1 Cornell University ILR School Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Part B Regulations Nancy Lee Jones Congressional Research Service Ann Lordeman Congressional Research Service Follow this and additional works at: Thank you for downloading an article from Support this valuable resource today! This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Key Workplace Documents at It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Publications by an authorized administrator of For more information, please contact
2 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Part B Regulations Abstract [Excerpt] The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. On December 1, 2008, the Department of Education (ED) issued a final regulation to clarify and strengthen current regulations promulgated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The areas covered by the regulation include (1) parental revocation of consent after consenting to the initial provision of services; (2) a state s or local educational agency s (LEA s) obligation to make positive efforts to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; (3) representation of parents by non-attorneys in due process hearings; (4) state monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement of the Part B program; and (5) the allocation of funds, under Sections 611 and 619 of the act, to LEAs that are not serving any children with disabilities. The regulations take effect on December 31, This report will briefly discuss the issues raised by these changes. Keywords Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, disability, public policy, education Comments Suggested Citation Jones, N. L. & Lordeman, A. (2008). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Part B regulations (R40055). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. key_workplace/568/ This article is available at
3 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Œ œ Ÿ
4 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. On December 1, 2008, the Department of Education (ED) issued a final regulation to clarify and strengthen current regulations promulgated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The areas covered by the regulation include (1) parental revocation of consent after consenting to the initial provision of services; (2) a state s or local educational agency s (LEA s) obligation to make positive efforts to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; (3) representation of parents by non-attorneys in due process hearings; (4) state monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement of the Part B program; and (5) the allocation of funds, under Sections 611 and 619 of the act, to LEAs that are not serving any children with disabilities. The regulations take effect on December 31, This report will briefly discuss the issues raised by these changes.
5 Introduction... 1 Parental Revocation of Consent... 1 Employment of Qualified Individuals with Disabilities... 3 Representation by Non-Attorneys in Due Process Hearings... 3 State Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement... 4 The Allocation of Funds to LEAs That Are Not Serving Any Children with Disabilities... 5 Author Contact Information... 6
6 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1 provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. On December 1, 2008, the Department of Education (ED) issued a final regulation to clarify and strengthen current regulations promulgated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 2 The areas covered by the regulation include (1) parental revocation of consent after consenting to the initial provision of services; (2) a state s or local educational agency s (LEA s) obligation to make positive efforts to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; (3) representation of parents by non-attorneys in due process hearings; (4) state monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement of the Part B program; and (5) the allocation of funds, under Sections 611 and 619 of the act, to LEAs that are not serving any children with disabilities. The regulations take effect on December 31, This report will briefly discuss the issues raised by these changes. 3 IDEA currently contains statutory provisions requiring that parental consent be obtained prior to providing special education or related services to a child with a disability. 4 However, the statute does not specifically address the issue of what responsibilities the LEA has when a child has been receiving special education services and a parent wishes to revoke consent for such services. Previously, ED had interpreted the statute and regulations to prohibit the unilateral withdrawal of a child from special education in most circumstances. 5 The new regulations reverse this interpretation to allow parents to unilaterally withdraw their child from the receipt of special education services, 6 but require that the revocation be in writing. 7 The Department described the rationale for the new provision as a continuation of the parents right to consent to services. Allowing parents to revoke consent for the continued provision of special education and related services at any time is consistent with the IDEA s emphasis on the role of parents in protecting their child s rights and the Department s goal of enhancing parent involvement and choice in their child s education. 8 The regulations do not allow a LEA to use mediation or due process procedures to override a parent s decision to refuse to consent to further 1 20 U.S.C et seq FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 3 For a discussion of IDEA generally see CRS Report RS22590, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Overview and Selected Issues, by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones. For a discussion of the current IDEA regulations see CRS Report RL33649, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Final Regulations for P.L , by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(D) FED. REG (May 13, 2008) C.F.R (c)(3); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 7 Id FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008).
