1 / 52

IDEA 2004

azure
Télécharger la présentation

IDEA 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1 IDEA 2004 Significant Changes in Special Education Law July 1, 2005

    2. 2 The information in this presentation is based on federal and state law as of September 2005. The information is subject to additional change until final federal regulations are issued and decisions about state law are finalized.

    3. 3 IDEA 2004 Topics Evaluation IEP Content/Processes Discipline Due Process Resolution Procedures Private Schools DPIs Role of General Supervision Other In the time we have we will provide information about IDEA 2004. Specifically, we will share information related to evaluation, IEP content, IEP processes, discipline, due process resolution procedures, and parentally placed students in private schools. We will also address other provisions in IDEA 2004 such as highly qualified special education teachers, surrogate parents, early intervening services and universal design. With regard to the departments general supervisory responsibilities we will address focused monitoring and the state performance plan, and the role of the stakeholder group in these endeavors. Lets begin by briefly reviewing where things stand as of today.In the time we have we will provide information about IDEA 2004. Specifically, we will share information related to evaluation, IEP content, IEP processes, discipline, due process resolution procedures, and parentally placed students in private schools. We will also address other provisions in IDEA 2004 such as highly qualified special education teachers, surrogate parents, early intervening services and universal design. With regard to the departments general supervisory responsibilities we will address focused monitoring and the state performance plan, and the role of the stakeholder group in these endeavors. Lets begin by briefly reviewing where things stand as of today.

    4. 4 Implementing IDEA 2004 Status Update IDEA Reauthorization, December 4, 2004 Effective July 1, 2005 Proposed IDEA Regulations, June 2005 Final IDEA Regulations, December 2005? State Law Revisions, ??? IDEA was reauthorized 12/4/04 and with the exception of the highly qualified special education teacher provision became effective 7/1/05. The highly qualified special education teacher provision was effective upon enactment of the legislation. During January and February of 2005 the U.S. Dept. of Education solicited recommendations from the public for developing regulations to implement the Act. The WI DPI took the opportunity to submit comments related to areas that we believed needed regulatory guidance. Proposed regulations were released in June 2005 with an invitation to submit comments by 9/6/05. The WI DPI submitted comments on the proposed regulations. The U.S. Dept. of Education has indicated that final regulations will be published in December 2005. However, recent information learned suggests that it will be Spring 2006 before final regulations are published. In addition to implementing IDEA, we have a state special education law that still must be implemented. As we know there are some differences between state special education law and the new IDEA. However, to the extent possible state law must be implemented in a manner consistent with federal law. That is, if you can comply with state and federal law you implement both. If there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law controls. In our remarks we will identify areas where both state and federal law can be implemented and areas where federal law controls. Just how and when state law will be revised has yet to be determined. The Department has identified and engaged various stakeholders in a process to guide the Department in making revisions that may be necessary. There will be more information about the stakeholders later in this presentation. IDEA was reauthorized 12/4/04 and with the exception of the highly qualified special education teacher provision became effective 7/1/05. The highly qualified special education teacher provision was effective upon enactment of the legislation. During January and February of 2005 the U.S. Dept. of Education solicited recommendations from the public for developing regulations to implement the Act. The WI DPI took the opportunity to submit comments related to areas that we believed needed regulatory guidance. Proposed regulations were released in June 2005 with an invitation to submit comments by 9/6/05. The WI DPI submitted comments on the proposed regulations. The U.S. Dept. of Education has indicated that final regulations will be published in December 2005. However, recent information learned suggests that it will be Spring 2006 before final regulations are published. In addition to implementing IDEA, we have a state special education law that still must be implemented. As we know there are some differences between state special education law and the new IDEA. However, to the extent possible state law must be implemented in a manner consistent with federal law. That is, if you can comply with state and federal law you implement both. If there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law controls. In our remarks we will identify areas where both state and federal law can be implemented and areas where federal law controls. Just how and when state law will be revised has yet to be determined. The Department has identified and engaged various stakeholders in a process to guide the Department in making revisions that may be necessary. There will be more information about the stakeholders later in this presentation.

    5. 5 Parental Consent Refusal to grant consent for initial evaluation Refusal to grant consent for initial placement Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation and Services 614(a)(1)(D); 615(k)(5)(C) Prior U.S. Dept. of Education interpretations regarding parental consent for initial evaluation and services are codified in IDEA 2004. If the parent of a child does not provide consent for an initial evaluation, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide the consent, the local education agency (LEA) may pursue the initial evaluation of the child by utilizing mediation or due process. If the parent of the child refuses consent for initial services, the LEA may not pursue mediation to gain agreement or attempt to override such refusal through a due process hearing. The WI DPI has requested in its comments to the proposed regulations that mediation be an option to resolving differences between schools and parents in this area. If the parent refuses consent to the initial receipt of special education and related services, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide such consent, the LEA is not considered to be in violation of the requirement to provide free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the LEA is not required to convene an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting or develop an IEP. In the Departments comments to the proposed regulations we have asked, how can parents refuse consent to services without first having been provided with an IEP that identifies the special education and related services they are refusing? In discipline situations, IDEA 2004 specifies that special education procedural protections do not apply if the parent has refused evaluation or initial services. Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation and Services 614(a)(1)(D); 615(k)(5)(C) Prior U.S. Dept. of Education interpretations regarding parental consent for initial evaluation and services are codified in IDEA 2004. If the parent of a child does not provide consent for an initial evaluation, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide the consent, the local education agency (LEA) may pursue the initial evaluation of the child by utilizing mediation or due process. If the parent of the child refuses consent for initial services, the LEA may not pursue mediation to gain agreement or attempt to override such refusal through a due process hearing. The WI DPI has requested in its comments to the proposed regulations that mediation be an option to resolving differences between schools and parents in this area. If the parent refuses consent to the initial receipt of special education and related services, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide such consent, the LEA is not considered to be in violation of the requirement to provide free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the LEA is not required to convene an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting or develop an IEP. In the Departments comments to the proposed regulations we have asked, how can parents refuse consent to services without first having been provided with an IEP that identifies the special education and related services they are refusing? In discipline situations, IDEA 2004 specifies that special education procedural protections do not apply if the parent has refused evaluation or initial services.

    6. 6 60 Day Timeframe for Initial Evaluations Exceptions Student transfer Refusal to make child available 60 Day Timeframe for Initial Evaluations 614(a)(1)(C) IDEA 2004 creates a new or additional timeline for initial evaluations. It requires that the determination of whether a child has a disability must occur within 60 days of obtaining parent consent for evaluation, or if the State has established a timeframe, within such timeframe as required by the State. As we know, WI state law requires that the LEA notify the parents of the educational placement of their child within 90 days after the LEA receives a special education referral. In order to comply with both federal and state law, LEAs must, for initial evaluations, ensure that the evaluation is completed, i.e. the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability, is made within 60 days from receipt of parent consent and placement determination is made within 90 days from receipt of referral. The 60 day timeline only applies to initial evaluations, it does not apply to reevaluations but the 90 day timeline still applies. There are two exceptions to the 60 day timeline. -The first involves a child who transfers from one LEA to another after the 60 day timeframe has begun and prior to a determination by the previous LEA. -The second exception is if the parent repeatedly fails or refuses to make the child available for the evaluation. The Department has, in its comments to the proposed regulations, requested that the final regulations clarify whether a State can establish another timeframe for evaluation and whether extensions can be granted for other reasons. 60 Day Timeframe for Initial Evaluations 614(a)(1)(C) IDEA 2004 creates a new or additional timeline for initial evaluations. It requires that the determination of whether a child has a disability must occur within 60 days of obtaining parent consent for evaluation, or if the State has established a timeframe, within such timeframe as required by the State. As we know, WI state law requires that the LEA notify the parents of the educational placement of their child within 90 days after the LEA receives a special education referral. In order to comply with both federal and state law, LEAs must, for initial evaluations, ensure that the evaluation is completed, i.e. the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability, is made within 60 days from receipt of parent consent and placement determination is made within 90 days from receipt of referral. The 60 day timeline only applies to initial evaluations, it does not apply to reevaluations but the 90 day timeline still applies. There are two exceptions to the 60 day timeline. -The first involves a child who transfers from one LEA to another after the 60 day timeframe has begun and prior to a determination by the previous LEA. -The second exception is if the parent repeatedly fails or refuses to make the child available for the evaluation. The Department has, in its comments to the proposed regulations, requested that the final regulations clarify whether a State can establish another timeframe for evaluation and whether extensions can be granted for other reasons.

