POLICY LETTER: February 10, 2011 to non-attorney advocate Amber Mintz

February 10, 2011Amber MintzNon-Attorney Advocate528 Hill RoadReading, Pennsylvania 19565Dear Ms. Mintz:This is in response to your October 11, 2010 letter in which you request that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) respond to two questions. Your questions and OSEP's responses are below.Question 1: Does existing,' as used in the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] phrase review of existing data' have a reasonable physical location' component, and if so, what? For example, should a review of existing data' include a physical review of educational records not readily available to IEP [individualized education program] team members (because they are stored in a special ed [sic]file in another office/building and adherence to policies to obtain)? Or, can this review activity be satisfied by obtaining and reviewing those that are readily available, such as currently implemented IEP, school-wide monitoring (i.e., grade reAnalysis and ConclusionAs described in 34 CFR 300.305(a)(1), existing evaluation data on the child consist of both written and observational data. The determination of what constitutes existing evaluation data on the child is left to the IEP Team, which includes the child's parents, and other qualified professionals, as appropriate. Under this regulation, we do not believe that an IEP Team can refrain from reviewing existing evaluation data on the child solely because it determines that the data are not stored in a location that makes them readily available to the IEP Team. Question 2: May a special education teacher administer formal, standardized individual assessments (for example:, Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4), or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test) to a student on their (IDEA only students) caseload at their discretion without requiring parent permission for them as a re-evaluation, instruments that are not identified in any section of tIf you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Josiah Willey at 202-245-7350 or by email at Josiah.Willey@ed.gov.Sincerely,rectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: State Director of Special EducationEnclosureMay 6, 2008Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq.Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, Surowka and DeWind, LLP P.O. Box 660Binghamton, NY 13902-0660Dear Mr. Sarzynski:This is in response to your January 2, 2008 letter, in which you request further clarification of the position stated in the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) September 5, 2007 letter, which addressed whether, under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a parent's written consent is required for all evaluations that are not standardized tests administered to all students. OSEP did not take the position that every evaluation and functional behavioral assessment of a child with aBased on the definition of evaluation in 34 CFR 300.15, you conclude that parental consent is not required under IDEA if an evaluation is not conducted for the purpose of determining "whether the child has a disability AND the nature and extent of special education and related services that the child needs." That is incorrect. The regulations regarding reevaluations at 34 CFR 300.303 clarify that a public agency is sometimes required to conduct a reevaluation even if there is no dispute regarding the child's eligibility. Under 34 CFR 30.303(a)(1), a public agency must conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability "if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrants a reevaluation." As part of any reevaluation, the individualized education program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must review existing William W. KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: Dr. Rebecca CortFebruary 10, 2011Amber MintzNon-Attorney Advocate528 Hill RoadReading, Pennsylvania 19565Dear Ms. Mintz:This is in response to your October 11, 2010 letter in which you request that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) respond to two questions. Your questions and OSEP's responses are below.Question 1: Does existing,' as used in the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] phrase review of existing data' have a reasonable physical location' component, and if so, what? For example, should a review of existing data' include a physical review of educational records not readily available to IEP [individualized education program] team members (because they are stored in a special ed [sic]file in another office/building and adherence to policies to obtain)? Or, can this review activity be satisfied by obtaining and reviewing those that are readily available, such as currently implemented IEP, school-wide monitoring (i.e., grade reAnalysis and ConclusionAs described in 34 CFR 300.305(a)(1), existing evaluation data on the child consist of both written and observational data. The determination of what constitutes existing evaluation data on the child is left to the IEP Team, which includes the child's parents, and other qualified professionals, as appropriate. Under this regulation, we do not believe that an IEP Team can refrain from reviewing existing evaluation data on the child solely because it determines that the data are not stored in a location that makes them readily available to the IEP Team. Question 2: May a special education teacher administer formal, standardized individual assessments (for example:, Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4), or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test) to a student on their (IDEA only students) caseload at their discretion without requiring parent permission for them as a re-evaluation, instruments that are not identified in any section of tIf you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Josiah Willey at 202-245-7350 or by email at Josiah.Willey@ed.gov.Sincerely,rectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: State Director of Special EducationEnclosureMay 6, 2008Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq.Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, Surowka and DeWind, LLP P.O. Box 660Binghamton, NY 13902-0660Dear Mr. Sarzynski:This is in response to your January 2, 2008 letter, in which you request further clarification of the position stated in the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) September 5, 2007 letter, which addressed whether, under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a parent's written consent is required for all evaluations that are not standardized tests administered to all students. OSEP did not take the position that every evaluation and functional behavioral assessment of a child with aBased on the definition of evaluation in 34 CFR 300.15, you conclude that parental consent is not required under IDEA if an evaluation is not conducted for the purpose of determining "whether the child has a disability AND the nature and extent of special education and related services that the child needs." That is incorrect. The regulations regarding reevaluations at 34 CFR 300.303 clarify that a public agency is sometimes required to conduct a reevaluation even if there is no dispute regarding the child's eligibility. Under 34 CFR 30.303(a)(1), a public agency must conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability "if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrants a reevaluation." As part of any reevaluation, the individualized education program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must review existing William W. KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: