POLICY LETTER: September 30, 2011 to Ronald Stern

September 30, 2011Dr. Ronald Stern, PresidentConference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Inc.New Mexico School for the Deaf1060 Cerrillos RoadSanta Fe, New Mexico 87505Dear Dr. Stern:This is in response to your January 25, 2011 letter to Dr. Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the U.S. Department of Education (Department). Your letter was forwarded to my office for response and I apologize for the delay. You indicate that the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) is concerned that the data reporting requirements for Indicators B5, B6 and C2 of the State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/APRs) submitted under Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) operate as a mandate to increase the number of students in the regular class and natural environment regardless of whether that setting is appropriate for each child. You provide an analysis in support of this concern, and request that we consider the points made in your analysis in establishing future monitoring requirements and during the reauthorization of the IDEA. Least Restrictive Environment and Natural Environments Requirements The Department previously provided its views on the factors to be considered in making placement decisions under Part B of the IDEA (Part B) for school-aged children who are deaf in an August 23, 2010 letter to Edward Bosso, former president of CEASD (copy enclosed). Our discussion in that letter regarding the intersection of Part B's least restrictive environment (LRE) and free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements is particularly reYour specific concern is that numerical targets for reporting data for Part B Indicators 5 and 6 (data on placements for school aged children and data on LRE for preschool aged children, respectively) and Part C Indicator 2 (data on natural environments for infants and toddlers with disabilities) imply that there are right numbers of students and infants and toddlers in a given State or school who should be served in particular settings. You also are concerned that these data do not reflect whether State and local educational agencies and Part C lead agencies and early intervention programs are meeting their obligations to provide a FAPE under Part B to children with disabilities who are deaf and appropriate early intervention services under Part C to infants and toddlers with disabilities who are deaf and their families. The data reporting requirements associated with these indicators are not intended to mandate particular placements for individual infants and toddlers and children with disabilities. Further, these data reporting requirements represent only one part of a State's monitoring responsibilities under the IDEA.The IDEA's Part B and Part C SPPs/APRs include both compliance and results indicators. SPP/APR Part B Indicators B5 and B6 and Part C Indicator C2 are results indicators. Unlike compliance indicators, for which States must establish 100 percent compliance targets, the results indicators are intended to support States in improving outcomes in specific areas that relate to State identified targets and technical assistance activities. The Department encourages States to use the data collected under the SPP/APR indicators, in addition to other State and national data, to identify areas in need of more taAugust 23, 2010Mr. Edward H. Bosso, Jr.President, Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Inc.Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education CenterGallaudet University800 Florida Avenue, NEWashington, DC 20002Dear Mr. Bosso:Thank you for your May 7, 2010, letter, in which you refer to Secretary Arne Duncan's April 21, 210, comments made at the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) conference. Your letter was referred to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services for a response so that we may provide information addressing your concerns and be available to follow up with you should you have additional questions. Specifically, you expressed concern with the comments regarding the education of students with disabilities in specialized educational settings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additionally, you provided information regarding the problem of unqualified sign language interpreters in general education settings and the benefits of schools for the deaf. As you know, the requirements for determining the placement of a child with a disability are included in the IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.116. This regulation requires that placement decisions be made by a group of persons, including the parents and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. This decision must be made in conformity with the least restrictive environment (LRE) provisions, including 300.114 through 300.118. Additionally, a child's placement must be determined at least annually, be based on the child's individualized education program (IEP), and be as close as possible to the child's home. These . . . [c]onsider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode. . .34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(iv). Any setting that does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf does not allow for the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and cannot be considered the LRE for that child. Just as the IDEA requires placement in the regular educational setting when it is appropriate for the unique needs of a child who is deaf, it also requires placement outside of the regular educational setting when the child's needs cannot be met in that setting.The Secretary and I share your concern about the need for students with disabilities to receive appropriate interpreting services from qualified personnel. The IDEA requires that personnel providing special education and related services to children with disabilities be appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. The responsibility for ensuring sign language interpreters are qualified rests with the State educational agency. Under the IDEA's regulations, sign language interpreter services are considered related services. 34 CFR 300.34(c)(4). The IDEA regulations, at 34 CFR 300.156, specify that the State educational agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to make FAPE available are appropriately and adequately prepared and t PAGE 3 Dr. Richard Stern, PresidentPage PAGE 3 Mr. Edward H. Bosso, Jr. September 30, 2011Dr. Ronald Stern, PresidentConference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Inc.New Mexico School for the Deaf1060 Cerrillos RoadSanta Fe, New Mexico 87505Dear Dr. Stern:This is in response to your January 25, 2011 letter to Dr. Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the U.S. Department of Education (Department). Your letter was forwarded to my office for response and I apologize for the delay. You indicate that the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) is concerned that the data reporting requirements for Indicators B5, B6 and C2 of the State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports (SPPs/APRs) submitted under Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) operate as a mandate to increase the number of students in the regular class and natural environment regardless of whether that setting is appropriate for each child. You provide an analysis in support of this concern, and request that we consider the points made in your analysis in establishing future monitoring requirements and during the reauthorization of the IDEA. Least Restrictive Environment and Natural Environments Requirements The Department previously provided its views on the factors to be considered in making placement decisions under Part B of the IDEA (Part B) for school-aged children who are deaf in an August 23, 2010 letter to Edward Bosso, former president of CEASD (copy enclosed). Our discussion in that letter regarding the intersection of Part B's least restrictive environment (LRE) and free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements is particularly reYour specific concern is that numerical targets for reporting data for Part B Indicators 5 and 6 (data on placements for school aged children and data on LRE for preschool aged children, respectively) and Part C Indicator 2 (data on natural environments for infants and toddlers with disabilities) imply that there are right numbers of students and infants and toddlers in a given State or school who should be served in particular settings. You also are concerned that these data do not reflect whether State and local educational agencies and Part C lead agencies and early intervention programs are meeting their obligations to provide a FAPE under Part B to children with disabilities who are deaf and appropriate early intervention services under Part C to infants and toddlers with disabilities who are deaf and their families. The data reporting requirements associated with these indicators are not intended to mandate particular placements for individual infants and toddlers and children with disabilities. Further, these data reporting requirements represent only one part of a State's monitoring responsibilities under the IDEA.The IDEA's Part B and Part C SPPs/APRs include both compliance and results indicators. SPP/APR Part B Indicators B5 and B6 and Part C Indicator C2 are results indicators. Unlike compliance indicators, for which States must establish 100 percent compliance targets, the results indicators are intended to support States in improving outcomes in specific areas that relate to State identified targets and technical assistance activities. The Department encourages States to use the data collected under the SPP/APR indicators, in addition to other State and national data, to identify areas in need of more taAugust 23, 2010Mr. Edward H. Bosso, Jr.President, Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, Inc.Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education CenterGallaudet University800 Florida Avenue, NEWashington, DC 20002Dear Mr. Bosso:Thank you for your May 7, 2010, letter, in which you refer to Secretary Arne Duncan's April 21, 210, comments made at the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) conference. Your letter was referred to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services for a response so that we may provide information addressing your concerns and be available to follow up with you should you have additional questions. Specifically, you expressed concern with the comments regarding the education of students with disabilities in specialized educational settings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additionally, you provided information regarding the problem of unqualified sign language interpreters in general education settings and the benefits of schools for the deaf. As you know, the requirements for determining the placement of a child with a disability are included in the IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.116. This regulation requires that placement decisions be made by a group of persons, including the parents and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. This decision must be made in conformity with the least restrictive environment (LRE) provisions, including 300.114 through 300.118. Additionally, a child's placement must be determined at least annually, be based on the child's individualized education program (IEP), and be as close as possible to the child's home. These . . . [c]onsider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode. . .34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(iv). Any setting that does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf does not allow for the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and cannot be considered the LRE for that child. Just as the IDEA requires placement in the regular educational setting when it is appropriate for the unique needs of a child who is deaf, it also requires placement outside of the regular educational setting when the child's needs cannot be met in that setting.The Secretary and I share your concern about the need for students with disabilities to receive appropriate interpreting services from qualified personnel. The IDEA requires that personnel providing special education and related services to children with disabilities be appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. The responsibility for ensuring sign language interpreters are qualified rests with the State educational agency. Under the IDEA's regulations, sign language interpreter services are considered related services. 34 CFR 300.34(c)(4). The IDEA regulations, at 34 CFR 300.156, specify that the State educational agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining qualifications to ensure that personnel necessary to make FAPE available are appropriately and adequately prepared and t PAGE 3 Dr. Richard Stern, PresidentPage PAGE 3 Mr. Edward H. Bosso, Jr.