Fw: Final days to comment on IDEA 2004 proposed regulations!

[Guest guest]

Just received this and wanted to quickly pass it on for those of you that wish to comment. Feel free to forward. I have not read this completely yet and will not have time today but wanted to get it out.

Kathleen

Final days to comment on IDEA 2004 proposed regulations!

Dear kathleen dunkelberger,

August 29, 2005

I'm writing to remind you of the approaching deadline for submission of comments on the proposed federal regulations to implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004). Your comments must be submitted by 5 PM ET on September 6, 2005 in order to be considered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

Updating the IDEA has been a lengthy process! After taking several years to complete work on the law in the U.S. Congress, we’re now in the final stage of the process — finalizing the federal regulations that will guide the implementation of the new law. Final regulations are expected by year’s end.

As an advocate for students with learning disabilities, your voice is critically important during this final stage. Since the proposed regulations are complex and often confusing, I hope the guidance below will help you shape your comments so you can be heard. Please be sure to personalize your comments by providing information about your experiences and reasons for your recommendations.

PROPOSED CHANGES FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES (Sec. 300.307-300.311)

The proposed procedures for evaluating children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) are of particular interest to LD advocates. Much of the proposed language was drawn from the recommendations of the Learning Disabilities Roundtable, a group of 14 national organizations concerned with the identification and eligibility of students with SLD.

The most critical component of these new procedures is the abandonment of the requirement for the presence of a “severe discrepancy” between the student’s intellectual ability and academic achievement in order to obtain eligibility for special education services. (See our Frequently Asked Questions for more information on this important change.)

The proposed regulations lay the groundwork for the development of alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a student has a ‘specific learning disability’ and continue to ensure that any evaluation or re-evaluation must involve a variety of assessment tools and strategies, including the use of a scientific, research-based intervention process including models such as response to intervention (RTI).

Overall, NCLD is pleased with the SLD language; however, we have made specific recommendations to further align the NPRM with the original recommendations made by the LD Roundtable.

Please review our recommendations and at a minimum, ask the Department to:

Sec. 300.8- define ‘Scientific, Research-based Intervention’ AND Scientific, Research-based Intervention Process to ensure a minimum set of standards and consistency for the response-to-intervention process by States, in any school setting. Sec. 300.307-Keep the language that carefully describes the role of the State Education Agency (SEA) in establishing criteria for determining the existence of a SLD so schools implement models with some uniformity and fidelity. Sec. 300.308 ((1)-rewrite to state: A special education teacher ‘with expertise in specific learning disabilities.’

PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHLY QUALIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER(Sec. 300.18)

According to IDEA 2004, special education teachers who are providing only ‘consultative’ services to special education students do not need to demonstrate competence in core academic subjects such as reading and math. Consultative services involve making adjustments to the learning environment, modifying instructional methods, adapting curricula, using positive behavioral supports and interventions or appropriate accommodations to meet the needs of the individual students. While this seems reasonable, it’s important that such services remain strictly ‘consultative’ and do not involve direct instruction to the student(s) unless the special education teacher is, in fact, highly qualified in the core academic subject being taught, in addition to special education.

Therefore, I urge you to request that regulatory language in Sec. 300.18 be expanded to state: special education teachers shall provide only consultative services to a highly qualified general education teacher and must restrict their services to areas that supplement, not replace, the direct instruction provided by the highly qualified general education teacher in core academic subject(s).

RE-EVALUATIONS(Sec. 300.305)

IDEA 2004 makes it clear that school districts are not required to provide a re-evaluation when a student graduates from high school with a regular diploma, or ages out of eligibility under State law. In lieu of a re-evaluation, schools must now provide a ‘summary of the student’s academic achievement and functional performance,’ including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting postsecondary goals such as attending college, vocational training, or seeking work.

In order to achieve these goals, it is imperative that the regulations explicitly require adequate information about the students’ disability, impact of the disability, and any needed modifications, adaptations, accommodations the student may need in order to have full access to life after high school. Since accessing supports and services in college, for work, or for vocational/other training is dependent on establishing eligibility under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is critical that the information included in the Summary of Performance satisfies these requirements.

Therefore, I urge you to request that final regulations provide expanded guidance on specific components required as part of the Summary of Performance.

For example, final regulations should state that a member of the IEP team will provide the student with a written Performance Summary based on a review of the functional assessment and evaluation data.

The Summary should provide

information and data documenting the student's disability; information on the nature and extent of the academic limitations caused by the disability; and, information on the effectiveness of accommodations, supports, and assistive technology previously used by the student to reduce the functional impact of the disability.

The Summary should also include, whenever possible,

the most recent evaluations or data that support the summary; and, student input regarding the functional limitations of the disability and use and effectiveness of accommodations and supports.

Individualized Education Programs(Sec. 300.320-300.324) The proposed federal regulations regarding Individualized Education Programs contain several areas of concern. In some instances, current regulatory language has been deleted. In other instances, new provisions in IDEA 2004 need more clarificaton in order to protect the rights of parents and students. In particular, these provisions need to be addressed:

Excusal of IEP Team Members. New provisions in IDEA 2004 allow IEP team members to be excused from attending the IEP meeting under certain circumstances and with written consent by the parent and school. However, final regulations need to clearly establish the requirement for the agreement to excuse a team member to be made in advance of the meeting. Only by having adequate notice that the school wishes to excuse a team member will parents be able to make informed decisions about whether to agree to the excusal and continue with the planned meeting.Therefore, I urge you to request that the final regulations include language requiring that any agreement to excuse an IEP team member from attending the meeting be done in advance of the meeting.

Accessibility of student’s IEP to teachers and others. The proposed federal regulations have deleted the requirement that each teacher and provider is informed of his or her specific responsibilities related to implementing the IEP; and the specific appropriate accommodations and supports that must be provided for the student in accordance with the IEP. This requirement is critical to the success of students with learning disabilities, who spend the majority of their time in general education classrooms. Therefore, I urge you to request that the deleted language in current Sec. 300.342 ((3) be restored in the final regulations.

Periodic Reports of Progress. The proposed federal regulations do not require reports on the student’s progress toward meeting annual IEP goals to be furnished as frequently as reports are provided to parents of non-disabled students. This requirement is essential so parents are adequately informed of their child’s progress and can take action in cases when progress isn’t adequate to reach the annual goal. Therefore, I urge you to request that the final regulations include a requirement that periodic progress reports must be provided at least as frequently as reports are issued for non-disabled children.

The above items are only some of the important provisions that will be impacted by the proposed federal regulations. Here are some additional resources that are available to help you investigate other areas for possible comment:

National Center for Learning Disabilities Comments on IDEA 2004 NPRM

LD Roundtable Letter on IDEA 2004 NPRM related to SLD language

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Comments on IDEA 2004 NPRM

Proposed Federal Regulations

SUBMITTING YOUR COMMENTS Remember, your comments must be submitted by 5 PM ET on September 6, 2005. Use our Sample Letter to draft your comments. Please be sure to personalize your comments by providing information about your experiences and reasons for your recommendations. Here are 2 ways to submit your comments:

Use the comment form available on the Regulations.gov Web site

Email to IDEAComments@... with the subject line: IDEA-Part B.

I sincerely hope you will participate in the comment process. Your voice is so very important to our work and to securing the best possible protections for our nation’s 2.9 million children with learning disabilities.

Thank you for your continued support on behalf of those with LD. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely, KaloiDirector of Public PolicyNational Center for Learning Disabilities

Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. Tell-a-friend!

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Legislative Action Center.

This message was sent to kdclnc@.... Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Legislative Action Center, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove" in the subject line).