    7. 7 Initial Evaluation Used for students who move into the district and are in the process of an initial evaluation. Timeline Extension to Complete Initial for Transfer Student 614(a)(1)(C) The 60 day timeline exception with regard to students transferring between school districts only applies if the LEA is making, what the Act refers to as sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and LEA agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed. The department has developed a new form that LEAs can use to document this agreement to extend the time limit for transfer students during an initial evaluation. In situations where the parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for an initial evaluation, districts could continue to use the departments sample forms, Approval for Extension of Time, M-1 and Request for Extension of Time to DPI, M-2. There are other provisions related to out-of-state transfer students that will be address later. Timeline Extension to Complete Initial for Transfer Student 614(a)(1)(C) The 60 day timeline exception with regard to students transferring between school districts only applies if the LEA is making, what the Act refers to as sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and LEA agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed. The department has developed a new form that LEAs can use to document this agreement to extend the time limit for transfer students during an initial evaluation. In situations where the parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for an initial evaluation, districts could continue to use the departments sample forms, Approval for Extension of Time, M-1 and Request for Extension of Time to DPI, M-2. There are other provisions related to out-of-state transfer students that will be address later.

    8. 8 NOTICE OF AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT TO COMPLETE INITIAL EVALUATION FOR TRANSFER STUDENT (M-1-A) _____________________________SCHOOL DISTRICT [If you need this notice in a different language or communicated in a different way, or have questions about this notice, please contact ______________________ at _____________________] Dear____________________________________________ Date________________________ Recently your family moved to our school district. Your last school district started an evaluation to determine whether your child _____________________________ is a child with a disability. Our school district must complete the evaluation. On _________________ we [met or spoke on the phone or exchanged emails] and agreed that this evaluation will be completed by _________________. The reason(s) for this action are: (date) Other options, if any, related to the above action which were considered and the reason(s) they were rejected including a description of any other relevant factors include: ? None The district is required to include the following statements as part of this notice. If at any point during an IEP team meeting to determine your childs eligibility for special education, develop an IEP, or determine a placement, you, or other IEP team participants, believe that additional time is needed to permit your meaningful involvement, additional time will be provided. This IEP team process may be concluded in one meeting or may require more than one meeting, depending on individual circumstances. At the beginning of any meeting to address the evaluation, IEP, or placement of your child, the school district must discuss with you your right to have additional time, as described above, and your right to have a copy of the IEP teams evaluation report prior to developing an IEP and placement. Upon request, you and the other IEP team participants may receive a copy of the teams evaluation report prior to continuing with the development of your childs IEP and placement. You and your child have protection under the procedural safeguards (rights) of special education law. ? You received a copy of your procedural safeguard rights in a brochure about parent and child rights earlier this year. If you would like another copy of this brochure, please contact the district at the telephone number above. ? A copy of the parent and child rights brochure is enclosed with this notice. In addition to district staff, you may also contact ________________________ at ______________________ if you have questions about your rights. Sincerely, ________________________________________________ Name and Title of District Contact Person (New 7-1-05) The agreement to extend the timeframe to complete an initial evaluation for a transfer student must meet the content requirements for notice. Notice is required any time an LEA proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or the provision of FAPE for a child. In this situation the LEA is proposing a change related to evaluation. As such the notice must include: A description of the activity or action proposed. An explanation of why the LEA proposes the action. An explanation of other options and factors related to the decision, if any, that were considered. Information about parents rights to additional time and a copy of the evaluation report. Though this last piece of information about parents right to more time and being provided with a copy of the evaluation report might seem premature, state statute requires that this information be included as part of any required notice. It is anticipated that LEAs and parents will have reached agreement on the length of the time extension prior to this notice being provided or sent, thus this notice is intended to document that agreement and the manner in which the agreement was reached, i.e. whether the district and parent met face to face, spoke on the phone or exchanged emails. Districts would select the appropriate wording to include in the notice.The agreement to extend the timeframe to complete an initial evaluation for a transfer student must meet the content requirements for notice. Notice is required any time an LEA proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or the provision of FAPE for a child. In this situation the LEA is proposing a change related to evaluation. As such the notice must include: A description of the activity or action proposed. An explanation of why the LEA proposes the action. An explanation of other options and factors related to the decision, if any, that were considered. Information about parents rights to additional time and a copy of the evaluation report. Though this last piece of information about parents right to more time and being provided with a copy of the evaluation report might seem premature, state statute requires that this information be included as part of any required notice. It is anticipated that LEAs and parents will have reached agreement on the length of the time extension prior to this notice being provided or sent, thus this notice is intended to document that agreement and the manner in which the agreement was reached, i.e. whether the district and parent met face to face, spoke on the phone or exchanged emails. Districts would select the appropriate wording to include in the notice.

    9. 9 Frequency of Evaluations One per year Three year reevaluations Frequency of Evaluations 614(a)(2)(B) IDEA 2004 limits the number of reevaluations to not more than once a year, unless the parent and LEA agree otherwise. IDEA 2004 also requires a reevaluation at least once every three years, unless the parent and LEA agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. State law requires a reevaluation every 3 years and when requested by either a parent or a teacher. This is an area where state law must be construed consistent with IDEA 2004 to extent possible, and when there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law controls. LEAs are authorized to enter into agreement with parents that a 3 year reevaluation is not necessary and to deny a request for a reevaluation when an evaluation has been conducted within one year. LEAs will need to identify policies or procedures on how these decisions will be made and who has authority to agree to conduct an evaluation more than once a year and not to conduct a three year reevaluation. Two new forms have been created for LEAs to implement these new provisions in IDEA 2004. Frequency of Evaluations 614(a)(2)(B) IDEA 2004 limits the number of reevaluations to not more than once a year, unless the parent and LEA agree otherwise. IDEA 2004 also requires a reevaluation at least once every three years, unless the parent and LEA agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. State law requires a reevaluation every 3 years and when requested by either a parent or a teacher. This is an area where state law must be construed consistent with IDEA 2004 to extent possible, and when there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law controls. LEAs are authorized to enter into agreement with parents that a 3 year reevaluation is not necessary and to deny a request for a reevaluation when an evaluation has been conducted within one year. LEAs will need to identify policies or procedures on how these decisions will be made and who has authority to agree to conduct an evaluation more than once a year and not to conduct a three year reevaluation. Two new forms have been created for LEAs to implement these new provisions in IDEA 2004.

    10. 10 Frequency of Reevaluations Frequency of Reevaluations 614(a)(2)(B) The form titled Notice of Agreement to Conduct a Reevaluation More Than Once a Year has been created to provide districts with an avenue to notify parents of agreement to conduct an evaluation within one year of the last evaluation. As was the case with the previous form we looked at, this form must also meet the content requirements of notice because the LEA is proposing to initiate an evaluation. Again it is anticipated that LEAs and parents will have reached agreement on the need for an evaluation prior to this notice being provided or sent, thus this notice is intended to document that agreement and the manner in which the agreement was reached, i.e. whether the district and parent met face to face, spoke on the phone or exchanged emails. Districts would select the appropriate wording to include in the notice. The M-3 form, Notice of Response to an Activity Requested by the Parent, part of the departments existing sample forms, allows an LEA to deny a parent request. The second form, Notice of Agreement That A Three Year Reevaluation Not Needed, would provide districts with an avenue to notify parents of agreement not to conduct a 3 year reevaluation. Frequency of Reevaluations 614(a)(2)(B) The form titled Notice of Agreement to Conduct a Reevaluation More Than Once a Year has been created to provide districts with an avenue to notify parents of agreement to conduct an evaluation within one year of the last evaluation. As was the case with the previous form we looked at, this form must also meet the content requirements of notice because the LEA is proposing to initiate an evaluation. Again it is anticipated that LEAs and parents will have reached agreement on the need for an evaluation prior to this notice being provided or sent, thus this notice is intended to document that agreement and the manner in which the agreement was reached, i.e. whether the district and parent met face to face, spoke on the phone or exchanged emails. Districts would select the appropriate wording to include in the notice. The M-3 form, Notice of Response to an Activity Requested by the Parent, part of the departments existing sample forms, allows an LEA to deny a parent request. The second form, Notice of Agreement That A Three Year Reevaluation Not Needed, would provide districts with an avenue to notify parents of agreement not to conduct a 3 year reevaluation.

    11. 11 Screening Students to Determine Appropriate Instructional Strategies is not Considered Evaluation Screening of Students by Teacher or Specialist 614(a)(1)(E) Under IDEA 2004, if a teacher or a specialist screens a student to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation, it is not considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services. This provision is intended to help teachers in providing appropriate instruction, not to determine whether a referral for a special education evaluation is appropriate. The department has asked the U.S. Dept. of Education to clarify in final regulations when an activity is considered screening versus when an activity is considered an evaluation. Pending clarification, LEAs must continue to seek parent consent prior to administering a test or other evaluation instrument that is not administered to all children. Screening of Students by Teacher or Specialist 614(a)(1)(E) Under IDEA 2004, if a teacher or a specialist screens a student to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation, it is not considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services. This provision is intended to help teachers in providing appropriate instruction, not to determine whether a referral for a special education evaluation is appropriate. The department has asked the U.S. Dept. of Education to clarify in final regulations when an activity is considered screening versus when an activity is considered an evaluation. Pending clarification, LEAs must continue to seek parent consent prior to administering a test or other evaluation instrument that is not administered to all children.

