Minutes of the Procedural Safeguards Task Force
Approved 11-24-97
Third Meeting
Monday, November 24, 1997
2 - 5 p.m.
Utah Learning Resource Center
Salt Lake City, UT
Business
Attendance
Those attending the meeting were as follows:
Helen Post
Dick Mecham
Emily Johnson
Steve Hirase
Dixie Huefner
Jerry Christensen
Ken Henefer
New reference materials, other handouts
The following materials were distributed:
* Two edited versions of sections 300.500-300.517; see discussion, below;
* Draft "Educational Rights of Parents", from the Colorado Department of Education;
* October 1997 Addendum to "Educational Rights of Parents", under 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
* copy of an email outlining some questions and concerns regarding the use of the word "complaint" in the draft federal regulations, from Michael J. Opuda, a graduate student in special education at Virginia Tech.
Approval of minutes from 10-22-97 meeting
The minutes of the 10-22-97 meeting were approved with two small revisions in the paragraph on the term, "complaint", under Discussion Items.
Report on Planning Committee meeting (Helen and Steve)
Helen and Steve reported that the Planning Committee has made the following recommendations:
* The draft Utah rules should, to the greatest extent possible, use the wording of the draft federal regulations. The task forces should recommend edits only where necessary for clarity or to describe Utah requirements which go beyond the federal requirements.
* The notes which appear at the ends of some sections of the draft federal regulations should be included in the body of the rules.
* Drafts of the Utah rules and User's Manual for all items currently in effect under IDEA 1997 should be completed by the task forces as soon as possible. This applies to all procedural safeguards sections.
Recap of electronic discussion group activity
There has been no activity on the electronic discussion group since this task force last met. We discussed the importance of utilizing this discussion medium so that our meeting time may be more productive. It was mentioned that the electronic discussion group has the potential to attract input from people who are not task force members. It can also generate positive national attention for the Utah implementation process for IDEA 1997, provided we get some discussion going.
Reports from absent members, if any
No reports given.
Discussion Items
* Suggested edits to draft federal regulations for Utah rules (Steve and Emily)
Steve and Emily met on 11-17-97 and developed a set of proposed edits to the draft federal regulations. Steve prepared a handout for us which included those edits and also incorporated the notes sections into the regulations sections to which they pertain. He brought his laptop computer and lcd projector to our meeting so that changes suggested by the task force could be made on the spot. The discussion on the draft is summarized by topic, below.
Inclusion of notes - Dixie stated her understanding that notes (referring to the notes appended to sections of the draft federal regulations) have historically not carried the same legal weight as the regulations themselves, and she therefore questioned the wholesale inclusion of those notes in the Utah rules document. The task force agreed to examine each note carefully in order to determine, (1) whether it extends or merely clarifies the associated regulation, and (2) the implications of elevating the note to rule status. Based on this consideration, the task force will make an individual recommendation regarding each note. In addition, we will request clarification from the Planning Committee and OSEP on the extent to which notes are intended to be legally binding (see also Questions, below).
300.500(b)(1)(i), 300.500(c)(5), Native language/ communication mode - In section 300.503(c)(ii), the draft federal regulations state that prior written notice must be "provided in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so." Emily had recommended that the clause, "unless it is clearly not feasible to do so", be added in other sections where native language/ communication mode is addressed, specifically, in 300.500(b)(1)(i), which relates to consent for evaluation, and 300.501(c)(5), which relates to consent for placement. Dixie pointed out that this language may have been intentionally omitted from these two sections, because of the importance of informed consent in these situations. She stated that inclusion of the "unless" clause would have the effect of making the rules more district-friendly and less parent-friendly. Emily suggested that inclusion of the language would have the effect of referring cases in which there is a dispute to a hearing officer, and that it may not be possible to write rules to address the feasibility of translation/ interpretation for every possible scenario. However, Helen pointed out that those parents most likely to need translation/ interpretation are also those least likely to seek redress through a due process hearing. After lengthy discussion, the task force decided to seek clarification from the Planning Committee and OSEP on this matter (see Questions, below).
300.502(b), Independent Educational Evaluations - Steve and Emily had recommended removing the language, "unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing under Sec. 300.507 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria", from this paragraph, since it does not appear to belong in the sentence, which begins, "If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation". After much discussion, the task force concluded that the regulations, as written, do not adequately address all possible combinations of the following circumstances:
- the timing of the request, i.e., whether the parent asks before or after the IEE has actually been done;
- the appropriateness of the IEE, i.e., whether it meets agency criteria;
- who (district or parents) makes the actual arrangements for the IEE.
To those of us who are binarilly inclined, it is clear that there are eight possible combinations; for each of these, the issues which must be addressed are, at a minimum, (1) whether the district is responsible for paying for the IEE, and (2) whether the district must consider the results of the IEE.
In addition, several questions involving timelines arose, as follows:
- how long, after the district has completed its in-house evaluation, does the parent have to request an IEE?
- how does a parent's request for an IEE affect the timelines with which the district is required to comply?
The task force drafted some changes to the language of the regulations, but we decided to seek clarification from the Planning Committee and OSEP on the intent of this section as well. Steve agreed to discuss our questions with Mae Taylor, so that she can present them to OSEP and, we hope, obtain a quick response.
Other - Helen shared information she has on the IDEA 97 Training Package, available from NICHCY (the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities) or the FRC (Federal Resource Center). The addresses are as follows:
NICHCY
P. O. Box 1492
Washington, DC 20013
1-800-695-0285 (V/TTY)
202-884-8441 (fax)
email: nichcy@aed.org
FRC
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-884-8215
email: frc@aed.org
We don't know at this time how much the package will cost. Helen has a copy of it and is willing to present it to our task force.
Helen also distributed the draft "Educational Rights for Parents", from the Colorado Department of Education, and asked that task force members review this document and suggest edits for a Utah version. She is anxious to have a handout she can share with parents.
* Sample user's manual section (Steve and Emily)
We didn't get to this item.
* Items to be submitted to Planning Committee
- Recommendations
- Glossary items We will continue to generate recommendations and glossary items during the next meeting. Since the task force will meet again before the next Planning Committee meeting, no formal recommendations were made at today's meeting. See also Questions, below.
- Questions
* Are notes (referring to the notes appended to certain sections of the draft federal regulations) to considered as legally binding as the regulations to which they pertain?
* Is the limitation "unless it is clearly not feasible to do so" applicable to a district's provision of translation/ interpretation for parents whose native language/ communication mode is other than English for sections 300.500(b)(1)(i), which relates to consent for evaluation, and 300.501(c)(5), which relates to consent for placement?
* What are the parents' and the district's rights and responsibilities, respectively, when the parent requests an independent educational evaluation? How does a request for an IEE affect the timelines to which a district is subject? How soon after the completion of a district's in-house evaluation must the parent request an IEE? (See Discussion items, above.)
Conclusion
Agenda for next meeting, 12-4-97
The task force elected to schedule an additional meeting, in the interest of expediting the development of the draft rules and User's Manual. The next meeting will be Thursday, 12-4-97, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Murray District Offices.
Set meeting time for February
This item was not addressed, and should be taken up on 12-4-97.
Member assignments for next meeting
Members agreed to do the following before the 12-4-97 meeting:
* Read the rest of the draft rules prepared by Steve and be prepared to comment;
* Make an effort to participate in the electronic discussion group before the next meeting;
* Review the draft "Educational Rights of Parents", from the Colorado Department of Education.