CCD Education Task Force
Recommendations for Technical Changes
S. 1248
July 30, 2003
Recommended changes are in bolded italics.
601 – PURPOSES
Recommendation
601(d)(2) Restore “comprehensive” after “Statewide” : “to assist States in the implementation of a Statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary …”
602 – DEFINITIONS
Recommendation
602(33)(B) Transition Services.
“is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s
capacity strengths, preferences, and interests; and…”.
Rationale
We suggest that the word “strength” substitute for “capacity.” This substitution would bring the language in line with languages used in the Rehabilitation Act.
609 - REPORT TO CONGRESS
Recommendation
Add the following sentence at the end, “One of the sources from which information will be solicited will be families of children with disabilities and advocates.”
Rationale
The bill provides no provision for including the input of parents and advocates in the paperwork study conducted by the Comptroller General.
SECTION 612
Recommendation
612(a)(20)(B)(vii)
“representatives of other State agencies involved in …children with disabilities;
, including agencies responsible for Medicaid, mental health, mental
retardation and developmental disabilities, alcohol and substance abuse, and
rehabilitation services.”
SECTION 614
Recommendation
614(a)(2)(A)(ii) – change the plural “parents” to “parent” , to read: “if the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.”
Rationale
Makes the language consistent in its use of “parent” throughout the rest of the bill and helps avoid problems because of custody arrangements.
Recommendation
614(b)(3)(A)(ii) - Substitute
the phrase “unless clearly not feasible” for “to the extent practicable” to
read: “are provided and administered to the extent practicable
unless clearly not feasible, in the language and form most likely to
yield accurate information…”.
Rationale
S. 1248 consistently uses the phase “clearly not feasible” in other sections of Part B. This change would bring the language used in this paragraph in line with language used elsewhere in the bill.
Recommendation
614(b)(3)(A)(ii) - Modify the
evaluation language to read: “…are provided and administered, to the extent
practicable unless clearly not feasible, in the language and form
(including other modes of communication) most likely to yield
accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically,
developmentally, and functionally;”
Recommendation
614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) - amend the “statement of progress” language to read: “a statement of the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals described in subclause (II) as well as a description of how the progress is measured and how the parents will be informed of this progress, including through the use of …”.
Rationale
The current language reads as if periodic reports measure progress rather than reporting it.
Recommendation
614(d)(1)(C)(ii)(II) – modify language in “Excusal” to read: “the member submits written input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.”
Rationale
An excused member of the IEP team should be required to provide written input, on matters relevant to that meeting, to the parents and school district prior to the meeting.
Recommendation
Sec. 614 (d)(3)(B)(i) The IEP Team shall— “in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, a functional behavioral assessment will be done to assist in providing for positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies to address that behavior;”.
Rationale
The final IDEA discipline provisions must maintain certain protections for students with disabilities, such as the manifestation determination, continued services in quality alternative settings, and behavioral interventions to address challenging behaviors. While the Senate bill, S. 1248, maintains these important protections, we strongly recommend inclusion of a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) as part of the development of the IEP.
Recommendation
614(d)(3)(B)(iv) "consider the
communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard
of hearing, consider provide for the child’s language and
communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and
professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, and
access to the general curriculum in the child¹s language and communication
mode;"
Rationale: Deaf and hard of hearing children must develop grade-level language and communication skills in order to meet the academic standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. Also, school districts should be assisting students in their communication and language development as part of districts' requirements to provide FAPE. Communication access and development are the most critical aspects of education for deaf and hard of hearing children. This provision clarifies what schools should be doing already.
SECTION 615
Recommendation
615(e)(2)(A)(i) – “is voluntary
on the part of the parties parent;”.
Rationale
This change supports and matches the modifications recommended above for 615(f)(B)(i).
Recommendation
615(f)(3)(D) “Statute of
limitations. A parent 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…”.
Rationale
We believe parents should not be subjected to an arbitrary “should have known” standard.
