-
Child
With a Disability- Letter dated January 7, 2002
to individual, clarifying that (1) a
State must make clear to the Office of Special Education
Programs that it has the authority to enforce the requirements
of IDEA under State law and (2) a State may adopt a definition
of ``adverse effect'' provided that the State definition is
not implemented in a manner that excludes otherwise eligible
children.
-
Letter
dated January 30, 2002 to Florida Department of Education Bureau of Instructional Support and Community
Services Chief Shan Goff, clarifying that
each State must ensure that any child with a disability who
needs speech-language pathology services to benefit from
special education receives those services, even if the child
does not meet the State's criteria to receive speech-language
pathology services as a special education service.
-
Responsibilities
of the Office of Special Education
Programs Letter dated January 18, 2002 to U.S. Congresswoman
Patsy Mink clarifying that the U.S. Department of
Education is not responsible for monitoring court-ordered
decrees and explaining the discretionary grant awards process.
-
Letter
dated January 18, 2002 to individual, (personally
identifiable information redacted), regarding (1) a State's
obligation to develop policies and procedures to resolve
signed written complaints filed by individual parents of
children with disabilities, other individuals, and
organizations and (2) OSEP's obligation to monitor each
State's compliance with the complaint resolution requirements
in the final regulations implementing the IDEA through its
continuous improvement monitoring process.
-
Free
Appropriate Public Education- Letter dated February 12, 2002
to individual, clarifying that decisions regarding
the provision of services that are appropriate for an
individual child must be based on the child's unique needs and
not on the disability category in which the child is
classified.
-
Charter
Schools- Letter dated February 12, 2002 to Connecticut
Department of Education Associate Commissioner George Coleman,
regarding the categories of charter schools, the
eligibility of charter schools for Federal funds, and the
responsibilities of charter schools under Part B of IDEA.
-
Prior
Written Notice- Letter dated March 6, 2002 to Texas Education
Agency Division of Special Education Senior Director Eugene
Lenz, regarding the circumstances under which a
parent or a school district is required to provide prior
notice and clarifying that no notice provisions other than
those expressly contained in the IDEA can be applied to limit
the statutory right to a due process hearing.
-
Program
Information-Topic Addressed: Disproportionality
Letter dated January 14, 2002 to individual,
(personally
identifiable information redacted), regarding the ways in
which OSEP and the Office for Civil Rights address the
disproportionate representation of students from some racial
and ethnic.
-
Amendment
of Regulations- Letter dated February 13, 2002 to U.S.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert, regarding the
Department of Education's decision to delay the issuance of
any new regulations for the Part C program until after the
IDEA is reauthorized and to withdraw the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 5,
2000.
-
Early
Intervention Services- Letter dated February 12, 2002 to Kelly
C. Wilson, Esq., clarifying (1) that the
individualized family service plan (IFSP) may include a
particular methodology or instructional approach that
isconsidered by the IFSP team to be integral to the design of
an individualized program of services to meet the unique needs
of the individual child and (2) that the State is required to
provide all services identified in the IFSP and to ensure that
those services are implemented according to the IFSP.
-
Letter
dated February 22, 2002 to President Lee Grossman and
Executive Director Rob Beck of the Autism Society of America,
clarifying that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act, as currently written, does not allow educational agencies
and institutions to disclose information from student
education records to the Centers for Disease Control without
prior written consent of the parent.
-
February
2002, Letter of Clarification from the USDOE - Whether
IFSP team is "allowed to determine that an individual
child needs a specific therapy or specific methodology, e.g.,
("NDT") ("ABA") or cued speech, in order
for the child to benefit from early intervention services.
-
Confidentiality
of Education Records- Letter dated December 4, 2001 to U.S.
Congressman Roscoe E. Bartlett from Family Policy Compliance
Office Director LeRoy Rooker, regarding the
circumstances under which an educational agency can permit the
disclosure of education records without prior written parental
consent.
-
November
26, 2001 to Attorney Paul Veazey, Esq response regarding
whether the public school board has the unilateral discretion
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
to choose the educational placement of a
child with a disability as an administrative matter to the
exclusion of any input from that child's parents.
-
Children
In Private Schools- Letter dated October 4, 2001 to
individual, clarifying that there is no inconsistency between
the statute and the regulations implementing IDEA regarding
the extent of rights available to parentally-placed private
school children with disabilities and their parents.
-
Letter
dated November 6, 2001 to Ohio Department of Education Interim Director of the Office for Exceptional
Children Ed Kapel, regarding a State's obligation
to resolve complaints in accordance with the complaint
requirements in Part B within the required timeline.
-
Assessments-
Letter dated October 10, 2001 to U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon,
regarding the Federal requirements for including children
with disabilities in assessments and the implementation of the
IDEA provisions related to alternate assessments.