7 services. 9 Under the regulations, the LEA will not be considered in violation of the FAPE requirement if the child was not provided with special education or related services because of the parent s revocation of consent. 10 In addition, the regulations specifically provide that if the parents revoke consent, the LEA is not required to amend the child s records to remove references to the child s receipt of special education services. 11 ED described the rationale for not requiring changes in the child s records by observing that [a] parent s revocation of consent is not retroactive The new regulations allowing for parental revocation of consent for IDEA services have generally been supported by parents groups. 13 One parent advocate has observed that allowing parental revocation of consent may prompt districts to heed parents requests for inclusiveness in the face of pressures to pull children out. 14 However, other commentators have seen the new approach as undermining the team approach to decision-making. 15 In addition, a parent s revocation of consent for special education may affect how the child is included for accountability purposes under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). ED addressed this issue in its comments on the regulations noting that a state may include a child whose parents revoke consent for special education in the special education subgroup of purposes of calculating the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years following parental revocation of consent. 16 However, although ED does not expect the revision to affect AYP under the NCLBA, one commentator has argued that there may be more of an effect than expected since if a student needed special education services, a student s scores may be weaker on state tests without those services. 17 The regulations allowing parental revocation of consent for IDEA services also create some uncertainties regarding the child s coverage under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Several federal statutes, notably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 18 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 19 address the rights of individuals with disabilities to education. Some children who do not receive special education services under IDEA may receive them under Section 504 and the ADA. 20 Several commenters on the regulations raised issues regarding whether Section 504 and ADA protections would continue to apply to a student when a parent revokes consent for IDEA services. Commenters also noted that ED had previously stated that, under Section 504, children with disabilities may not be disciplined for behavior that is a manifestation of their disabilities if that disciplinary action constitutes a change of placement, and 9 34 C.F.R (b)(4); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R (b)(4)(iii); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R ; 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 13 Mark W. Sherman, ED Releases Amended IDEA Part B Regulations, 41 EDUCATION DAILY (December 2, 2008). 14 Mark W. Sherman, Right to Consent May Lead to Greater Inclusiveness, 41 EDUCATION DAILY (December 4, 2008). 15 Id FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 17 Kim Riley, Alignment Continues for IDEA, NCLB, 41 EDUCATION DAILY (December 4, 2008) U.S.C U.S.C et seq. 20 For a discussion of Section 504 and the ADA with regard to children with disabilities in K-12 schools see
8 asked how that interpretation affects students whose parents have revoked consent for IDEA services. The Department did not provide guidance on these issues, stating only that [t]hese final regulations implement provisions of the IDEA only. They do not attempt to address any overlap between the protections and requirements of the IDEA, and those of Section 504 and the ADA. 21 The statutory language of IDEA abrogates state sovereign immunity and requires that the Secretary of Education ensure that each recipient of assistance under IDEA make positive efforts to employ, and advance in employment, qualified individuals with disabilities. 22 The new regulations amend the regulatory section on sovereign immunity to add a new section requiring that recipients of assistance under IDEA must make positive efforts to employ, and advance in employment, qualified individuals with disabilities in programs assisted under Part B of IDEA. 23 One of the changes in the regulations relates to the use of lay advocates. Currently, IDEA provides that any party to a hearing under Part B of IDEA has the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities. 24 However, neither the act nor previous regulations addressed the issue of whether individuals with special knowledge, but who are not attorneys, may represent parties at due process hearings. In a 1981 letter from Theodore Sky, acting general counsel of the Department of Education, to the Honorable Frank B. Brouillet, the Department had previously interpreted Section 615(h) of the act and implementing regulations as allowing both attorneys and non-attorneys to perform the same functions at due process hearings. 25 However, ED specifically rejected this previous interpretation. In 2000, a decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in In the Matter of Arons 26 held that a lay advocate who represented families of children with disabilities in due process hearings had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. A 2006 survey found that 10 states, like Delaware, prohibit lay advocates from representing parents, 12 states permit lay advocates, 21 states have no official policy, and 8 states leave the matter to the hearing officer. 27 This survey also noted a shortage of readily affordable attorneys to represent parents, and that the availability of FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) U.S.C. 1403, C.F.R ; 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) U.S.C. 1415(h) FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) A.2d 867 (Sup.Ct. Del. 2000); cert. denied, 532 U.S (2001). 27 Perry A. Zirkel, Lay Advocates and Parent Experts under the IDEA, 217 ED. LAW REP. 19 (May 3, 2007). The jurisdictions surveyed include the District of Columbia.