    12. 12 Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability Response to scientific, research-based intervention Specific Learning Disabilities 614(b)(6) In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability (SLD), effective July 1, 2005, IDEA 2004 specifies that a state cannot require an LEA to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. An LEA is permitted to use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention prior to or as part of the evaluation procedures. PI 11.36(6) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code requires the IEP team to base its SLD eligibility decision, in part, on whether a significant discrepancy exists. LEAs are still permitted to use the existing state SLD criteria and are encouraged to do so until final regulations are issued and state rules are modified. A taskforce has been formed to develop recommendations on how the states SLD eligibility criteria should be revised. Specific Learning Disabilities 614(b)(6) In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability (SLD), effective July 1, 2005, IDEA 2004 specifies that a state cannot require an LEA to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. An LEA is permitted to use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention prior to or as part of the evaluation procedures. PI 11.36(6) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code requires the IEP team to base its SLD eligibility decision, in part, on whether a significant discrepancy exists. LEAs are still permitted to use the existing state SLD criteria and are encouraged to do so until final regulations are issued and state rules are modified. A taskforce has been formed to develop recommendations on how the states SLD eligibility criteria should be revised.

    13. 13 Response to Intervention (RTI) RTI requires data that demonstrates: Researched based interventions Highly qualified teachers Implementation in regular education settings Implementation for an appropriate period of time Repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals Response to Intervention 614(b)(6)(B) Presently there is little regulatory guidance as to what all is involved in a response to intervention process. The proposed regulations provide some insight with regard to the direction that the U.S. Department of Education may be taking. These proposed regulations indicate that a response to intervention process requires data that demonstrates that a child was provided with high quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings by highly qualified teachers over an appropriate period of time. It also requires documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction. Hopefully final regulations will provided additional clarity on applying a RTI process. The task force mentioned earlier in regard to the LD criteria has also be charged with developing guidance on how to implement RTI. Response to Intervention 614(b)(6)(B) Presently there is little regulatory guidance as to what all is involved in a response to intervention process. The proposed regulations provide some insight with regard to the direction that the U.S. Department of Education may be taking. These proposed regulations indicate that a response to intervention process requires data that demonstrates that a child was provided with high quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings by highly qualified teachers over an appropriate period of time. It also requires documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction. Hopefully final regulations will provided additional clarity on applying a RTI process. The task force mentioned earlier in regard to the LD criteria has also be charged with developing guidance on how to implement RTI.

    14. 14 Present Levels Performance Academic achievement Functional performance Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) The statement of the childs present level of performance is focused on academic achievement and functional performance, rather than educational performance, as required under IDEA 97. The significance of this change from prior law is unclear, but final regulations may provide further guidance. Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) The statement of the childs present level of performance is focused on academic achievement and functional performance, rather than educational performance, as required under IDEA 97. The significance of this change from prior law is unclear, but final regulations may provide further guidance.

    15. 15 Participation in Statewide and Districtwide Assessments Updated to include statewide and district wide testing. Continue to use WAA checklist. LEA must decide what assessments qualify as district wide assessments. Participation in Statewide & Districtwide Assessments 612(a)(16), 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)(bb) The Departments form (I-9) that includes information about student participation in statewide assessments has been expanded to include all areas of assessment and all grade levels in which the assessments are given. To accommodate for this expansion, information about students participation in statewide and district wide assessments has been moved to a separate page. Reference to the WRCT (Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test) has been removed from the form since this test no longer takes place. If the IEP team determines that the child cannot participate in the regular assessment, IDEA 2004 requires that the IEP include a statement explaining not only why the child cannot participate but why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child. To address this requirement the form as been modified to include the language, The attached WAA participation checklist describes why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the alternate assessment is appropriate. When an alternate assessment will be used as part of a students participation in district wide assessment there must now be a statement of why the chosen alternate is appropriate for the particular child in addition to statements of why the student cannot participate in the regular district wide assessment and how the student will be assessed. (District wide assessments are standardized tests looking at achievement across the system, measuring progress of groups of children, not individuals). Note: The department provides guidelines for complying with the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) for Students with Disabilities and discusses the changes for the 2005-2006 school year in a series of bulletins which are available at www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/assmt-waa.html. Participation in Statewide & Districtwide Assessments 612(a)(16), 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)(bb) The Departments form (I-9) that includes information about student participation in statewide assessments has been expanded to include all areas of assessment and all grade levels in which the assessments are given. To accommodate for this expansion, information about students participation in statewide and district wide assessments has been moved to a separate page. Reference to the WRCT (Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test) has been removed from the form since this test no longer takes place. If the IEP team determines that the child cannot participate in the regular assessment, IDEA 2004 requires that the IEP include a statement explaining not only why the child cannot participate but why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child. To address this requirement the form as been modified to include the language, The attached WAA participation checklist describes why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the alternate assessment is appropriate. When an alternate assessment will be used as part of a students participation in district wide assessment there must now be a statement of why the chosen alternate is appropriate for the particular child in addition to statements of why the student cannot participate in the regular district wide assessment and how the student will be assessed. (District wide assessments are standardized tests looking at achievement across the system, measuring progress of groups of children, not individuals). Note: The department provides guidelines for complying with the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) for Students with Disabilities and discusses the changes for the 2005-2006 school year in a series of bulletins which are available at www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/assmt-waa.html.

    16. 16 Benchmarks and Short Term Objectives Benchmarks or short-term objectives are still required under Wisconsin Law, Chapter 115, for all students with disabilities. Benchmarks and Short-Term Objectives 614(d)(A)(i)(II) Under IDEA 2004, benchmarks or short-term objectives are required only for those students with disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned to alternate achievement standards. However, benchmarks or short-term objectives are still required under Wisconsin law for all students with disabilities. Therefore, IEP teams must continue to include benchmarks or short-term objectives in every IEP. Benchmarks and Short-Term Objectives 614(d)(A)(i)(II) Under IDEA 2004, benchmarks or short-term objectives are required only for those students with disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned to alternate achievement standards. However, benchmarks or short-term objectives are still required under Wisconsin law for all students with disabilities. Therefore, IEP teams must continue to include benchmarks or short-term objectives in every IEP.

    17. 17 Progress Reports The annual goal page has been revised to include a prompt of WHEN parents will be informed of the students progress. Progress Reports 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(III) Current federal regulations and Wisconsin state law require that the IEP contain a statement of how the childs progress toward the annual goals will be measured, and how the childs parents will be regularly informed of their childs progress toward the annual goals and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year. IDEA 2004 appears to no longer require an explanation of how the parents will be informed and the extent to which progress is sufficient. Rather, it requires that the IEP contain a description of when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided. LEAs must follow both state and federal requirements. The IEP must contain statements regarding how and when parents will be informed of their childs progress and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year. Parents of children with disabilities must be informed of progress at least as often as parents of nondisabled children. To meet the new federal requirement, the annual goal page (Form1-12) of the departments sample forms has been revised to add a prompt regarding when periodic reports will be provided. Progress Reports 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(III) Current federal regulations and Wisconsin state law require that the IEP contain a statement of how the childs progress toward the annual goals will be measured, and how the childs parents will be regularly informed of their childs progress toward the annual goals and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year. IDEA 2004 appears to no longer require an explanation of how the parents will be informed and the extent to which progress is sufficient. Rather, it requires that the IEP contain a description of when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided. LEAs must follow both state and federal requirements. The IEP must contain statements regarding how and when parents will be informed of their childs progress and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year. Parents of children with disabilities must be informed of progress at least as often as parents of nondisabled children. To meet the new federal requirement, the annual goal page (Form1-12) of the departments sample forms has been revised to add a prompt regarding when periodic reports will be provided.

    18. 18 Peer-Reviewed Research IDEA 2004 requires that special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services must be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. Peer-Reviewed Research 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) IDEA 2004 requires that special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services must be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. The department has requested that the U.S. Dept. of Education, through regulations, clarify how this requirement might be fulfilled. Peer-Reviewed Research 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) IDEA 2004 requires that special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services must be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. The department has requested that the U.S. Dept. of Education, through regulations, clarify how this requirement might be fulfilled.