Recommendation
615(f)(3)(F)(i)
“In general.- Subject to clause (ii), a decision made by a hearing
officer shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether
the child received a free appropriate public education. in the least
restrictive environment.”
Rationale
Addition of this language will ensure that LRE decisions remain part of the hearing process.
Recommendation
Reinstate language from initial bill at 615(f)(3)(F)(iii), that was lost in the mark-up, to make due process hearing decisions enforceable again.
Recommendation
615(k)(1)(C)(II) “if the conduct in question resulted from the failure of an inappropriate IEP and placement or to implement…”.
Rationale
As currently worded, this section assumes that the student’s IEP and placement are appropriate. Inclusion of this language will ensure that appropriate attention is given to decisions made in the development of the IEP and the student’s placement.
615(k) DISCIPLINE
CCD recognizes the difficulties encountered by Congress in dealing with Section 615 of IDEA and the hard work that went into a bi-partisan agreement. While not offering any compromise language, CCD believes that the rights of students and families have been significantly lessened under S. 1248 and submits that, if implemented correctly, the 1997 IDEA Amendments to Section 615 would improve the lives of all students, including students with disabilities.
SECTION 616
Recommendation
616(a)(3) Add a monitoring priority for Part C as a new (E): “(E) provision of early intervention services in natural environments for children birth-3 under Part C.”
SECTION 617
Recommendation
617(d)(1) Add a requirement to
develop a model IFSP form: “a model IEP and IFSP forms.”
PART C
Recommendation
631(a)(3) Restore “to minimize the likelihood of institutionalization of individuals with disabilities” from current law.
Recommendation
635(a)(9) “Subject to subsection (b), …use of paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised in accordance with State law…”.
Rationale
Current law discusses the use of paraprofessionals who are "appropriately trained and supervised." S.1248 deletes "supervised" and discusses only paraprofessionals who are "appropriately trained." As written, S.1248 promotes use of non-supervised paraprofessionals. The phrase "and supervised" needs to be re-inserted into the bill."
Recommendations
635(c)(1) “A statewide system…and the State educational agency, under which parents of children with disabilities receiving services under Part C, who are eligible for services under section 619…”
Rationale
Ensure that the option is only available to children who are currently in Part C.
Recommendation
635(c)(1) Add “(to the extent those agencies are different)” to read: “A statewide system…jointly by the lead agency and the State educational agency (to the extent those agencies are different), under which…”
Rationale
Reference must be made to those states in which the lead agencies are the same.
Recommendation
635(c)(2)(A) Add “Such consent shall address the issues described in paragraph (C)” to the end of this paragraph.
Recommendation
635(c)(2)(A) Add statement at the end of the paragraph that “Parents may, anytime throughout the year, after first accepting this option, withdraw their consent and request and receive services under Part B. However, after moving to Part B services, an eligible child over age three may not return to Part C services.”
Rationale
Parents of children participating in this option must have the option of changing their mind midyear and moving to FAPE. However, children who move to FAPE should not be permitted to return to Part C.
Recommendation
635(c)(4) Add a “construction clause” that says that nothing in this section alters the ability of states to implement a sliding fee scale for families with children receiving services under Part C.
Rationale
We don’t understand this paragraph. Is the issue that providers can charge families fees if their State has a sliding fee scale? A provider doesn’t provide FAPE, the SEA guarantees that FAPE is provided. We think the recommended “construction clause” will clarify your intent.
Recommendation
635(c) Add a new (5) “The policy shall include a description of the funds, including federal, state and local that will be utilized to ensure the availability of this option to eligible children and their families. This shall also include, if applicable, a description of the use of family fees, in accordance with approved ability to pay mechanisms.”
Rationale
The State policy should describe all the funds that will be used to ensure its implementation and availability for all eligible children whose parents choose to participate.
Recommendation
636(a)(2) Add “including the need for medical and child care services” after “resources, priorities, and concerns of the family.”
Recommendation
Section 637(a)(6) Change “referral for early intervention services” to “referral for screening for early intervention services.”