9 specialized lay advocates has not been nearly sufficient to close the gap. 28 The issue regarding representation by lay advocates had prompted attempts to add statutory language authorizing lay advocates during the last IDEA reauthorization (culminating in P.L ), but language in the House bill (H.R. 1350, 108 th Congress) was deleted in conference. 29 The regulations change the previous interpretation by ED which allowed the use of lay advocates at due process hearings. The regulations allow the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities, but add an exception stating that whether parents have the right to be represented by non-attorneys at due process hearings is determined under State law. 30 The Department stated that [g]iven that the Act is silent regarding the representational role of non-attorneys in IDEA due process hearings, the issue of whether non-attorneys may represent parties to a due process hearing is a matter that is left, by the statute, to each State to decide. 31 Commenters on the regulations argued that the rule on non-attorney advocates would negatively affect future cases as parents unable to afford attorneys fees, or unable to find an attorney knowledgeable about special education law, will be faced with the choice of either representing themselves or foregoing a due process hearing. 32 School officials and parents groups have both predicted activity in the states if the proposed rule becomes final. 33 The issue may come up at the federal level again when Congress begins the reauthorization process for IDEA. 34 Section 616 of IDEA 35 provides for federal and state monitoring and enforcement of state implementation of Part B of IDEA. The new regulations clarify that a state must make determinations annually about the performance of each LEA in the state. The specific enforcement mechanisms that a state must use are also identified. 36 The regulations also require that LEA noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the state s identification of the noncompliance. 37 Section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of IDEA requires a state to report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA and to make the state s performance plan available through public 28 Id. 29 H.Rept , at 218, note 227. The use of lay advocates was made more problematic by the Supreme Court s decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006),which held that IDEA does not authorize prevailing parents to recover fees they have paid to experts C.F.R (a)(1); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 33 Mark W. Sherman, State Battles Foreseen Over Non-Attorney Representation, 41 EDUCATION DAILY 5 (May 20, 2008). 34 Legal Watch, Non-Attorney Rule Prompts Strong Reactions on Both Sides, 41 EDUCATION DAILY 5 (May 20, 2008) U.S.C C.F.R (a); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R (e); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008).
10 means, including posting on the website of the state educational agency. 38 However, IDEA does not specify when the state must provide this report. The proposed regulations would have required this public report no later than 60 days following the State s submission of its annual performance report to the Secretary Several commenters requested that this public reporting timeline be changed. ED agreed with the commenters who suggested that an extended timeline would allow for more accurate analysis of LEA data, thereby improving the quality of information reported to the public, and ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for children with disabilities and their families. 40 Therefore, ED revised the proposed regulations to require the report as soon as practicable but no later than 120 days following the State s submission of its annual performance report to the Secretary In addition, although IDEA requires the posting of the state s performance plan, it does not specify whether other materials, such as the annual report on each LEA must also be made available. The new regulations require the state s performance plan, the state s annual performance report (APR), and the state s annual reports on the performance of each LEA to be made available through public means. 42 Section 616(e)(7) of IDEA requires states that have received a determination from the Secretary that the state needs intervention to make such information available to the public. 43 However, the statute does not specify when this information is to be made available. The new regulations clarify the circumstances under which public notice is required by requiring public notice whenever a State receives notice that the Secretary is proposing to take or is taking an enforcement action IDEA currently contains statutory provisions requiring states to distribute IDEA Part B funds not reserved for state activities to local education agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools that operate as LEAs. 46 States first allocate a base amount to each LEA based on its FY1999 grant amount. Then, 85% of the remainder is allocated based on public and private school enrollment within the LEA compared to all such enrollment in the state and 15% of the remainder is based on the number of children living in poverty compared to the number in all LEAs U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I). 39 Proposed 34 C.F.R (b)(1)(A), 73 FED. REG (May 13, 2008) FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R (b)(1)(i)(A); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R (b)(1)(i)(B); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R. 1416(e)(7) C.F.R ; 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). 45 This discussion concerns IDEA Section 611, which pertains mainly to the education of school-aged children. The proposed regulations contain similar provisions relating to Section 619, which pertains to the education of preschool children U.S.C (f)(1). In addition, states must comply with the general requirements on allocating funds to charter schools in subpart H of 34 CFR part 76.