    19. 19 Transition No later than 14 years of age, and annually up-dated, transition services addressing course of study, per Chapter 115, WIS STATS. Transition 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) Though IDEA 2004 eliminated the requirement for a statement of transition service needs for students beginning at age 14, Wisconsin law still requires such a statement for students beginning at age 14 or younger if appropriate. There has been a slight change in the directions for completing the page of the DPIs sample forms where the 14 year old transition statement is contained. Specifically a direction clarifying where to include the statement of transition services and courses of study for students age 16 and older has been added. The assessment section that has been a part of this page has been removed and placed on separate page (I-9-A) as discussed earlier. Transition 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) Though IDEA 2004 eliminated the requirement for a statement of transition service needs for students beginning at age 14, Wisconsin law still requires such a statement for students beginning at age 14 or younger if appropriate. There has been a slight change in the directions for completing the page of the DPIs sample forms where the 14 year old transition statement is contained. Specifically a direction clarifying where to include the statement of transition services and courses of study for students age 16 and older has been added. The assessment section that has been a part of this page has been removed and placed on separate page (I-9-A) as discussed earlier.

    20. 20 Transition Change from outcome process to results-oriented process. Focus on improving academic and functional achievement. Measurable post secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments for training, education, employment, and independent living skills. Continue to identify transition services provided and courses students take to reach goals. Transition 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) The definition of transition services on the departments sample form, Summary of Transition Services (I-13), has been updated consistent with in IDEA 2004 to mean, a coordinated set of activities designed to be within a results-oriented process, which focuses on improving the academic and functional achievement of the student with a disability, to facilitate the student's movement from school to post-school activities. IDEA 2004 requires that beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the student is 16 years old, and updated annually thereafter, the IEP must contain appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to - training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills. Additionally, the transition services and courses of study needed to assist the student in reaching those goals must be described. A second page has been added to the Summary of Transition Services (Form I-13) to address these new requirements. The department has asked for clarification in final regulations whether the transition statement requires goals in each of the areas listed or whether it requires a transition assessment in each of the listed areas with a corresponding goal for each area only if appropriate. The department has further asked that if a transition assessment is required, what type of notice and consent is required. Transition 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) The definition of transition services on the departments sample form, Summary of Transition Services (I-13), has been updated consistent with in IDEA 2004 to mean, a coordinated set of activities designed to be within a results-oriented process, which focuses on improving the academic and functional achievement of the student with a disability, to facilitate the student's movement from school to post-school activities. IDEA 2004 requires that beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the student is 16 years old, and updated annually thereafter, the IEP must contain appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to - training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills. Additionally, the transition services and courses of study needed to assist the student in reaching those goals must be described. A second page has been added to the Summary of Transition Services (Form I-13) to address these new requirements. The department has asked for clarification in final regulations whether the transition statement requires goals in each of the areas listed or whether it requires a transition assessment in each of the listed areas with a corresponding goal for each area only if appropriate. The department has further asked that if a transition assessment is required, what type of notice and consent is required.

    21. 21 Transfer Students IDEA 2004 requires the LEA to treat in-state and out of-state transfers the same and provide FAPE upon enrollment. Need to promptly obtain the childs records from previous school. Out-of-State Transfer 614(d)(2)(C)(i)(II) IDEA 2004 changes requirements pertaining to out-of-state transfer students with disabilities. It requires LEAs to treat in-state and out-of-state transfers the same and provide FAPE upon enrollment. Effective July 1, 2005, LEAs must follow the requirements under PI 11.07(2) for both in-state and out-of-state transfers. When a child with a disability transfers LEAs within the same academic year, enrolls in a new school, and had an IEP in effect in another state, the LEA must provide the child with a FAPE, which includes providing the child with services comparable to those described in the out-of-state IEP. This must be done in consultation with the parents and until such time as the LEA conducts an evaluation, if it is determined necessary by the LEA, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate. The new school must take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the childs records, including the IEP, from the previous school in which the child was enrolled. The cover page (form I-2 of the Departments sample forms) allows for adoption of out-of-state evaluation reports and IEPs as well as in-state evaluation reports and IEPs. Out-of-State Transfer 614(d)(2)(C)(i)(II) IDEA 2004 changes requirements pertaining to out-of-state transfer students with disabilities. It requires LEAs to treat in-state and out-of-state transfers the same and provide FAPE upon enrollment. Effective July 1, 2005, LEAs must follow the requirements under PI 11.07(2) for both in-state and out-of-state transfers. When a child with a disability transfers LEAs within the same academic year, enrolls in a new school, and had an IEP in effect in another state, the LEA must provide the child with a FAPE, which includes providing the child with services comparable to those described in the out-of-state IEP. This must be done in consultation with the parents and until such time as the LEA conducts an evaluation, if it is determined necessary by the LEA, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate. The new school must take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the childs records, including the IEP, from the previous school in which the child was enrolled. The cover page (form I-2 of the Departments sample forms) allows for adoption of out-of-state evaluation reports and IEPs as well as in-state evaluation reports and IEPs.

    22. 22 IEP Team Transition from Birth-to-Three At the request of the parent an invitation to the initial IEP meeting will be sent to the Birth-to-Three service coordinator or other representatives of the Birth-to-Three system to assist with the smooth transition of services. IEP Team Transition from Birth-to-Three 614(d)(1)(D) In the case of a child who was previously served under Birth-to-Three, Part C, an invitation to the initial IEP meeting, shall, at the request of the parent, be sent to the Birth-to-Three service coordinator or other representatives of the Birth-to-Three system to assist with the smooth transition of services. It is unclear whether the LEA has a duty to inform the parent that they have the right to request that an invitation be sent to Birth to Three. IEP Team Transition from Birth-to-Three 614(d)(1)(D) In the case of a child who was previously served under Birth-to-Three, Part C, an invitation to the initial IEP meeting, shall, at the request of the parent, be sent to the Birth-to-Three service coordinator or other representatives of the Birth-to-Three system to assist with the smooth transition of services. It is unclear whether the LEA has a duty to inform the parent that they have the right to request that an invitation be sent to Birth to Three.

    23. 23 IEP Team Attendance Participants area of curriculum or related services not being discussed Participants area of curriculum or related services will be discussed but submits written input Requires prior written consent from parents IEP Team Attendance 614(d)(1)(C) Under two circumstances, IDEA 2004 permits IEP team participants to not attend IEP meetings. Under both circumstances, the parent must agree, in writing, to the non-attendance. In the first circumstance a participant is not required to attend an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent and the LEA agree the attendance of the participant is not necessary because the participants area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting. In the second circumstance a participant may be excused from attending an IEP meeting even if the meeting involves a modification to, or discussion of, the participants area of the curriculum or related services if prior to the meeting, the participant submits, in writing, to the parent and the IEP team input into the development of the IEP. A new form has been created titled Agreement That IEP Team Participant Not Required to Attend IEP Meeting (Form A-10) that documents parental agreement. LEAs will need to develop procedures on how to implement these provisions. IEP Team Attendance 614(d)(1)(C) Under two circumstances, IDEA 2004 permits IEP team participants to not attend IEP meetings. Under both circumstances, the parent must agree, in writing, to the non-attendance. In the first circumstance a participant is not required to attend an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent and the LEA agree the attendance of the participant is not necessary because the participants area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting. In the second circumstance a participant may be excused from attending an IEP meeting even if the meeting involves a modification to, or discussion of, the participants area of the curriculum or related services if prior to the meeting, the participant submits, in writing, to the parent and the IEP team input into the development of the IEP. A new form has been created titled Agreement That IEP Team Participant Not Required to Attend IEP Meeting (Form A-10) that documents parental agreement. LEAs will need to develop procedures on how to implement these provisions.

    24. 24 Agreement Not to Convene an IEP Team Meeting to Make Changes to IEP Agreement Not to Convene an IEP Team Meeting to Make Changes to IEP 614(d)(3)(D) and (F) Parents and LEAs may agree to amend or modify, after the annual IEP meeting, a childs current IEP without convening an IEP meeting, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the childs current IEP. Changes to the IEP may be made by amending the IEP rather than redrafting the entire IEP. However, upon request, a parent must be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated. However, if the childs placement needs to be changed, an IEP team meeting is required under state law. The department has requested that the final regulations clarify this provision, including who can represent the LEA in making this agreement and change. Such agreement to change and actual changes to an IEP may be documented using two new forms; Notice of Changes To IEP Without An IEP Team Meeting (Form I-14-A) and Changes to IEP (Form I-14-B), respectively. LEAs will need to define and develop procedures with regard to who in the district can agree not to hold a meeting to modify an IEP and what can be modified without a meeting. Agreement Not to Convene an IEP Team Meeting to Make Changes to IEP 614(d)(3)(D) and (F) Parents and LEAs may agree to amend or modify, after the annual IEP meeting, a childs current IEP without convening an IEP meeting, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the childs current IEP. Changes to the IEP may be made by amending the IEP rather than redrafting the entire IEP. However, upon request, a parent must be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated. However, if the childs placement needs to be changed, an IEP team meeting is required under state law. The department has requested that the final regulations clarify this provision, including who can represent the LEA in making this agreement and change. Such agreement to change and actual changes to an IEP may be documented using two new forms; Notice of Changes To IEP Without An IEP Team Meeting (Form I-14-A) and Changes to IEP (Form I-14-B), respectively. LEAs will need to define and develop procedures with regard to who in the district can agree not to hold a meeting to modify an IEP and what can be modified without a meeting.