-
Evaluations
and Reevaluations- Letter dated November 5, 2001 to New
Jersey Department of Education Commissioner Vito A. Gagliardi,
Sr., regarding the IDEA Part B requirement that
parental consent must be obtained before the initial
evaluation, the reevaluation, and the provision of special
education and related services and the fact that Part B does
not permit public agencies to override a parent's refusal of
consent for initial services or to initiate a due process
hearing if a parent refuses consent to the
initial provision of special education and related services.
Topic Addressed: Educational Placements.
-
September
2001, Letter of Clarification from the USDOE -
(1) May the public agency establish an override provision
that permits the public agency to presume consent when a
parent has been properly notified & withholds initial
consent? (2) May the public agency initiate informal (e.g.,
mediation) or formal (due process) measures when a parent
refuses consent to initial services?
-
Parental Consent:
Sept. 2001
-
Qualifications for an IEE:
Sept. 2001
-
Role of the IEP Team in Selecting Assessment Accommodations:
Sept. 01
-
Independent
Educational Evaluations Letter dated September 10, 2001 to
Wisconsin Director of Special Education Dr. Stephanie J.
Petska, regarding the qualifications that school
districts may require of individuals who conduct independent
educational evaluations.
-
July,
2001, Letter of Clarification from the USDOE - The
purpose of this letter is to seek clarification and further
information on these issues in order to ensure a complete and
accurate understanding of Arizona's final Title I assessment
system.
-
Natural Environments:
Aug 2001
-
Obligations of Public Agencies in Identifying ADHD, and Parent's Right to Access Educational Records:
March 2001
-
July 5, 2001
to
Seattle Children's Home President R. David Cousineau and
Manager David L. Halbett; SECTION OF IDEA: Part B -
Assistance for Education of All Children With Disabilities;
Section 612 - State
Eligibility: clarification of the child-find, educational and
financial responsibilities under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for
children with disabilities who are Washington residents and
placed in the Seattle Children's Home School, a private
in-patient/residential psychiatric treatment program. You
specifically asked if these responsibilities vary based on (1)
whether the placement was made by an agency, a court or the
child's parent and (2) the fact that the State is the guardian
of a child.
-
November
2001 - Letter of Clarification
- Clarification Letter from the USDOE regarding whether a
public school board has the unilateral discretion under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to choose
the educational placement of a child with a disability as an
administrative matter to the exclusion of any input from that
child’s parents.
-
March
2001 - Letter of Clarification from the USDOE
- Requirements
of Section 504 and the IDEA to students with disabilities
participating in the State's program of Scholarships to Public
or Private Schools of Choice for Students with Disabilities.
-
July,
2001 Letter from the USDOE to Honorable Hillary Clinton
regarding attendees at IEP meetings, specifically attorneys.
-
July,
2001, Letter from the USDOE to Fresno Unified School District
regarding news media attending IEP meetings
-
Compensatory Education:
Sept. 2000
-
August
2000 - Letter of Clarification from USDOE -
Student’s receipt of a regular high school diploma (a
terminating event under the IDEA to the right to FAPE), did
not negate the student’s independent right to compensatory
education services because ISB determined that. the school
district denied FAPE to the student.
-
Prohibited
Disability Harassment -- Reminder of Responsibilities under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act: July, 2000 Dear Colleague
letter from OCR
-
Obligations of Public Agencies in Serving Children with Disabilities Placed by Their Parents at Private Schools:
May 2000
-
Extended School Year
-
Failing to Provide Qualified Interpreters:
Oct. 1997
-
Comparison
of the IDEA References in an OSEP Policy Guidance Letter Dated
in 1993 with the IDEA '97 Implementing Regulations
"Citing to 20 U.S.C. S 1407(f), plaintiffs argue that
the 1997 IDEA amendments make clear that OSEP's policy
statements are not entitled to the force of law. Presumably,
plaintiffs intended to cite to S 1406(f), which states that
where the Secretary responds to an inquiry regarding a policy,
question, or interpretation under Part B of the IDEA, that
response "shall include an explanation that the written
response--
(1) is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding;
and
(2) represents an interpretation by the Department of Education
of the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the
context of the specific facts presented."
"Assuming that Policy Memorandum 96-5 is the type of
response referred to by this provision, section 1406(f) merely
imposes a requirement that the DOE response put readers on
notice that it is not legally binding. This requirement, which
was not effective when OSEP published Policy Memorandum 96-5,
does not prevent us from considering DOE policy statements to be
persuasive and therefore worthy of deference."
and
"This court has held that the
level of deference to be accorded such interpretive rules
depends upon their persuasiveness. "Admittedly, [they]
do not rise to the level of a regulation and do not have the
effect of law. A court is not required to give effect to an
administrative interpretation. . .. Instead, the level of
deference given to an interpretive bulletin is governed by the
bulletin's persuasiveness." Brooks v. Village of Ridgefield
Park, 185 F.3d 130, 135 (3d Cir. 1999)"