11 The Department of Education s (ED) Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that neither that statute nor the IDEA regulations addresses whether a state is required to allocate funds to a charter school in its first year of operation if the school has no students with disabilities enrolled. 47 The new regulations clarify that states are required to allocate some funds to LEAs, including public charter schools that operate as LEAs, even if an LEA is not serving any children with disabilities. 48 The rationale for this new rule is that allocating funds to all LEAs will ensure that LEAs have Part B funds available if they are needed to conduct child find activities [i.e, identifying and evaluating children in need of special education] or to serve children with disabilities who subsequently enroll or are identified during the year. 49 The OIG also found that neither the statute nor the IDEA regulations addresses whether a charter school LEA that received a base payment of zero in its first year of operation because it was serving no children with disabilities and subsequently provided special education to children with disabilities is entitled to a base payment in subsequent years if it does enroll students with disabilities. 50 The new regulations require that a base payment adjustment be made for these LEAs, including a public charter school that operates as an LEA, for the fiscal year after the first annual child count in which the LEA reports that it is serving any children with disabilities. 51 The state will be required to divide the base allocation for the LEAs that would have been responsible for serving children with disabilities now being served by the new LEA, among the new LEA and affected LEAs based on the relative numbers of children with disabilities currently provided special education by each of the LEAs. 52 Finally, the regulations modify the procedures for the reallocation of LEA funds. 53 Nancy Lee Jones Legislative Attorney Ann Lordeman Specialist in Social Policy Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Charter School s Access to Title I and IDEA Part B Funds in the State of Arizona. Final Audit Report, ED_OIG/A09-D0033, August 2004, p.17. Hereafter: cited as Office of Inspector General, Charter Schools. 48 This requirement will be effective with funds that become available on July 1, C.F.R (a); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) FED. REG (Dec.1, 2008). 50 Office of Inspector General, Charter Schools, p This requirement will be effective with funds that become available on July 1, C.F.R (b)(2)(iv); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008) C.F.R (b)(2)(iv); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008). This method for making the base payment adjustment is the same as that required in current regulations (34 C.F.R (b)(2)(i)) for any new LEA C.F.R (c); 73 FED. REG (Dec. 1, 2008).
Q&A: Revocation of Parental Consent for the Provision of Special Education Services The (MDE) Division of Compliance and Monitoring has developed this document to address questions raised by parents and
C.A.S.E. LEGAL UPDATE Students with Disabilities in Private Schools Introduction The law and practices regarding the provision of special education services to students with disabilities placed by their
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS Tennessee Department of Education Division of Special Education Department of Education February 11, 2008; Publication Authorization
TO: AEA Directors of Special Education Student and Family Support Services Staff Early Childhood Services Staff FR: Thomas A. Mayes DA: June 28, 2011 RE: Revocation of Consent for Continued Special Education
6171(a) Special Education The Board of Education accepts its legal duties and responsibilities for providing special education programs for the students of the school district. In making a determination
Part B PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NOTICE New York State Education Department PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NOTICE Rights for Parents of Children with Disabilities, Ages 3-21 As a parent, you are a vital member of the
YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE IDEA Part B Procedural Safeguards Notice 1 GENERAL INFORMATION PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE 34 CFR 300.503 Notice Your school district must give you written notice (provide you certain information
AN ACT Codification District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2010 Summer Supp. West Group Publisher To clarify the independence of the Attorney General
South Dakota Parental Rights and Procedural Safeguards Special Education Programs Revised July 2011 Prior Written Notice... 1 Definition of Parental Consent... 3 Definition of a Parent... 3 Parental Consent...
