Attendance:

Helen Post, Ken Hennefer, Emily Johnson, Richard Mecham, Mae Taylor-Sweeten, Steve Hirase, Jerry Christensen

Welcome & Business:

Jerry gave a brief history of the IEP task force and explained why the other task forces were developed in response to the reauthorization of IDEA '97. Mae explained the purpose of the task forces and gave direction for the procedural safeguards sub-committee. The following items were distributed to committee members:

Agenda, Photocopy of P. L. 105-17 (600 series), Proposed model for task forces, Utah Agenda, Copies of the September issue of the Utah Special Educator, Request for a Due Process Hearing under IDEA-B (draft USOE form).

Committee members were strongly urged to participate in the electronic discussion group. This will be a means of eliciting needed input from other stakeholders from across the state. The subscription method is as follows: Send a blank email message to PSAFLIST@KSAR.USU.EDU. In the subject line type "Subscribe" and again the message area is blank. Emily will bring a digest of the discussion to future meetings.

Steve and Helen will report to the Planning Committee on our task force's progress.

Schedule of Meetings:

October 22, 1997

2 - 4 p.m.

Utah State Office of Education, rm. #237

250 E 500 S

Salt Lake City, Ut

November 24, 1997

2 - 5 p.m.

Utah Learning Resource Center, rm. #220

2290 E 4500 S

Salt Lake City, Ut

December 15, 1997

2 - 5 p.m.

Utah Learning Resource Center, rm. #220

2290 E 4500 S

Salt Lake City, Ut

January 20, 1998

1 - 4 p.m.

Utah Learning Resource Center, rm. #220

2290 E 4500 S

Salt Lake City, Ut

Discussion:

Jerry read Section 615. Procedural Safeguards to the group to begin the discussion. It was decided that the purpose of this section is as follows:

To establish and maintain procedures to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education.

The group discussed Sec 615 (b) which deals with surrogate parents. They felt surrogate parents should have knowledge of the law, IEP process and be familiar with the needs of the child. It was also noted that the surrogate parent "shall not be an employee of the State educational agency, the local educational agency, or any other agency that is involved in the education or care of the child." It was suggested that the Utah Parent Center could train some of these parents. Steve and Dick said their districts ask for volunteers to fill these jobs and use feedback from their teachers as to parent effectiveness.

In Sec 615 (b)(3) the group decided we need to get a clear definition of "prior notice". Steve explained that "prior notice" does not mean that notice is sent prior to the making of a decision. Rather, it refers to notice sent prior to the implementation of that decision, and will thus necessarily be sent, or given, after the decision. In cases where the parent participates in the making of the decision, notice is still required. Prior notice should be viewed as a mechanism for documenting the parent's opportunity to use procedural safeguards.

In Sec 615 (b)(6) there was a question as to the definition of the word "complaint", specifically, whether this refers to any and all written complaints or only to a request for due process. The group decided that this should be submitted to OSEP for interpretation.

Sec 615 (b)(7) and (8) are new to the law. The section requires a "notice" be sent to the district by the parent or their attorney when certain actions are requested. Mae has developed a draft form (Request for a Due Process Hearing Under IDEA-B) which she shared with the group. The group made two suggested changes : change "propose or refuse to change" to "propose or refuse to initiate or change", and change "the provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)" to "delivery of services" to make it more parent understandable.

 In discussing Sec. 615(c)(4), the group agreed that the term "description", in "description of each evaluation procedure, test, record or report" needs to be clarified. Current practice in the state of Utah ranges from a listing of evaluation areas or specific assessments to descriptive text which explains, for example, what a "cognitive" assessment purports to measure. Clarification of this term will help ensure that this information is presented consistently across the state, in a way that will be meaningful to parents.

In Secs. 615(c)(3,5), a question arose regarding the notice components, "options considered" and "other factors". It is unclear whether these items must be explicitly addressed in the notice in cases in which there are no options to consider and no other factors involved (e.g., notice of a three-year reevaluation). After some discussion, the group agreed to submit this question for OSEP's consideration. The group also discussed whether it is appropriate for the state to mandate what is printed on districts' prior notice forms. The consensus was that districts are responsible for ensuring that all required information is included in the notice, but that the form and format should be determined by each district according to its own needs.

The committee planned an agenda for the next meeting. We will all study Sec. 615 and write down questions or needed clarifications. It is our goal to finish sections d through h during our next meeting. Jerry will mail handouts to those not in attendance and make copies of the draft federal regulations when they are available.

Questions for OSEP:

1. Does the term "complaint" in Sec 615 (b)(6) refer to any and all written complaints or only to a request for due process?

2. Do sections 615 (c)(3, 5) require explicit written statements when there are no other options to be considered or no other factors involved? An example might be a student due for a 3-year evaluation.

Back