1. Section 300.125(c)—Construction—This is a test for non-categorical states to make sure they are serving all kids with disabilities. Utah needs to consider the non-categorical vs categorical issue. At this point as long as we are a categorical state, Utah Rules don’t need to address this Section.
2. Some notes should be built into the final regulations i.e., 300.125 Notes 1-4 should be included in the Utah Rules and final regulations. Some notes are regulatory and some are just explanation.
3. Flexibility in allowing teams to make decisions is an important consideration in all aspects of the final regulations and the Utah Rules.
4. IEP and Placement Task Forces are asked to review Section 300.125 Note 2 as it pertains to their committees. This note might better be placed in the IEP or Placement sections of the regulations. This note describes the basic tenant of special education.

1. Mae says parent refusal can happen without a due process hearing occurring. Current state law doesn't prohibit districts from filing a due process hearing request against parents. Does the state law need to change?
2. Section 300.505 Note 3---This section is talking about using due process or state law to override parents’ refusal of consent but it only applies to re-evaluations.
3. Is our parent refusal practice illegal? Maybe
4. Keep mediation and due process as separate processes because of attorney fees????
5. Tom Van Gorder suggested that maybe we should strengthen our child neglect law in Utah.
6. Tom Burchett felt that a change must be made to Note 3
7. The issue in Note 3 is not directly address in the statute.
8. We should check on the mechanisms other states are using --See Note 1
9. Terms need to be used accurately and consistently. Every terms must have one definition. Example need to be included.
10. We need to develop a definition of the term "parent"--Pull together a small group to do so. Patricia Bradley shared that Human Services is working on this issue. Please refer to Section 300.19.
11. Each task force should develop definitions but we need to make sure in the end that we have consistency across task forces.
12. Ted Kelly says that we should reference existing state law with regard to residency.

1. The group agreed after mild discussion that term "school" day be used throughout the final regulations and Utah Rules rather than "business" day. Please refer to Section 300.8.
2. A hot and heavy discussion regarding the "Cumulative or Not Cumulative Issue" ensued. Some people supported the idea of having flexibility on having more than 10 days, others like Julie Landeen reminded us that research does not support using suspension as an intervention. Steve Kukic told us that Senator Hatch would get behind us with whatever position we recommend. (What power!) In the end we decided to take a hard line and say "Ten Days Cumulative in a School Year". Thus, we will recommend that the second sentence in Note #1 of 300.520 be deleted.
3. Page 89 in our current SBE/SER needs to be fixed--don't use the word "suspension". The term "Suspension" must be used consistently. This is one of our biggest problems. If a district continues to provide services it is not a suspension.
4. One example discussed among the group for clarification purpose--If a student is suspended for 5 days for using alcohol and then later brings a gun to school--the student is out for 45 days.
5. Stevie the K suggested that Sections 523 and 524 be deleted. Again, after much discussion, the group agreed. Ann Miller wisely advised us that a manifestation determination should be a part of the functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plan. The premise here is that all behavior is related to disability.

1. Native language definition needs to be used consistently. The group agreed that the text "unless it is clearly not feasible to do so" should be added in all sections referencing parents’ or student’s native language i.e., Section 300.500(b)(1)(i), and 300.501(b)(5).
2. Incorporate Note 1 of 300.502 into the body.
3. Incorporate the Note of 300.500 into the body.
4. Incorporate Note as #3.c. of 300.505. Because the E&E Task Force suggesting taking this note out--Both Task Forces must reconsider this issue.
5. In Section 303.506--See wording change, Could almost reverse the phrase agree to mediator or random selection ????
6. Delete Section 300.506(d) (Meeting to encourage mediation) completely because there is no way to enforce this. We might be able to put it in the User's Manual.
7. Mediation can not be used to delay or deny due process.
8. Section 300.513--The Task Force recommended that hearing officers should be able to award attorney fees. Mae said that currently we just negotiate the attorney fees and this has worked well. She feels that if hearing officers awarded attorney fees, it could cause appeals to the actual decision. No actual decision was reached regarding this issue.

1. The Planning Committee overwhelmingly agreed that in regard to Section 300.342(d)(1)—When IEPs must be in effect-- should be changed to read "All IEPs written after July 1, 1998 must meet the requirements of 300.341-300.351."
2. In Section 300.346(a)(2)(v) Consideration of special factors—Consider whether the child requires assitive technology devices and services, --The group agreed that the phrase "for educational purposes" should be added to this sentence in the Utah Rules
3. In Section 300.347—In the Utah Rules, whether signatures are required or just a list of participants included on the IEP will be re-considered by the IEP Task Force.

There were no representatives from the Placement Task Force present at the meeting. However, please refer to the provided written report .

1. In regard to Section 301.21(b) and 300.31 (Note)--The Task Force recommends that data on children participating in the free or reduced-price meals program under the National School Lunch Act be used to distribute preschool money to the states. Consider the political ramifications for states that are loosing population vs. Utah. The draft regulations are word for word from the statute.
2. Good catch by the Funding Task Force. This is the same fight Title I has always been in because the feds can change how money is distributed.

Dave Adamson—Evaluation & Eligibilty

Margaret Lubke--Discipline, Monitoring

Steve Hirase--Procedural Safeguards

Ronda Menlove--IEP

Tim McConnell--Placement

Bruce Schroeder--Funding, State Improvement Grant & CSPD

Randy Schleble--IEP, State Assessment and Performance Indicators

Brenda Broadbent and or Patricia Bradley Interagency Agreements

Back