s alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Additionally, for some children, goals may be needed for activities that are not closely related to a State’s academic content and academic achievement standards. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters stated that the regulations should be more specific about what must be included in an IEP goal if benchmarks or short-term VerDate Aug2005 03:09 Aug 12, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM14AUR2.SGM 14AUR2sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 46664 Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations objectives are not required in every child’s IEP. Discussion: The regulations are clear on the requirements for IEP goals. Section 300.320(a)(2)(i), consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, requires that annual IEP goals be measurable and designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and to meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. We believe that these requirements will ensure that progress toward achieving a child’s annual goals can be objectively monitored and measured. We do not believe that additional specificity is needed. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested requiring SEAs to ensure that LEAs receive professional development in writing measurable goals and effective methods of measuring progress toward achieving those goals. Discussion: We do not believe that the requested requirement should be included in the regulations. State and local officials are in the best position to determine the training and professional development needs of their personnel. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended retaining current §300.350, regarding the responsibilities of the public agency to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability in accordance with the child’s IEP and to make a good-faith effort to assist the child to achieve the goals and objectives or benchmarks in the IEP. Discussion: The requirement in current §300.350(a)(1), regarding a public agency’s responsibility to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability in accordance with the child’s IEP, is unnecessary, because entitlement to FAPE under the Act includes the provision of special education and related services in accordance with an IEP. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) in current §300.350, regarding accountability for a child achieving his or her goals, are unnecessary because other Federal laws, such as title I of the ESEA, already provide sufficient motivation for agency effort to assist children with disabilities in making academic progress. Current §300.350(c), regarding the rights of parents to invoke due process procedures if a parent feels that efforts are not being made to achieve the IEP goals, is unnecessary because it merely provides explanatory information regarding the due process procedures for parents and children that are available in §§300.500 through 520. Changes: None. Periodic Progress Reports (§300.320(a)(3)(ii)) Comment: A few commenters supported the language in §300.320(a)(3)(ii), which requires the IEP to include a description of when periodic reports on the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be provided. However, many commenters recommended retaining current §300.347(a)(7), which requires parents of a child with a disability to be informed about their child’s progress at least as often as parents of nondisabled children and for th