    25. 25 Upon graduation or exceeding the age of eligibility LEA is required to provide the following: Summary of academic achievement Summary of functional performance Recommendations to assist student in meeting postsecondary goals Evaluations before Change in Eligibility and Summary of Performance 614(c)(5)(B)(i) Under prior law and IDEA 2004, the LEA must evaluate a child with a disability before determining the child is no longer a child with a disability. Consistent with current federal regulations, IDEA 2004 specifies that an evaluation is not required when the termination of the childs eligibility is due to graduating from secondary school with a regular diploma or exceeding the age eligibility for a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under state law. However, for students whose eligibility for special education and related services terminates due to graduation from high school with a regular diploma or due to exceeding the age eligibility for FAPE, IDEA 2004 requires LEAs to provide the students with a: summary of their academic achievement, summary of their functional performance and recommendations on how to assist the students in meeting their postsecondary goals. Evaluations before Change in Eligibility and Summary of Performance 614(c)(5)(B)(i) Under prior law and IDEA 2004, the LEA must evaluate a child with a disability before determining the child is no longer a child with a disability. Consistent with current federal regulations, IDEA 2004 specifies that an evaluation is not required when the termination of the childs eligibility is due to graduating from secondary school with a regular diploma or exceeding the age eligibility for a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under state law. However, for students whose eligibility for special education and related services terminates due to graduation from high school with a regular diploma or due to exceeding the age eligibility for FAPE, IDEA 2004 requires LEAs to provide the students with a: summary of their academic achievement, summary of their functional performance and recommendations on how to assist the students in meeting their postsecondary goals.

    26. 26 Evaluations before Change in Eligibility and Summary of Performance 614(c)(5)(B)(i) To meet these new requirements the DPIs sample form Notice of Graduation (Form M-4) has been modified. For students exceeding the age of eligibility for FAPE, a new form Notice of Ending of Services Due to Age (Form M-5) has been created. Evaluations before Change in Eligibility and Summary of Performance 614(c)(5)(B)(i) To meet these new requirements the DPIs sample form Notice of Graduation (Form M-4) has been modified. For students exceeding the age of eligibility for FAPE, a new form Notice of Ending of Services Due to Age (Form M-5) has been created.

    27. 27 Procedural Safeguards Notice State law requires procedural safeguards on initial referral, for each IEP team meeting, upon reevaluation, and on request for due process. IDEA 2004 requires procedural safeguards one time a year, upon initial referral or parent request for evaluation, the first filing of a due process complaint, and when a parent requests a copy. Until further clarification, LEAs must continue to follow state law requirements in providing procedural safeguards notice. Procedural Safeguards Notice 615(d)(1)(A) Current regulations and state law require a copy of the procedural safeguards be given to parents, at a minimum: upon initial referral for evaluation upon each notification of an IEP team meeting upon reevaluation of the child, and upon receipt of a request for due process. IDEA 2004 requires a copy of the procedural safeguards be given to parents only one time a year, except that a copy also must be given upon: initial referral or parent request for evaluation the first occurrence of the filing of a due process complaint, and when a parent requests a copy. Until further clarification, LEAs must continue to follow state law requirements in providing procedural safeguards notice. Procedural Safeguards Notice 615(d)(1)(A) Current regulations and state law require a copy of the procedural safeguards be given to parents, at a minimum: upon initial referral for evaluation upon each notification of an IEP team meeting upon reevaluation of the child, and upon receipt of a request for due process. IDEA 2004 requires a copy of the procedural safeguards be given to parents only one time a year, except that a copy also must be given upon: initial referral or parent request for evaluation the first occurrence of the filing of a due process complaint, and when a parent requests a copy. Until further clarification, LEAs must continue to follow state law requirements in providing procedural safeguards notice.

    28. 28 Notices by Electronic Mail Parents may choose to receive required notices by electronic mail if available from LEA. The department has requested final regulation guidance for implementing this provision. Notices by Electronic Mail 615(n) Beginning, July 1, 2005, a parent of a child with a disability may choose to receive notices required under IDEA, including prior written notice and notice of procedural safeguards, by electronic mail if the LEA makes it available. Notices by Electronic Mail 615(n) Beginning, July 1, 2005, a parent of a child with a disability may choose to receive notices required under IDEA, including prior written notice and notice of procedural safeguards, by electronic mail if the LEA makes it available.

    29. 29 Due Process Resolution Session LEA must convene resolution session within 15 days of receiving notice of request for due process hearing Resolution session not required if both parties waive or agree to use mediation Resolution Session (Due Process) 615(f)(1)(B) Either the parent or the local education agency (LEA) may request a due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. However, when a parent requests a due process hearing, IDEA 2004 requires the LEA, within 15 days of receiving notice of the request, to meet with the parents and the relevant member or members of the IEP team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the request. The LEA must include a representative who has decision-making authority and may not include an attorney of the LEA unless the parent is accompanied by an attorney. IDEA 2004 permits the parent and the LEA to agree, in writing, to waive this meeting or to agree to use the mediation process. If a resolution is reached at the meeting, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement that is signed by both the parent and the LEA representative. The agreement is enforceable in state and federal courts, although a party may void the agreement within three business days of the agreements execution. If the LEA has not resolved the matter to the satisfaction of the parents within 30 days of receiving the request, the due process hearing may occur, and all of the applicable timelines for a due process hearing begin. There are multiple other changes regarding due process hearings and requests, which are summarized on the departments website. See 615(b)(6)-(7), 615(c)(2), 615(f)(1)(B), 615(f)(3), 615(i)(2)(B); and 615(i)(3)(B). Resolution Session (Due Process) 615(f)(1)(B) Either the parent or the local education agency (LEA) may request a due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. However, when a parent requests a due process hearing, IDEA 2004 requires the LEA, within 15 days of receiving notice of the request, to meet with the parents and the relevant member or members of the IEP team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the request. The LEA must include a representative who has decision-making authority and may not include an attorney of the LEA unless the parent is accompanied by an attorney. IDEA 2004 permits the parent and the LEA to agree, in writing, to waive this meeting or to agree to use the mediation process. If a resolution is reached at the meeting, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement that is signed by both the parent and the LEA representative. The agreement is enforceable in state and federal courts, although a party may void the agreement within three business days of the agreements execution. If the LEA has not resolved the matter to the satisfaction of the parents within 30 days of receiving the request, the due process hearing may occur, and all of the applicable timelines for a due process hearing begin. There are multiple other changes regarding due process hearings and requests, which are summarized on the departments website. See 615(b)(6)-(7), 615(c)(2), 615(f)(1)(B), 615(f)(3), 615(i)(2)(B); and 615(i)(3)(B).

    30. 30 Alternative Educational Setting-Serious Bodily Injury and Length of Removal School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days (not calendar days), whether or not the conduct is a manifestation, under three circumstances: Drugs Weapons Inflicting serious bodily injury (at school, on school premises, or at a school function) In this presentation we are highlighting some of the major changes in IDEA 2004 with regard to discipline. The proposed regulations have created some additional ambiguity in this area. For example, it is unclear under the proposed regulations when a series of disciplinary removals constitute a change of placement. We have asked for clarification in the final regulations, and we hope that they will provide more guidance. Alternative Educational SettingSerious Bodily Injury and Length of Removal 615(k)(1)(G), 615(k)(1)(G) School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days, whether or not the conduct is a manifestation of the childs disability under three circumstances. In addition to incidents involving drugs and weapons as permitted under prior law, IDEA 2004 also permits a student to be removed for inflicting serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of a SEA or LEA. Serious bodily injury is defined as bodily injury involving a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. IDEA 2004 also extends the permitted length of removal from 45 calendar days to 45 school days. In this presentation we are highlighting some of the major changes in IDEA 2004 with regard to discipline. The proposed regulations have created some additional ambiguity in this area. For example, it is unclear under the proposed regulations when a series of disciplinary removals constitute a change of placement. We have asked for clarification in the final regulations, and we hope that they will provide more guidance. Alternative Educational SettingSerious Bodily Injury and Length of Removal 615(k)(1)(G), 615(k)(1)(G) School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days, whether or not the conduct is a manifestation of the childs disability under three circumstances. In addition to incidents involving drugs and weapons as permitted under prior law, IDEA 2004 also permits a student to be removed for inflicting serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of a SEA or LEA. Serious bodily injury is defined as bodily injury involving a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. IDEA 2004 also extends the permitted length of removal from 45 calendar days to 45 school days.