Part B PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NOTICE New York State Education Department PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NOTICE Rights for Parents of Children with Disabilities, Ages 3-21 As a parent, you are a vital member of the
Kansas Special Education Services Process Handbook JUNE 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special Education Services wishes to thank the KASEA Organization and the Regional Representatives that participated in the
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Discovery Charter School, Petitioner v. No. 673 C.D. 2014 Argued February 10, 2015 School District of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission, Respondents BEFORE
TITLE 777. STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD CHAPTER 10. STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLS SUBCHAPTER 3. STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL SPONSORSHIP 777:10-3-1. Purpose The rules in this subchapter
Special Education Procedural Safeguards Rights for Parents and Children School District of For more information or questions regarding your child s special education services contact: Director of Special
In effect: January 1, 2001 Updated: November 2011 INTRODUCTION IDEA -2004 The federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was reauthorized in December of 2004
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Can an alternative school or a local educational agency (LEA) take the position
Billing Code: 8025-01 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN: 3245-AG59 Advisory Small Business Size Decisions AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule implements
441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Decision Matter of: Mine Safety and Health Administration Disposition of National Coal Mine Rescue Contest Registration Fees File: B-325396 Date: February 23, 2015 DIGEST
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of Elections and Ethics at its Board Meeting on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, certified the short title and summary statement of the
290-8-9.04(3) 290-8-9.04(4)(e) (3) Age Requirements. The following age requirements apply to the provision of special education and related services: (a) Preschool children with disabilities by the child
IDEA Regulations CHILDREN ENROLLED BY THEIR PARENTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS (See also Highly Qualified Teachers) The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec.
504 or IEP: Which is Right for my Child? Students with disabilities can receive educational plans under one of two federal laws. One is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, whose plan is commonly
KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PARENT RIGHTS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION (Procedural Safeguards) Both you and the school share in your child s education. If you or the school has issues or concerns about
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 241 [Release No. 34-75592] INTERPRETATION OF THE SEC S WHISTLEBLOWER RULES UNDER SECTION 21F OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AGENCY: Securities and
Special Education A service, not a place. Notice of Special Education Procedural Safeguards for Students and Their Families Requirements under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
20 U.S.C. 1412. STATE ELIGIBILITY. (3) CHILD FIND- (A) IN GENERAL- All children with disabilities residing in the State, including children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of the
Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools Revised April 2011 Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 97) is a federal special education law that
U.S. Department of Education The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Provisions Related to Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools U.S. Department of Education
Parental Rights MARYLAND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NOTICE Infants and Toddlers Early Intervention Preschool Special Education Special Education REVISED JULY 2016 MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION
for Students With Disabilities: Free Appropriate Public Education Requirements Under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Free Appropriate Public Education for Students With Disabilities: Requirements
PART B NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS The material contained in this document is intended to provide general information and guidance regarding
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 11-18-2015 Department of Veterans Affairs FY2016 Appropriations: In Brief Sidath Viranga Panangala Congressional
Questions and Answers On Highly Qualified Teachers Serving Children With Disabilities January 2007 The final regulations for the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published
20 U.S.C. 1415 PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS Introduction On November 17, 2004, a House-Senate Conference Committee agreed on changes to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On Friday,
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA 2004 Students with Disabilities The New IDEA who Attend Private Schools Policy Papers in Education December,
Catholic Conference of Ohio Q&A DOCUMENT TO ASSIST PARENTS OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND SERVE AS A RESOURCE FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ENROLLING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 1. What is the Individual Disability
CITE 42 USC Sec. 2000d 01/06/97 TEXT Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color,
CLIENT ALERT TO: FROM: Pupil Personnel Directors/Special Education Directors Shipman & Goodwin LLP DATE: August 22, 2006 RE: Release of Final Regulations Implementing IDEA 2004, Part B On August 14, 2006,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DPS: 2011-23 Date: May 11, 2011 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Technical Assistance Paper Students with Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools
Article 9. Education of Children With Disabilities. Part 1. State Policy. 115C-106: Repealed by Session Laws 2006-69, s. 1, effective from and after July 1, 2006. Part 1A. General Provisions. 115C-106.1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 WHAT HAPPENS IF MY CHILD IS HAVING TROUBLE LEARNING IN SCHOOL?... 2 STEPS TO GETTING SERVICES... 3 ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS... 9 REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE...