Dr. Rebecca CortFebruary 10, 2011Amber MintzNon-Attorney Advocate528 Hill RoadReading, Pennsylvania 19565Dear Ms. Mintz:This is in response to your October 11, 2010 letter in which you request that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) respond to two questions. Your questions and OSEP's responses are below.Question 1: Does existing,' as used in the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] phrase review of existing data' have a reasonable physical location' component, and if so, what? For example, should a review of existing data' include a physical review of educational records not readily available to IEP [individualized education program] team members (because they are stored in a special ed [sic]file in another office/building and adherence to policies to obtain)? Or, can this review activity be satisfied by obtaining and reviewing those that are readily available, such as currently implemented IEP, school-wide monitoring (i.e., grade reAnalysis and ConclusionAs described in 34 CFR 300.305(a)(1), existing evaluation data on the child consist of both written and observational data. The determination of what constitutes existing evaluation data on the child is left to the IEP Team, which includes the child's parents, and other qualified professionals, as appropriate. Under this regulation, we do not believe that an IEP Team can refrain from reviewing existing evaluation data on the child solely because it determines that the data are not stored in a location that makes them readily available to the IEP Team. Question 2: May a special education teacher administer formal, standardized individual assessments (for example:, Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4), or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test) to a student on their (IDEA only students) caseload at their discretion without requiring parent permission for them as a re-evaluation, instruments that are not identified in any section of tIf you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Josiah Willey at 202-245-7350 or by email at Josiah.Willey@ed.gov.Sincerely,rectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: State Director of Special EducationEnclosureMay 6, 2008Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq.Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, Surowka and DeWind, LLP P.O. Box 660Binghamton, NY 13902-0660Dear Mr. Sarzynski:This is in response to your January 2, 2008 letter, in which you request further clarification of the position stated in the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) September 5, 2007 letter, which addressed whether, under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a parent's written consent is required for all evaluations that are not standardized tests administered to all students. OSEP did not take the position that every evaluation and functional behavioral assessment of a child with aBased on the definition of evaluation in 34 CFR 300.15, you conclude that parental consent is not required under IDEA if an evaluation is not conducted for the purpose of determining "whether the child has a disability AND the nature and extent of special education and related services that the child needs." That is incorrect. The regulations regarding reevaluations at 34 CFR 300.303 clarify that a public agency is sometimes required to conduct a reevaluation even if there is no dispute regarding the child's eligibility. Under 34 CFR 30.303(a)(1), a public agency must conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability "if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrants a reevaluation." As part of any reevaluation, the individualized education program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must review existing William W. KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: Dr. Rebecca CortFebruary 10, 2011Amber MintzNon-Attorney Advocate528 Hill RoadReading, Pennsylvania 19565Dear Ms. Mintz:This is in response to your October 11, 2010 letter in which you request that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) respond to two questions. Your questions and OSEP's responses are below.Question 1: Does existing,' as used in the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] phrase review of existing data' have a reasonable physical location' component, and if so, what? For example, should a review of existing data' include a physical review of educational records not readily available to IEP [individualized education program] team members (because they are stored in a special ed [sic]file in another office/building and adherence to policies to obtain)? Or, can this review activity be satisfied by obtaining and reviewing those that are readily available, such as currently implemented IEP, school-wide monitoring (i.e., grade reAnalysis and ConclusionAs described in 34 CFR 300.305(a)(1), existing evaluation data on the child consist of both written and observational data. The determination of what constitutes existing evaluation data on the child is left to the IEP Team, which includes the child's parents, and other qualified professionals, as appropriate. Under this regulation, we do not believe that an IEP Team can refrain from reviewing existing evaluation data on the child solely because it determines that the data are not stored in a location that makes them readily available to the IEP Team. Question 2: May a special education teacher administer formal, standardized individual assessments (for example:, Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4), or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test) to a student on their (IDEA only students) caseload at their discretion without requiring parent permission for them as a re-evaluation, instruments that are not identified in any section of tIf you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Josiah Willey at 202-245-7350 or by email at Josiah.Willey@ed.gov.Sincerely,rectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: State Director of Special EducationEnclosureMay 6, 2008Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq.Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, Surowka and DeWind, LLP P.O. Box 660Binghamton, NY 13902-0660Dear Mr. Sarzynski:This is in response to your January 2, 2008 letter, in which you request further clarification of the position stated in the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) September 5, 2007 letter, which addressed whether, under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a parent's written consent is required for all evaluations that are not standardized tests administered to all students. OSEP did not take the position that every evaluation and functional behavioral assessment of a child with aBased on the definition of evaluation in 34 CFR 300.15, you conclude that parental consent is not required under IDEA if an evaluation is not conducted for the purpose of determining "whether the child has a disability AND the nature and extent of special education and related services that the child needs." That is incorrect. The regulations regarding reevaluations at 34 CFR 300.303 clarify that a public agency is sometimes required to conduct a reevaluation even if there is no dispute regarding the child's eligibility. Under 34 CFR 30.303(a)(1), a public agency must conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability "if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrants a reevaluation." As part of any reevaluation, the individualized education program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must review existing William W. KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: Dr. Rebecca Cort