CCD Education Task Force
Recommendations for Other Changes
S. 1248
July 30, 2003
SECTION 602
Recommendation
(3) add “deaf-blindness” as a disability category under the definition of “child with a disability.”
Rationale
This addition clarifies that deaf-blindness is a disability unto itself. Deaf-blindness is referred to numerous times in current law, is listed as a separate disability in the regulations and is a self standing category in the annual report to Congress.
Recommendation
(10) add new paragraphs B and C and renumber accordingly:
“(B) When used with respect to related services personnel providing services to IDEA-eligible children in a State, the term 'highly qualified’ means that-
''(i) the related services provider has obtained full State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensure, registration or other comparable state or national requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing related services, and,
''(ii) the related services provider has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.
(C ) When respect to preschool teachers who are providing services to IDEA eligible children in a State, the term ‘highly qualified’ means that-
(i) the preschool teacher has obtained full State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements which apply to the area in which such personnel are preschool services.”
SECTION 613
When early intervening services (613(f)) and response to “scientific, research-based intervention” models (614(a)(B)(6)(B)) are used, S. 1248 should require their use be time limited (e.g., if the child does not respond by X date, a referral for IDEA eligibility will occur.) Exceptions should be added for cases 1) where early intervening services and response to “scientific, research-based intervention” models are clearly not necessary or useful, and 2) when the parent directly requests referral for IDEA eligibility. Any information gleaned during the early intervening processes will be used in the eligibility evaluation process under IDEA.
(f)(4) REPORTING- Each local educational agency that develops and maintains comprehensive, coordinated, early intervening educational services with funds made available for this subsection, shall annually report to the State educational agency on--
(A) the number of children served under this subsection; and
(B) the number of children served under this subsection who are subsequently referred to special education.
(C) The performance of children receiving services under this subsection on assessments, including alternate assessments.
(5) Each LEA that develops and maintains comprehensive, coordinated, early intervening educational services with funds made available for this subsection, shall implement a policy to ensure that any child served under this subsection who is in need of special education and related services is identified, located and evaluated as required per 612(a)(3).
SECTION 614
614(b)(6) Specific Learning Disability:
“(B) In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, an LEA
shall conduct a full and individual comprehensive evaluation in accordance
with Sec.614 (a) and (b) and, as part of that evaluation, may use a process that
determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention.”
614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) Add subsection (cc): “and including a description of specific skills that must be mastered, and the time frame in which they are expected to be mastered, in order to achieve any non-academic IEP goals such as social skills, communication, motor and behavior goals and any academic goals that are below the grade level in which the child is enrolled.”
SECTION 615
CCD recognizes the difficulties encountered by the Senate in dealing with Section 615 of IDEA and the hard work that went into a bi-partisan agreement. In acknowledgement of this bipartisan effort, CCD has chosen not to submit all the amendments that would be necessary to retain current law. However, CCD wishes to note that the rights of students and families have been significantly lessened under Section 615 of S. 1248 and submits that, if implemented correctly, the 1997 IDEA Amendments to Section 615 would improve educational results for all students.
Recommendation
615(f)(B)(i) “Where the LEA has not had prior knowledge of the concerns addressed in the notice, prior to the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing under subparagraph (A), the local educational agency shall convene a meeting with the parents and the IEP Team—
(iv) where the parents of the child discuss their complaint…, unless the parents and the local education al agency agree in writing to waive such a meeting…, or agrees to re-convene the IEP team. If the parent agrees to reconvene the IEP team or agrees to use the mediation process, the parent is excused from attending the meeting described in (i) and the due process hearing may not be thus delayed. The meeting in (i) is also waived when the parent has requested an expedited hearing for a matter addressed in per 615(k), including any decision regarding disciplinary action, placement, or the manifestation determination.”
Rationale
These changes will help resolve some of the more confusing and duplicative elements.
Recommendations
615(f)(3)(B) Amend this language to allow an amended notice:
(B) SUBJECT MATTER OF A HEARING.- The party requesting the due process hearing shall not be allowed to raise issues at the due process hearing that were not raised in the notice filed under subsection (b)(7) unless the other party agrees or an amended notice has been filed not less than 5 business days prior to a hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
615(k)(4) Amend the language in the opening sentence of subsection (k)(4) and paragraph (4)(A) to restore current “stay put” rights.
(4) PLACEMENT DURING APPEALS.- When a parent requests a hearing regarding a disciplinary procedure described in paragraph (1)(D) or (3)(B)(ii) to challenge the interim alternative educational setting-
(A) the child shall remain in the interim alternative education setting pending the decision of the hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period provided for in paragraph (1)(D) or (3)(B)(ii), whichever occurs first, unless the parents and the state or local educational agency agree otherwise; and
615(f)(3)(D) Statute of
limitations. A parent shall request an impartial due process hearing
within two years of the date the parent knew about the alleged action that forms
the basis of the complaint and the parent knew that said action violated the
rights of his or her child and a or public agency shall request
an impartial due process hearing within 2 years of the date the parent or
public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the
basis of the complaint, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for
requesting such a hearing under this part, in such time as the State law allows.
[Rationale: 1) as written there are dangling modifiers; 2) kids
shouldn’t be penalized if parents didn’t know that their children’s rights were
being violated and that there was an action that violated those rights.]
(E) Exceptions to the
statute of limitations. The statute of limitations described in subparagraph (D)
shall not apply if the parent was prevented from requesting the hearing due to
(i) failure of the local educational agency to provide prior written or procedural safeguards notices;
(ii) false, misleading, or ambiguous representations that the local educational agency was attempting to resolve the problem forming the basis of the complaint; [Rationale: A statement may be true when made but not clear or a statement or representation might mislead the parent without being false.]
(iii) the local educational agency's withholding of information from parents.; or
(iv) for such other reasons as would under the common law or statutory law of the state require the statute of limitations to be tolled or not applied.
Recommendation/Rationale
615(h) Solve the "Arons" problem. The language proposed below (taken from the House bill) fixes a problem involving a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court preventing non-attorney advocates from representing parents at due process hearings.
“(h) Safeguards._Any party to a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection
(f) or (k), or an appeal conducted pursuant to subsection (g), shall be
accorded_
``(1) the right to be represented by counsel and by non-attorney advocates
and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the
problems of children with disabilities;” [Taken from the House bill, 615(g)]"
PART C
We continue to request that Part C be permanently authorized. Permanently authorizing Part C would go a long way toward sending a positive message to states about the value the Congress places on Part C.
Recommendation
635(a)(16) restore "The provision of early intervention services for any infant or toddler occurs in a setting other than a natural environment only when early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment" at Sec. 635(a)(16)(B).
Rationale
We support the change in the natural environment language in Sec. 635(a)(16), but request that subsection (B) that was been deleted in the bill be retained. Restoration of this language is critical to successful implementation of these requirements.
Recommendation
635(c) Add language to include a study by the Secretary to determine the extent to which this option is undertaken and the effectiveness of its use in States.
Recommendation
We request language be added requiring a National Academy of Sciences study to determine the appropriate eligibility for children birth through age five.
Rationale
This study would provide accurate data about children’s eligibility needs.