[int-per] FW: Summary of House Republication IDEA bill
Steve.JOHNSON at ODE-EX1.ODE.STATE.OR.US
Tue Mar 18 07:23:40 PST 2003
FYI. From NASDSE.
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:17 AM
Subject: Summary of House Republication IDEA bill
Yesterday (Monday, March 17) House Republican staff held a briefing for
disability groups to present an outline of the IDEA bill that Republicans on
the Ed and Workforce Committee will be introducing tomorrow!! The
Republicans in the House still hope to work in a bipartisan manner with the
Democrats but they wanted to move forward. Following this message is a
summary of what NASDSE staff heard in the meeting. Please note that it
obviously does not cover the entire bill and therefore we are reserving
official comment until we have had an opportunity to review the entire bill,
which is supposed to be posted on the Committee's web site tomorrow
In addition to these notes, we learned from another source that the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council (for IDEA, Part C) would be eliminated
under this bill.
Also, last week the Subcommittee on Education Reform held its last hearing
on IDEA reauthorization. The hearing was designed to focus on some of the
issues raised in the Keller Paperwork Reduction bill (3-year IEPs; reduced
personnel at IEP meetings) and there was one witness who testified about
that. Another witness, a school superintendent from a small, rural county
in Maryland testified in support of full funding. A third witness, Doug
Carnine, testified about doing away with the discrepency test for
identifying students with learning disabilites. The fourth witness
testified about the need for personnel prep and early intervention. There
were no issues raised at this hearing that NASDSE could not support.
There is a meeting for disability groups this Friday on the Senate side and
we hope to learn more about the Senate's schedule and plans for IDEA
You also need to know that reauthorization of the Workforce Incentive Act
(WIA), which includes vocational rehabilitation is on the fast track in the
House. Subcommittee and full committee markups are expected to take place
shortly. We will be getting more information on this to you shortly.
Summary of Republican House IDEA Bill
The House bill will provide a track to reach "discretionary" full funding in
seven years. The bill will not call for mandatory funding. (Rep. Boehner,
Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, does not support mandatory
They are still working through ideas. Working with Rep. Norwood on this.
Staff noted that President Bush has said that he does not support cessation
of educational services. Rep. Norwood wants IDEA to include provisions for
3. School Choice
This bill will not include language on choice. Staff noted that Rep. DeMint
will be introducing an IDEA choice bill in the next few days, but it will
not be included in this version of the bill.
4. Alignment with No Child Left Behind
The bill will allow IDEA funds to be used for support services under NCLB
for children with disabilities who attend schools in need of improvement.
This is intended to address the concern that support services for some
children will be more costly because of their disabilities. This money
would only be used to supplement, not supplant funding for support services
5. Reduce the complexity of IEP Team meetings/ paperwork reduction
(a) parents and schools can agree to use technology at IEP meetings
(this makes this explicit), e.g., IEPs can be typed
(b) can also use teleconferencing or videoconferencing for members of
IEP teams who would be unable to participate otherwise; staff believes that
this will be particularly helpful in making transition plans for secondary
school students where voc rehab staff cannot attend meetings at the school
(On a separate note, the Administration has apparently withdrawn its support
for a separate proposal under the Voc Rehab reauthorization that would have
provided a dedicated funding stream that would place voc rehab counselors in
(c) parents and schools would be able to make amendments to an IEP
without reconvening the entire IEP team, although it would not prohibit such
a meeting from taking place.
(d) LEAs will have the option of offering mediation at any point.
(e) States will be required to offer binding arbitration, although this
will be optional for LEAs and parents.
(f) No mediation counseling will be provided; this provision of current
law is being removed.
(g) The Secretary will be required to develop model forms for IEPs,
procedural safeguards and prior written notice.
(h) Schools can offer, but are not required to offer, voluntary 3-year
IEPs. There would still be an annual review. Every year parents would have
the option whether to continue with the 3-year IEP or not.
(i) Short term objectives will be eliminated. The feeling is that this
is addressed under NCLB and its reporting requirements. NCLB spells out
what the report card needs to include.
(j) Not everyone will need to be at the entire meeting.
6. Restructuring Part D
(a) SIG grants will be restructured to focus 100 percent on professional
development for teachers (both general and special ed) and principals.
Grants will still be competitive but applications will be simplified (tell
us what the problem is; tell us how you will fix it; tell us how you will
measure it; describe a list (not an exhaustive one) of activities that you
will undertake.) Further, the evaluation of applications will be changed to
make it easier for applications to be accepted. There will be sufficient
funds for all states to get SIGs.
(b) Research will be separated out and consolidated in the new Institute
of Education Sciences, the research arm of the Department of Education,
where it will remain as a discrete entity. That entity will be required to
publish an annual research agenda.
(c) Other Part D activities will be consolidated into one discrete
authority. The Department will have to publish its plan. The idea is to
scale up research into practice.
(d) Personnel prep is unchanged for the most part, except that they have
consolidated projects of national significance with high incidence projects.
They are maintaining low incidence as a separate entity. They are moving
away from the requirement that every three years you need to come up with a
(e) Parent training centers - They are reconsolidating parent community
resource centers with PTIs. The PTIs need to serve all parents. There is
no need to have duplicate systems. This remains under IDEA. There are
improved accountability and reporting requirements.
(f) OSEP will still be able to set up the variety of national centers
that it currently funds.
7. Easing Part C transition to 619 Programs
(a) States can set up a definition of developmental delay for 3-5 year
olds. Children will still be eligible for services at age 3 under
8. Part C in general
Not really changed. Part C will not be an entitlement. It will not be
linked to Part B. They added language that has been added to the child
abuse bill currently moving through Congress (the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) that requires child welfare agencies to seek referrals
for screening for young children where there is a substantiated abuse or
9. Pre-referral services/Identification of children for services
LEAs will be allowed to use up to 15% of their funds for pre-referral. This
is linked to Reading First and Early Reading First programs under NCLB.
(This is not at the state level - only at the LEA level.) This is intended
to help address the over-identification of minority students, especially
African-American males who are identified as ED or MMR. They suggest a
focus on K-3, but these funds can also be used at other grade levels. LEAs
will have to report to SEAs and SEAs to the Department on the use of these
funds. This is separate and apart from the 20% MOE relief that LEAs
currently have. This will not be changed. LEAs that have a large
percentage (not defined) of minority and LEP kids in special ed would be
required to spend this 15%. (The trigger would be the state-set trigger.)
10. Conflict resolution
If parents file a clear complaint of their concerns, the school will have up
to 15 days to convene the IEP Team to address these concerns and up to a
total of 30 days (including that first 15 days) to fix the problem before
the parent can file for due process. These 30 days count toward the 45 days
spelled out in current law for LEAs to resolve due process hearing requests.
These are calendar days, not school days. Also, there is a one-year statute
of limitations on due process requests.
11. LD Discrepancy Model
They are still working on language, but intend to do away with this
requirement. They argue that the original language was a compromise that
was not based on research. They do not want to require states to abandon
this model, but recommend replacing it with the "response to intervention
model." Language will probably be added to Section 614 for this purpose.
More information about the INT-PER