    31. 31 Manifestation Determination Factors to Consider: Was behavior caused by students disability? Was behavior directly and substantially related to students disability? Was behavior the direct result of the school not implementing the IEP? Manifestation Determination Changes Review IDEA 2004 changes the factors that must be considered in conducting a manifestation determination review. Review is now limited to the following factors: If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the childs disability; or If the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEAs failure to implement the IEP. If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team determine either factor is met, the conduct is a manifestation of the childs disability. To account for these changes the departments sample Manifestation Determination Review (Form 1-18) has been revised. Manifestation Determination Changes Review IDEA 2004 changes the factors that must be considered in conducting a manifestation determination review. Review is now limited to the following factors: If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the childs disability; or If the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEAs failure to implement the IEP. If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team determine either factor is met, the conduct is a manifestation of the childs disability. To account for these changes the departments sample Manifestation Determination Review (Form 1-18) has been revised.

    32. 32 Protection for Children Not Yet Eligible-Deemed to Know Under IDEA 2004, an LEA does not have knowledge a child is a child with a disability if the parent of the child has not allowed the child to be evaluated for special education, refused services, or the child has been evaluated and determined not to be eligible. The DPI has requested that OSEP, clarify through regulation, whether these exceptions apply without a time limit. Protection for Children Not Yet EligibleDeemed to Know 615(k)(5)(B) Under IDEA 2004, the LEA is deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if prior to the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action: the parent of the child expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel of the LEA, or the teacher of the child, that the child is in need of special education and related services. the parent of the child has requested an evaluation of the child. the teacher of the child, or other personnel of the LEA, has expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child, directly to the director of special education or to other supervisory personnel. Under IDEA 2004, an LEA does not have knowledge a child is a child with a disability if the parent of the child has not allowed the child to be evaluated for special education, refused services, or the child has been evaluated and determined not to be eligible. The department has requested that final regulations clarify whether these exceptions apply without a time limit. For example, if a child was determined not to be a child with a disability five years ago, would this exception still apply? Protection for Children Not Yet EligibleDeemed to Know 615(k)(5)(B) Under IDEA 2004, the LEA is deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if prior to the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action: the parent of the child expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel of the LEA, or the teacher of the child, that the child is in need of special education and related services. the parent of the child has requested an evaluation of the child. the teacher of the child, or other personnel of the LEA, has expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child, directly to the director of special education or to other supervisory personnel. Under IDEA 2004, an LEA does not have knowledge a child is a child with a disability if the parent of the child has not allowed the child to be evaluated for special education, refused services, or the child has been evaluated and determined not to be eligible. The department has requested that final regulations clarify whether these exceptions apply without a time limit. For example, if a child was determined not to be a child with a disability five years ago, would this exception still apply?

    33. 33 Placement During Appeals-Expedited Hearing Disciplinary changes of placement are allowed when the conduct is not a manifestation of the childs disability. If a parent appeals a manifestation determination, the hearing must occur within 20 school days. Decision due within 10 school days of the hearing. Pending completion of the due process hearing, the child remains in the setting selected by the LEA. (IDEA 2004 eliminates the stay-put provision when a parent appeals a manifestation determination). Placement During AppealsExpedited Hearing 615(k)(4)(B) Disciplinary changes of placement are allowed when the conduct is not a manifestation of the childs disability. If a parent appeals a manifestation determination, the hearing must be expedited. The hearing must occur within 20 school days from the date of the request. The decision must be reached within 10 school days of the hearing. Pending completion of the due process hearing, the child remains in the setting selected by the LEA. In other words, IDEA 2004 eliminates the stay-put provision when a parent appeals a manifestation determination. Placement During AppealsExpedited Hearing 615(k)(4)(B) Disciplinary changes of placement are allowed when the conduct is not a manifestation of the childs disability. If a parent appeals a manifestation determination, the hearing must be expedited. The hearing must occur within 20 school days from the date of the request. The decision must be reached within 10 school days of the hearing. Pending completion of the due process hearing, the child remains in the setting selected by the LEA. In other words, IDEA 2004 eliminates the stay-put provision when a parent appeals a manifestation determination.

    34. 34 Parentally Placed Children in Private Schools Changes relating to child find, annual child count, consultation and provision of services. Students with disabilities who attend private schools will be served by the district that the private school is in, even if the child is a resident of a different district. Parentally Placed Children in Private Schools 612(a)(10) A number of changes were made regarding parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools. Changes have occurred in requirements relating to childfind, annual child count, consultation and provision of services. The most significant change, that represents a departure from past practice, is that parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools will be served by the LEA in which the private school is located, regardless of the childrens residency. This same LEA is responsible for carrying out childfind activities in a manner similar to those carried out for public school students including locating, identifying and evaluating children with disabilities. The determination of how, where and what special education and related services will be provided must be made in consultation with private school representative and representatives of parents of parentally placed private school children with disabilities. Private school officials have the right to file an IDEA complaint with the state that the LEA did not engage in meaningful and timely consultation. More detailed information related to parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools can be found in the departments interim guidance paper available on the departments website. http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/een/doc/prischpart.doc. Parentally Placed Children in Private Schools 612(a)(10) A number of changes were made regarding parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools. Changes have occurred in requirements relating to childfind, annual child count, consultation and provision of services. The most significant change, that represents a departure from past practice, is that parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools will be served by the LEA in which the private school is located, regardless of the childrens residency. This same LEA is responsible for carrying out childfind activities in a manner similar to those carried out for public school students including locating, identifying and evaluating children with disabilities. The determination of how, where and what special education and related services will be provided must be made in consultation with private school representative and representatives of parents of parentally placed private school children with disabilities. Private school officials have the right to file an IDEA complaint with the state that the LEA did not engage in meaningful and timely consultation. More detailed information related to parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools can be found in the departments interim guidance paper available on the departments website. http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/een/doc/prischpart.doc.

    35. 35 Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher All licensed teachers in Wisconsin, including special education teachers, are highly qualified under both NCLB and IDEA. New special education teachers are required to demonstrate competence through a content test in core subject areas under PI 34 and will qualify through successfully completing the test requirement. Definition of Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher 602(10) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) articulates the provisions for highly qualified teachers, and these requirements apply to all teachers, including special education teachers. IDEA 2004 adopts these standards. Department of Public Instruction staff have engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Department of Education about Wisconsin's plan demonstrating that our teachers meet the "highly qualified" standard in NCLB; in addition, U.S. Department of Education staff conducted a formal technical assistance visit on this issue. They have accepted our definition. All licensed teachers in Wisconsin, including special education teachers, are highly qualified under both NCLB and IDEA. Under both laws, special education teachers who teach core academic subjects must give evidence of being highly qualified. Special education teachers are highly qualified if they hold the regular license for their assignment. Issuance of emergency licenses represent an alternative route to certification as long as the individual is in a program that can be completed in three years and receives high quality professional development and intense supervision and mentoring provided by the employing LEA. These teachers also are covered under Wisconsin's approved plan to meet the highly qualified provisions in federal law. Current teachers qualify through high objective uniform state standards of evaluation (HOUSSE). This qualifier documents subject competence through standards established by the state for grade-appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills. Wisconsin standards are reflected in the program approval requirements. All special education teachers licensed in Wisconsin must complete an approved program at a college or university either in this or another state. Therefore, all current special education teachers who teach core academic subjects are in the HOUSSE and are highly qualified under both NCLB and IDEA. New special education teachers are required to demonstrate competence through a content test in core subject areas under PI 34 and will qualify through successfully completing the test requirement. In Wisconsin, this test is the PRAXIS II. Therefore, all prospective or new special education teachers also will be highly qualified. Definition of Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher 602(10) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) articulates the provisions for highly qualified teachers, and these requirements apply to all teachers, including special education teachers. IDEA 2004 adopts these standards. Department of Public Instruction staff have engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Department of Education about Wisconsin's plan demonstrating that our teachers meet the "highly qualified" standard in NCLB; in addition, U.S. Department of Education staff conducted a formal technical assistance visit on this issue. They have accepted our definition. All licensed teachers in Wisconsin, including special education teachers, are highly qualified under both NCLB and IDEA. Under both laws, special education teachers who teach core academic subjects must give evidence of being highly qualified. Special education teachers are highly qualified if they hold the regular license for their assignment. Issuance of emergency licenses represent an alternative route to certification as long as the individual is in a program that can be completed in three years and receives high quality professional development and intense supervision and mentoring provided by the employing LEA. These teachers also are covered under Wisconsin's approved plan to meet the highly qualified provisions in federal law. Current teachers qualify through high objective uniform state standards of evaluation (HOUSSE). This qualifier documents subject competence through standards established by the state for grade-appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills. Wisconsin standards are reflected in the program approval requirements. All special education teachers licensed in Wisconsin must complete an approved program at a college or university either in this or another state. Therefore, all current special education teachers who teach core academic subjects are in the HOUSSE and are highly qualified under both NCLB and IDEA. New special education teachers are required to demonstrate competence through a content test in core subject areas under PI 34 and will qualify through successfully completing the test requirement. In Wisconsin, this test is the PRAXIS II. Therefore, all prospective or new special education teachers also will be highly qualified.