Recommendation
Section 637(a)(6) Add new language at the end of (B) “Such description shall include language specifying the role and responsibilities of all other relevant state programs and agencies and include mechanisms to ensure the availability of necessary screening and evaluation for such children through the use of all applicable federal, state and local resources, including a description of how other state and local agencies and programs will continue to meet their applicable requirements under Medicaid and other federal and state laws and regulations. The policy must demonstrate how implementation of this Part C requirement provides for the continued implementation of the Payor of Last resort requirements at Sec. 640.”
Rationale
This language would address the Congressional expectation that all state agencies will continue to meet their own requirements under EPSDT and collaborate with the Part C system to ensure identification of all eligible children and families.
Recommendation
637(a)(6) "Construction - Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the responsibility of a State under XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et. seq.) with respect to early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment services (as defined in section 1905(r) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(r))."
Rationale
Addition of this language will ensure that all funds that are available for identification and evaluation of young children are utilized and that Part C funds are used in accordance with Payor of Last Resort provisions.
Recommendation
638(3) Revise the ‘Uses of Part
C Funds’ language to read: “to provide a free appropriate public education,
in accordance with part B, to children with disabilities with written
consent of the parent, to provide early intervention in accordance with Part C
to children who remain in Part C from their third birthday until the
beginning of the following school year. In those instances, Part B
requirements do not apply and services are provided in accordance with Part C;
and”
Rationale
Ensure parallel transition with language at 619(h) to address children who turn three staying in Part C until the beginning of the next school year for purposes of a smooth transition. This change would allow state Part C systems to continue to serve children who turn three under Part C without having to provide FAPE as is required under current law. This would be particularly helpful for children who turn 3 in the summer who’s IEPs do not include ESY services. 619(h) allows services under Part B to children who transition early when they are still 2. This change facilitates the companion option at 635(c)(1).
PART D
Rationale
While related services and early intervention personnel are included in the definition of “personnel” at Sec. 651(b) and 664(k), the “use of funds” language is not consistently inclusive in certain subparts. Instead, special and general education teachers and administrators are the explicit focus of those allowable activities. We recommend the following technical changes to clearly reflect the inclusion of related services and early intervention personnel in all Part D activities.
Recommendations
Section 650 Findings
(9) “A comprehensive research
agenda should be established…rigor in special education in research
on early intervention, special education and related services, and to
address the full range of issues facing children …”.
Section 653 Applications
(a)(2) “The application shall …
personnel preparation and professional development of administrators,
principals and teachers personnel as defined in Section 651(b),
as well as individuals who provide …”.
653(b)(7) “describe how the State will recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, related services and early intervention personnel, and other qualified personnel…” .
Section 654 Use of Funds
(a)(1) Professional Development Activities
“Carrying out programs that
provide support to both special education and regular education teachers
of children with disabilities, related services and early intervention
personnel, and principals, …”.
Add new paragraph (C) as follows:
“(C) Promote collaborative and consultative models of providing early intervention, special education and related services.”
654(a)(2) “Encouraging and supporting the training of special education and regular education teachers, related services personnel, and administrators to effectively utilize and integrate technology”
654(a)(3)(A) “Improve the knowledge of special education and regular education teachers, related services and early intervention personnel concerning…”.
654(a)(3)(B) “improve the knowledge of special education and regular education teachers, principals and, in appropriate cases, related services, early intervention personnel and paraprofessionals,…”.
654(a)(3)(B)(ii) “involve
collaborative groups of teachers, and administrators,
and related services personnel;”
654(a)(3)(C) “ train administrators, principals, early intervention and preschool providers, related services and other relevant school personnel in conducting effective IEP/IFSP meetings.”
664(a)(7)(D) “promoting improved collaboration between special education and general education teachers and related services personnel;”
664(b)(2)(D) Does the paragraph intend to move paraprofessionals through a career ladder so that they can become a qualified special education teacher, related services provider, or early intervention provider? If that is the case, we recommend revising the language in this paragraph to reflect the process to “become highly qualified.” If, on the other hand, this paragraph is focused on training to help paraprofessionals “assist in the provision of special education, related services, and early intervention services”, then the paragraph should be revised to reflect that purpose.