RESOLUTION NO. 21/2015-2016 DENYING THE PROPOSED MATERIAL REVISION CONTAINED IN TODAY S FRESH START RENEWAL CHARTER PETITION BY THE STATE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS,
VII. PRIVATE SCHOOLS This section applies to children with disabilities who attend private or parochial schools or who are home schooled. 1. CHILDREN PLACED IN APPROVED PRIVATE AGENCIES BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
KIMBLE V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCH. DIST. RE-1 (D. COLO. 2013) By Elena M. Gallegos B.K. qualified and had been receiving special education services under the IDEA. According to the court, she had been served
818 La Cassia Drive Boise Idaho 83705 Tel: 208.336.8858 Fax: 208.367.1560 www.emtedlaw.com Elaine Eberharter-Maki Lyndon P. Nguyen Sarah K. Brown firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA At a Regular Term of the Supreme Court of Appeals, continued and held at Charleston, Kanawha County, on September 29, 2014, the following order was made and entered: Re: Approval
LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES, TITLE 49 CHAPTER 13-B. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PART A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 991. Creation of division of administrative law The division of administrative law, hereafter
GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters June 2012 CHARTER SCHOOLS Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with Disabilities
Kansas Special Education Services Process Handbook ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special Education Services wishes to thank all those that provided input for the 2011 Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, including
GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate May 2003 SPECIAL EDUCATION Clearer Guidance Would Enhance
CHAPTER 14 SPECIAL EDUCATION NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 6A EDUCATION CHAPTER 14. AUTHORITY: SPECIAL EDUCATION N.J.S.A. 18A:4-15, 18A:7A-1 et seq., 18A:7B-1 et seq., 18A:7C-1 et seq., 18A:40-4,
THE FCA INSPECTOR GENERAL: A COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE FORWARD I am pleased to introduce the mission and authorities of the Office of Inspector General for the Farm Credit Administration. I hope this
Module 9: Supporting Students With Special Needs Lesson One: Overview of U.S. Education Laws and Procedures for Students With Special Needs Lesson Two: The School Liaison s Role in Facilitating the Academic
Protection & Advocacy System for Arizona Understanding Your Child s Educational Rights Serving students with special needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21752 Updated July 8, 2004 Federal Budget Process Reform: A Brief Overview Bill Heniff Jr. Analyst in American National Government Government
PUBLIC LAW 112 199 NOV. 27, 2012 126 STAT. 1465 Public Law 112 199 112th Congress An Act To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited
Police and Law Enforcement Agency Responsibilities to Deaf Individuals Reprinted with permission from the National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center State and local law enforcement agencies
Performance Framework Delaware Department of Education Charter School Office September 2012 Prepared for the Delaware Department of Education by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers Acknowledgments
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION Student Hearing Office 810 First Street, NE, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20002 OSSE Student Hearing Office January 23, 2014 PETITIONER,
ISBE 23 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES : EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION : NONPUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS PART 425 VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION
Early Intervention Family Alliance Side by Side Comparison of Proposed IDEA 2004 Part C Regulations www.eifamilyalliance.org Sub Part F Financial July 12, 2007 Current Part C Regulations 303.520 Policies
Summary of Major Provision Changes to the IDEA 1997 Enforcement Monitoring and enforcement of the IDEA were not specifically addressed in 1997. 2004 Enforcement The legislation requires a State and Federal
Indicator 12 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. IDEA Reference: 300.101(b)(1)(i)(ii)
July 23, 2007 Ms. Patty Guard Acting Director Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Potomac Center Plaza, Room 4109 Washington, DC 20202-2600 Dear Ms.