    36. 36 Services for Children who are Homeless IDEA 2004 clarifies that homeless children are eligible for services. Services for Children who are Homeless IDEA 2004 emphasizes and clarifies throughout that homeless children are eligible for services. See 612(a)(3)(A), 612(a)(11)(A)(iii), 615(b)(2)(A)(ii), and 615(b)(7)(A)(ii)(II). Services for Children who are Homeless IDEA 2004 emphasizes and clarifies throughout that homeless children are eligible for services. See 612(a)(3)(A), 612(a)(11)(A)(iii), 615(b)(2)(A)(ii), and 615(b)(7)(A)(ii)(II).

    37. 37 Assignment of a Surrogate Parent IDEA 2004 has added a new timeframe for the assignment of a surrogate parent. It requires an assignment of a surrogate not more than 30 days after an LEA determines that one is necessary. Assignment of a Surrogate Parent 615(b)(2)(B) IDEA 2004 has added a new timeframe for the assignment of a surrogate parent. It requires an assignment of a surrogate not more than 30 days after an LEA determines that one is necessary. Assignment of a Surrogate Parent 615(b)(2)(B) IDEA 2004 has added a new timeframe for the assignment of a surrogate parent. It requires an assignment of a surrogate not more than 30 days after an LEA determines that one is necessary.

    38. 38 Assistive Technology Device The definition of Assistive Technology Device expressly excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of that device. 602(1)(B) Assistive Technology Device 602(1)(B) The definition of Assistive Technology Device excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of that device. This provision was added to address cholera implants. The proposed regulations also clarify that related services do not include the optimization of or maximizing the functioning of a surgically implanted device. Assistive Technology Device 602(1)(B) The definition of Assistive Technology Device excludes a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of that device. This provision was added to address cholera implants. The proposed regulations also clarify that related services do not include the optimization of or maximizing the functioning of a surgically implanted device.

    39. 39 Medication Prohibits requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of : -attending school -receiving an evaluation, or -receiving special education services. Prohibition on Mandatory Medication 612(a)(25)(A) IDEA 2004 specifically prohibits state and LEA personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation, or receiving special education services. Prohibition on Mandatory Medication 612(a)(25)(A) IDEA 2004 specifically prohibits state and LEA personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation, or receiving special education services.

    40. 40 Universal Design Universal design involves designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities: Universal Design 602(35), 611(e)(2)(C)(v), 612(a)(16)(E), and 612(23)(C)(ii) Funds received under IDEA 2004 may be used to support the use of technology, including technology with universal design principles and assistive technology devices, to maximize accessibility to the general education curriculum for children with disabilities. The State Education Agency (SEA) (or in the case of district-wide assessments, the LEA) shall, to the extent feasible, use universal design principles in developing and administering any assessment (i.e. statewide and district-wide assessments). Universal design involves designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities, including products and services that are directly usable (without requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are made usable with assistive technologies. Universal design principles, as applied to curricular materials, allow for multiple representations of the information being presented and multiple means of expression. Universal Design 602(35), 611(e)(2)(C)(v), 612(a)(16)(E), and 612(23)(C)(ii) Funds received under IDEA 2004 may be used to support the use of technology, including technology with universal design principles and assistive technology devices, to maximize accessibility to the general education curriculum for children with disabilities. The State Education Agency (SEA) (or in the case of district-wide assessments, the LEA) shall, to the extent feasible, use universal design principles in developing and administering any assessment (i.e. statewide and district-wide assessments). Universal design involves designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities, including products and services that are directly usable (without requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are made usable with assistive technologies. Universal design principles, as applied to curricular materials, allow for multiple representations of the information being presented and multiple means of expression.

    41. 41 Purchase of Instructional Materials (blind/other print disabilities) A State Education Agency must coordinate with the National Instructional Materials Access Center or provide an assurance that the agency will provide instructional materials to people who are blind or other persons with print disabilities in a timely manner. LEA is under a similar obligation. The department will provide more information on this requirement as it becomes available. Purchase of Instructional Materials (blind/other print disabilities) 613(a)(6), 612(a)(23) A State Education Agency must coordinate with the National Instructional Materials Access Center or provide an assurance that the agency will provide instructional materials to students who are blind or other students with print disabilities in a timely manner. LEAs are under a similar obligation. The department will provide more information on this requirement as it becomes available. Purchase of Instructional Materials (blind/other print disabilities) 613(a)(6), 612(a)(23) A State Education Agency must coordinate with the National Instructional Materials Access Center or provide an assurance that the agency will provide instructional materials to students who are blind or other students with print disabilities in a timely manner. LEAs are under a similar obligation. The department will provide more information on this requirement as it becomes available.

    42. 42 Early Intervening Services 15% of the current flow-through allocation. Activities: Professional development Educational & behavioral evaluations Research-based intervention Requires mandatory data collection and reporting to the state and federal agencies. Early Intervening Services 613(f) IDEA 2004 permits LEAs to use up to 15% of the Part B funds to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services for students who have not been identified as students with disabilities under IDEA but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment, with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. LEA activities may include professional development for teachers and other school staff to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, and instruction for the use of adaptive and instructional software. Other allowable activities include providing educational and behavioral evaluations, and supports including research-based intervention. Using this 15% provision includes new reporting requirements. The LEA must annually report to the SEA the number of students served, and The number of students served who subsequently receive special education under IDEA during the preceding two-year period. We have asked that final regulations describe the kinds of early intervening services permitted under this section to ensure that congressional intent is followed. Absent final regulations LEAs should consider using the time to plan how they might use this new provision. Early Intervening Services 613(f) IDEA 2004 permits LEAs to use up to 15% of the Part B funds to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services for students who have not been identified as students with disabilities under IDEA but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment, with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. LEA activities may include professional development for teachers and other school staff to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, and instruction for the use of adaptive and instructional software. Other allowable activities include providing educational and behavioral evaluations, and supports including research-based intervention. Using this 15% provision includes new reporting requirements. The LEA must annually report to the SEA the number of students served, and The number of students served who subsequently receive special education under IDEA during the preceding two-year period. We have asked that final regulations describe the kinds of early intervening services permitted under this section to ensure that congressional intent is followed. Absent final regulations LEAs should consider using the time to plan how they might use this new provision.

    43. 43 Disproportionality/Early Intervening Services SEAs are required to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring on both state and local levels. If a district is determined to have significant disproportionality, then the district must reserve the 15% to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services. IDEA 2004 requires states to determine if significant disproportionality is occurring in the state and the LEAs of the state with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, the placement in particular education settings of such children; and the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. If a district is determined to have significant disproportionality with respect to identification or placement, then the state must: Provide for the review (and revision, if appropriate) of policies, procedures, and practices used in identification and placement, Require the district to reserve 15% of IDEA funds to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the district, particularly children in those groups that were significantly over identified, and Require the district to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures. Significant disproportionality is not defined under federal law, and states are required to develop a definition. U.S. Dept. of Education recommends that states use multiple methods in calculating disproportionality to reduce the risk of overlooking potential problems. We are in the process of developing a definition that is both reasonable and workable. In doing so, we are working with a consultant, Dan Losen, a national expert in this area. IDEA 2004 requires states to determine if significant disproportionality is occurring in the state and the LEAs of the state with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, the placement in particular education settings of such children; and the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. If a district is determined to have significant disproportionality with respect to identification or placement, then the state must: Provide for the review (and revision, if appropriate) of policies, procedures, and practices used in identification and placement, Require the district to reserve 15% of IDEA funds to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the district, particularly children in those groups that were significantly over identified, and Require the district to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures. Significant disproportionality is not defined under federal law, and states are required to develop a definition. U.S. Dept. of Education recommends that states use multiple methods in calculating disproportionality to reduce the risk of overlooking potential problems. We are in the process of developing a definition that is both reasonable and workable. In doing so, we are working with a consultant, Dan Losen, a national expert in this area.

    44. 44 Focused Monitoring Primary Focus Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. Ensuring the requirements of IDEA are met, especially those most closely related to improving educational results. IDEA 2004 requires the U.S. Department of Education to monitor and enforce implementation of the Act by the State. The Department of Public Instruction is required to monitor and enforce implementation of the Act by local educational agencies. The primary focus of monitoring is to improve educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while ensuring the requirements of IDEA are met, especially those requirements most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.IDEA 2004 requires the U.S. Department of Education to monitor and enforce implementation of the Act by the State. The Department of Public Instruction is required to monitor and enforce implementation of the Act by local educational agencies. The primary focus of monitoring is to improve educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while ensuring the requirements of IDEA are met, especially those requirements most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.