664(b)(2)(H) “Developing and disseminating models that prepare early intervention and preschool providers, teachers and related services personnel with strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, …”.
664(b)(2)(I) “Developing and improving programs to enhance the ability of early childhood providers general education teachers, principals, school administrators, related services personnel, and school board members to improve results for children with disabilities.”
664(g)(3)(A) “The Secretary may require applicants … successful completion of the proposed personnel preparation program as meeting State personnel standards, or other requirements in State law or regulation, …”.
Section 665 Studies and Evaluations
(b)(3)(C) “implementation of the
personal personnel preparation and professional development activities
under this Act and the impact on … teacher personnel qualifications to
enhance the ability of early intervention and preschool providers,
special education and regular education teachers and related services
personnel …”.
TITLE III
SECTION 175
Recommendation
Part E, Sec 175(b), under Title III SEC. 301 NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH,
``(1) to
sponsor research to expand knowledge and understanding of the needs of infants,
toddlers, and children, and youth with
disabilities, including those with severe disabilities, in order
to improve the developmental, educational, and transitional results of such
individuals;
SECTION 176
Recommendation
``SEC. 176. COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH.
The Center shall be headed by a Commissioner for Special Education Research (in this part referred to as `the Special Education Research Commissioner') who shall have substantial knowledge of the Special Education Research Center's activities, including a high level of expertise in the fields of research, research management, and the education of infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities.”
SECTION 177
Recommendations
177(a)(1) “improve services provided … and educational results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities;”
177(a)(2) “identify scientifically based educational practices that support learning and improve academic achievement, functional outcomes, and educational results for all students with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities;
177(a)(6) “examine State content standards and alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive impairment in terms of academic achievement that includes access to the general education curriculum, individualized instructional need, least restrictive appropriate education settings, and improved post-school results;
177(a)(9) “improve reading and literacy skills of children with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities;”
177(a)(11) “examine methods of
early intervention for children with disabilities who need significant levels
of support, including children with multiple or complex developmental
delays;”
177(a)(12) “examine and incorporate universal design concepts in the development of standards, assessments, curricula, and instructional methods as a method to improve educational and transitional results for children with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities;”
177(a)(13) Add “early intervention personnel.”
177(a)(15) help parents improve
developmental, educational, and transitional results
for their children, particularly related to transition issues.”
177(b)(1) “conform to high standards of quality, integrity, accuracy, validity, and reliability, and utilize a full range of recognized educational research designs and methodologies;
Add a new (4) at 177(b) “utilize recognized educational research designs and methodologies that are appropriate to the population and research questions under consideration.”
CCD Education Task Force
Draft Recommendations for Report Language
S. 1248
DRAFT – DRAFT- DRAFT- DRAFT – DRAFT
Section 612(a)(5) Least Restrictive Environment
Suggested Language: “The committee supports the longstanding concept of a continuum of alternative placements designed to meet the unique needs of each child with a disability. Placement options available include instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions. For disabled children placed in regular classes, supplementary aids and services and resource room services or itinerant instruction must also be offered as needed.”
Rationale: This language is taken verbatim from the ’97 Senate report. It supports the continuum of alternative placements, a longstanding IDEA policy.
614(b)(3)(A)(ii) “clearly not feasible.”
The report should define the term “clearly not feasible” to mean:
(1) The public agency has made significant efforts to locate individuals qualified to administer tests and other evaluation materials in the native language of the parents or other mode of communication, or, where it is different from the parents' native language or mode of communication, the native language or mode of communication of the child, and could not locate any;
(2) The public agency has made significant efforts to locate individuals qualified to interpret the administration of tests and other evaluation materials into the native language of the parents or other mode of communication, or, where it is different from the parents' native language or mode of communication, the native language or mode of communication of the child, and could not locate any;
(3) The public agency continues to make significant efforts to locate individuals qualified to administer tests and other evaluation materials in the native language of the parents or other mode of communication, or, where it is different from the parents' native language or mode of communication, the native language or mode of communication of the child;
(4) The public agency continues to make significant efforts to locate individuals qualified to interpret the administration of tests and other evaluation materials into the native language of the parents or other mode of communication, or, where it is different from the parents' native language or mode of communication, the native language or mode of communication of the child; and
(5) The public agency documents its efforts."