5051.01 English SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Chapter 11 Information on Preschool Education Services From a 13-Chapter Manual Available by Chapter and in Manual Form Written by: Community
The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of English Language Acquisition are issuing this guidance to provide States with information on several funding issues, including supplement
Family Policy Compliance Office Guidelines: Disclosure of Education Records Concerning Registered Sex Offenders This guidance concerns an amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
III. FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION (FAPE) Understanding what the law requires in terms of providing a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities is central to understanding the
Tips from the Special Education Section: Reminders to the Field The following tips are compiled from the monthly updates. They are sorted by topical areas, and will be updated quarterly. Assistive Technology
441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 B-327242 February 4, 2016 The Honorable Robert Aderholt Chairman Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Committee
Before the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20580 In the Matter of ) ) Maricopa County Community College District ) ) ) Complaint, Request for Investigation, Injunction, and Other Relief Submitted
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI): The Five-Month Waiting Period for Benefits Umar Moulta-Ali Analyst in Disability Policy January 24, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees
CHAPTER 16. SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR GIFTED STUDENTS Sec. GENERAL PROVISIONS 16.1. Definitions. 16.2. Purpose. 16.3. Experimental programs. 16.4. Strategic plans. 16.5. Personnel. 16.6. General supervision.
NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES COMPLETE EYE CARE THIS NOTICE DESCRIBES HOW MEDICAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU MAY BE USED OR DISCLOSED AND HOW YOU CAN GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. PLEASE REVIEW IT CAREFULLY.
Discharge Planning Issues in Hospitals: Steering to Preferred Certified Home Health Agencies and the Risks of Providing Free Discharge Planning Services to Hospitals Connie A. Raffa, J.D., LL.M Freestanding
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 9-9-2015 Veterans Benefits: Pension Benefit Programs Scott D. Szymendera Congressional Research Service Carol
In effect: January 1, 2001 Updated: September 2007 Special Education Program Plan Statement INTRODUCTION IDEA -2004 The federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT FOR ATTORNEYS This Business Associate Agreement (this Agreement ), is made as of the day of, 20 (the Effective Date ), by and between ( Business Associate ) and ( Covered Entity
Major Provisions of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Related to the Education of English Learners February 2016 Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe the major provisions of the recently
MEMORANDUM TO: HSLDA MEMBERS FROM: HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION SUBJECT: IDEA AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS DATE: 5/2/06 PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THE FEDERAL INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)
N.J.A.C. 6A:14, SPECIAL EDUCATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:14-1.1 General requirements 6A:14-1.2 District eligibility for assistance under IDEA Part B 6A:14-1.3 Definitions
Case 1:11-cv-01314-RC Document 27 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Plaintiff, v. Civil
NEW MEXICO PRIMER ON SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CHARTER SCHOOLS: BACKGROUND SECTION This section is divided into two parts: a discussion of the legal status of charter schools and their linkage to other local
AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Codification District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition 2010 Winter Supp. West Group Publisher To amend the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive
Page: 1 Job Path: @psc3913/cville_data2/stcodes/wy/rls-supp/qj58435.22 Date: 02/29/16 Time: 14:37:10 RULES GOVERNING THE WYOMING STATE BAR AND THE AUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Organization
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE FINANCE Dear Provider: Enclosed is the District of Columbia Medicaid provider enrollment application solely used for providers, who request to be considered for the Adult Substance
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. STATE OF TEXAS JOHN CORNYN November 52002 Mr. Richard F. Reynolds Executive Director Texas Workers Compensation Southfield Building, MS-4D 4000 South IH-35 Austin, Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GRISHAM FARM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 6:16-cv-03105-MDH