    45. 45 Focused Monitoring Priority Areas FAPE in the LRE General supervisory authority Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education The U.S. Department of Education is required to monitor the State using quantifiable and qualitative indicators to measure performance in each of the priority areas. Similarly, the Department of Public Instruction is required to monitor LEAs using quantifiable and qualitative indicators to measure performance in each of the priority areas. The priority areas include: 1. Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. 2. State exercise of general supervisory authority, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation, voluntary binding arbitration, and a system of transition services, including both early intervention and postsecondary. 3. Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification. The U.S. Department of Education is required to monitor the State using quantifiable and qualitative indicators to measure performance in each of the priority areas. Similarly, the Department of Public Instruction is required to monitor LEAs using quantifiable and qualitative indicators to measure performance in each of the priority areas. The priority areas include: 1. Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. 2. State exercise of general supervisory authority, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation, voluntary binding arbitration, and a system of transition services, including both early intervention and postsecondary. 3. Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

    46. 46 20 Indicators (*New Indicators) The U.S. Department of Education has identified 20 indicators to be used to measure performance on the monitoring priorities. The State must: establish measurable and rigorous targets for the indicators, collect valid and reliable data, and report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the targets (except where sampling is allowed preschool outcomes, parent involvement, and postsecondary outcomes). Public disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children is not permitted. The State must use the targets to analyze the performance of each LEA. The U.S. Department of Education has identified 20 indicators to be used to measure performance on the monitoring priorities. The State must: establish measurable and rigorous targets for the indicators, collect valid and reliable data, and report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the targets (except where sampling is allowed preschool outcomes, parent involvement, and postsecondary outcomes). Public disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children is not permitted. The State must use the targets to analyze the performance of each LEA.

    47. 47 State Performance Plan (SPP) Evaluate the States efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA Describe how the State will improve such implementation 6-Year Plan 20 indicators related to the 3 priorities Annual Performance Report By December 2, 2005 the State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the States efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describes how the State will improve implementation. The plan must be reviewed at least once every 6 years. The SPP includes: Baseline data on each indicator, except those designated as new indicators (baseline data due February 1, 2007 on new indicators), and Measurable and rigorous targets for each indicator, except new indicators. Targets for Indicators 11 (60-day timeline), 12 (IEP by age 3), 13 (16+ transition plan), 15 (noncompliance corrected in 1 year), 16 (complaint decisions within 60 days), 17 (due process decisions within 45 days), and 20 (accurate and timely reporting of data) must be 100%. Targets for Indicators 9 (disproportionality) and 10 (disproportionality in disability categories) are 0%. In addition, the SPP must include improvement activities, timelines, and resources for achieving the targets. Each state must develop an Annual Performance Report (APR) that describes the states performance at achieving the targets for the 20 quality indicators. This report is to be submitted annually to the U.S. Department of Education and the public. The U.S. Department of Education reviews the APR to determine if the plan meets the requirements of IDEA. The first APR is due February 1, 2007. By December 2, 2005 the State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the States efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describes how the State will improve implementation. The plan must be reviewed at least once every 6 years. The SPP includes: Baseline data on each indicator, except those designated as new indicators (baseline data due February 1, 2007 on new indicators), and Measurable and rigorous targets for each indicator, except new indicators. Targets for Indicators 11 (60-day timeline), 12 (IEP by age 3), 13 (16+ transition plan), 15 (noncompliance corrected in 1 year), 16 (complaint decisions within 60 days), 17 (due process decisions within 45 days), and 20 (accurate and timely reporting of data) must be 100%. Targets for Indicators 9 (disproportionality) and 10 (disproportionality in disability categories) are 0%. In addition, the SPP must include improvement activities, timelines, and resources for achieving the targets. Each state must develop an Annual Performance Report (APR) that describes the states performance at achieving the targets for the 20 quality indicators. This report is to be submitted annually to the U.S. Department of Education and the public. The U.S. Department of Education reviews the APR to determine if the plan meets the requirements of IDEA. The first APR is due February 1, 2007.

    48. 48 Stakeholder Group As noted in the conference report to HR 1350, it is Congress expectation that SPPs, indicators, and targets will be developed with broad stakeholder input and public dissemination. SPP Indicators goals and targets Continuous Improvement & Focused Monitoring System State law The Department is involving a diverse group of stakeholders in setting the 6-year goals and annual targets for indicators in the State Performance Plan. Dr. Alan Coulter of the National Center on Special Education Accountability Monitoring is assisting with this process. These stakeholders are also involved in the development and review of the States Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System. They are also providing input regarding whether any changes to state law are necessary or appropriate in response to IDEA 2004. The Department is involving a diverse group of stakeholders in setting the 6-year goals and annual targets for indicators in the State Performance Plan. Dr. Alan Coulter of the National Center on Special Education Accountability Monitoring is assisting with this process. These stakeholders are also involved in the development and review of the States Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System. They are also providing input regarding whether any changes to state law are necessary or appropriate in response to IDEA 2004.

    49. 49 State Law IDEA 2004 requires states to: Identify in writing any State-imposed requirement that is not required by IDEA. Minimize the number of state special education rules, regulations and policies which LEAs are required to follow. Each State that receives IDEA funds must ensure that State rules, regulations, and policies conform to the purposes of IDEA. The State must: Identify in writing to its LEAs and to the U.S. Department of Education any state-imposed special education rule, regulation or policy that is not required by IDEA and Federal regulations, and Minimize the number of state special education rules, regulations and policies to which the LEAs and schools are subject. The Department has conducted an analysis of state law as it compares to IDEA 2004 and identified state-imposed requirements. The Stakeholders are using this information as they deliberate on whether any changes to state law are necessary or appropriate in response to IDEA 2004. The Department is committed to the stakeholder process as the most effective and appropriate approach to consensus building around various special education issues, and will not pursue state legislation without broad stakeholder consensus. Each State that receives IDEA funds must ensure that State rules, regulations, and policies conform to the purposes of IDEA. The State must: Identify in writing to its LEAs and to the U.S. Department of Education any state-imposed special education rule, regulation or policy that is not required by IDEA and Federal regulations, and Minimize the number of state special education rules, regulations and policies to which the LEAs and schools are subject. The Department has conducted an analysis of state law as it compares to IDEA 2004 and identified state-imposed requirements. The Stakeholders are using this information as they deliberate on whether any changes to state law are necessary or appropriate in response to IDEA 2004. The Department is committed to the stakeholder process as the most effective and appropriate approach to consensus building around various special education issues, and will not pursue state legislation without broad stakeholder consensus.

    50. 50 Enforcement Needs assistance Needs intervention Needs substantial intervention Based on information provided in the APR and information obtained through monitoring visits, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) determines if the State has met the requirements and purposes of IDEA or: Needs assistance in implementing the requirements Needs intervention in implementing the requirements Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements It is likely that the State will adopt a similar system of enforcement. Enforcement: If the state needs assistance for 2 consecutive years, OSEP may advise the State of available technical assistance, direct the use of funds, or impose special conditions on the State grant. If the State needs intervention for 3 consecutive years OSEP may take one of the actions just described or require a CAP, compliance agreement, or the recovery or withholding of IDEA funds. If a State needs substantial intervention, OSEP may - recover a States IDEA funds, withhold funds, refer the State to the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Education or to the U.S. Department of Justice.Based on information provided in the APR and information obtained through monitoring visits, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) determines if the State has met the requirements and purposes of IDEA or: Needs assistance in implementing the requirements Needs intervention in implementing the requirements Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements It is likely that the State will adopt a similar system of enforcement. Enforcement: If the state needs assistance for 2 consecutive years, OSEP may advise the State of available technical assistance, direct the use of funds, or impose special conditions on the State grant. If the State needs intervention for 3 consecutive years OSEP may take one of the actions just described or require a CAP, compliance agreement, or the recovery or withholding of IDEA funds. If a State needs substantial intervention, OSEP may - recover a States IDEA funds, withhold funds, refer the State to the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Education or to the U.S. Department of Justice.

    51. 51 The Focus of Monitoring Improving educational results Improving functional outcomes Ensuring States and LEAs meet the requirements of IDEA In summary the purpose of federal and state monitoring activities is to improve education results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities while ensuring that states and LEAs meet the requirements of IDEA, especially those requirements most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.In summary the purpose of federal and state monitoring activities is to improve education results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities while ensuring that states and LEAs meet the requirements of IDEA, especially those requirements most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.

    52. 52 Resources Significant Changes in Special Education Law Interim Guidance Supplemental Forms Interim Guidance Parentally-placed Private School Students Early Intervening Services Others http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/index.html The department has a number of resources available on its website to assist LEAs in meeting the new requirements of IDEA 2004. LEAs are encouraged to access these resources on departments website.The department has a number of resources available on its website to assist LEAs in meeting the new requirements of IDEA 2004. LEAs are encouraged to access these resources on departments website.

More Related