Rationale (for the definition of “not feasible to do so”): Standing alone, the meaning of this phrase is not readily apparent. The recommended sections (1) and (3) refer to individuals qualified to administer tests and other evaluation materials directly. Sections (2) and (4) refer to use of an interpreter. This recommended definition will help clarify that use of the appropriate language or mode of communication, either used directly by the tester or evaluator or through an interpreter, is critical. Non-use of the appropriate language or mode of communication should occur only in very rare circumstances, if ever.
Rationale (for where the native language is different): In most situations the child's native language is the same as that of the parents. However, in some situations, such as in that of a deaf child of hearing parents, the native language of the child - such as American Sign Language - may be different. For these children, measures that have been standardized for use for children with hearing loss and deafness should be considered.
Additionally, there are other reasons why a child may have a native language other than his or her parents'. For example, a newly adopted child from a foreign country may not yet be fluent in his or her adoptive parents' language. For a child in this situation, tests and evaluation might appropriately be given in his or her native language, or at least in some combination of his or her native language and his or her new language.
Section 614 (d)(3)(B) Special Factors
Recommended Language:
With regard to a child who is blind or visually impaired at Sec. 614(d)(3)(B)(iii), the term "functional performance skills" is not understood in the blindness field. Blindness professionals understand "social interaction and independent living skills. There is a curriculum developed to address these skills; there is no such curriculum or use of the term" functional performance" in the blindness field. We recommend the term “functional performance skills” be defined to include social interaction skills, independent living, orientation and mobility, and skills in the use of assistive technology devices, including low vision devices.
Recommended Language: “The IEP team is to consider the communication needs of the child in order to ensure that local educational agencies better understand the unique needs of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Section 614 (d)(3)(B)(iv) includes special factors that must be considered in developing IEP’s for these children. The policy included in the bill provides that, in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, the IEP team must consider the language and communication needs of the child, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, the child’s academic level, and the child’s full range of needs, including the child’s social, emotional, and cultural needs and opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode. The Committee also intends that this provision will be implemented in a manner consistent with the policy guidance entitled, “Deaf Students Education Services,” published in the Federal Register (57 Fed. Reg. 49274, October 30, 1992) by the U.S. Department of Education.”
Rationale: This language is taken verbatim from the ’97 Senate report. It clarifies how this section should be implemented.
615(f)(3)(A)(II)(iii) Hearing officer “…possess the knowledge and ability to conduct hearing in accordance with appropriate, standard legal practice;” NEED SPECIFIC REPORT LANGAUGE
NDSC Recommendations: The phrase “appropriate, standard legal practice” is vague and needs to be clarified.
Section 632 (4)(E)(iii) . . . Sign Language Services
Recommended Language: “The committee has added “sign language services” to the list of services to be provided. The committee supports the provision of sign language services for deaf and hard of hearing infants and toddlers and for other infants and toddlers with disabilities who can benefit from this mode of communication.”
Rationale: This will help educators, policy makers, and parents better understand the reason for this new provision.
Title III, Section 177
177(a)"Duties"
Researchers in the Center for Special Education Research are encouraged to utilize the full range of recognized educational research designs and methodologies that are appropriate to the population and research questions under consideration. Single subject designs and rigorous qualitative research are appropriate methodologies for research.
177(b)"Standards"
The Committee acknowledges that, because of the low incidence of children with significant disabilities, conducting research on such students often requires the use of a broad range of recognized research designs and methodologies, including single subject designs and rigorous qualitative research.