Module 10 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation 10 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation. Module 10 10-2 Visit NICHCY at: ... The final Part B regulations are codified in Title 34 of the

Building the Legacy: Training Curriculum on IDEA

Written by:Lisa Küpper & Theresa Rebhorn

National Dissemination Center for Childrenwith Disabilities (NICHCY)PO Box 1492, Washington, DC 200131.800.695.0285 (V/TTY) • [email protected] • www.nichcy.org

Module 10

Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation

Module 10 10-2 Visit NICHCY at: www.nichcy.org

NICHCY is here for you.

This training curriculum is designed and produced byNICHCY, the National Dissemination Center for Childrenwith Disabilities, at the request of our funder, the Office ofSpecial Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Departmentof Education.

We have a tremendous amount of information available onour Web site, in our library, and in the combined expertiseof our staff. Please feel free to contact NICHCY for the latestinformation and connections in research and disabilities.We’d also love for you to visit our Web site and help your-self to all that’s there.

1.800.695.0285 (V/TTY)www.nichcy.org

March 2007National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities

Copyright free. You’re welcome to share this module far and wide. Please do givecredit to its producer, the National Dissemination Center for Children withDisabilities.

Suggested citation:

Küpper, L., & Rebhorn, T. (2007, March). Initial evaluation and reevaluation(Module 10). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004 training curriculum. Washington,DC: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Availableonline at: www.nichcy.org/training/contents.asp

Visit NICHCY at: www.nichcy.org 10-3 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation

Background and Discussion

How This Discussion Section is Organized

As with the other modules in this curriculum, this discussionsection is organized by overhead. A thumbnail picture of eachoverhead is presented, along with brief instructions as to howthe slide operates. This is followed by a discussion intended toprovide trainers with background information about what’s onthe slide. Any or all of this information might be appropriate toshare with an audience, but that decision is left up to trainers.

Evaluation is an essential partof the special education processfor children with disabilities.Children are initially evaluated tosee whether or not they have adisability and whether, becauseof that disability, they needspecial education and relatedservices designed to address theirunique needs. Informationgathered during the evaluationhelps to identify the child’seducational needs and guidesdecision making about the kindof educational program appro-priate for the child.

For children who are receivingspecial education and relatedservices, evaluation also isnecessary to monitor how wellthey are achieving the annualgoals developed for them intheir individualized educationprograms (IEP). The IDEA isspecific about its requirementsfor evaluating children. Thisbackground section focuses onthe requirements that IDEAestablishes for the process ofevaluation: parent consent,review of existing evaluationdata, and how the law defines“child with a disability.” Thelatter is central to special educa-tion and is a critical element forall audiences to know.

There are three modules underthe umbrella topic of EvaluatingChildren for Disability, asfollows:

• Introduction to Evaluationpresents IDEA 2004’s require-ments to ensure that evalua-tions of children are techni-cally sound, nondiscrimina-tory, and effective in gatheringthe information needed todetermine if the child has adisability and the nature and

extent of the special educationand related services that thechild needs;

• Initial Evaluation/Reevaluationexamines IDEA’s definition of“child with a disability” andthe evaluation process thatIDEA requires to determine ifa child is a “child with adisability.” Also examined inthis module are: parent con-sent, review of existing evalua-tion data, and requirementsfor gathering additional data,if needed.

• Identification of Children withSpecific Learning Disabilitiesfocuses exclusively on IDEA’sprocess for determining if achild has a learning disability,including that States mustpermit scientific research-based response to interven-tion (RtI) practices to be usedin evaluation.

All of these modules areintended for general audiences.The background materials (whatyou’re reading right now) andResources for Trainers includesubstantial additional informa-tion that trainers can use toadapt training sessions to spe-

cific audience needs and theamount of time available fortraining.

You are currently reading thebackground section and discus-sion for Initial Evaluation andReevaluation, the second modulein the Evaluating Children forDisability series.

References for This Module

Assistance to States for theEducation of Children withDisabilities and Preschool Grantsfor Children with Disabilities,Proposed Rule, 70 Fed. Reg.35782) (June 21, 2005)

S. Rep. No. 105-17. (1997).(ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 419 315, availableonline at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/70/95.pdf)

S. Rep. No. 108-185. (2003).Available online at:www.nichcy.org/reauth/SenateReportonIDEA.pdf

You’ll note the “New in IDEA” icon thatperiodically appears in these pages as an easy toolfor identifying new aspects of the regulations.

New inIDEA!


Looking for IDEA 2004?

The Statute:• www.nichcy.org/reauth/PL108-446.pdf• http://idea.ed.gov

Final Part B Regulations:• www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf• http://idea.ed.gov

Finding Specific Sections of the Regulations: 34 CFR

As you read the explanations about the final regulations, you willfind references to specific sections, such as §300.173. (The symbol §means “Section.”) These references can be used to locate the precisesections in the federal regulations that address the issue being dis-cussed. In most instances, we’ve also provided the verbatim text of theIDEA regulations so that you don’t have to go looking for them.

The final Part B regulations are codified in Title 34 of the Code ofFederal Regulations. This is more commonly referred to as 34 CFR or 34C.F.R. It’s not unusual to see references to specific sections of IDEA’sregulations include this—such as 34 CFR §300.173. We have omittedthe 34 CFR in this training curriculum for ease of reading.

Citing the Regulations in This Training Curriculum

You’ll be seeing a lot of citations in this module—and all the othermodules, too!—that look like this: 71 Fed. Reg. at 46738

This means that whatever is being quoted may be found in the FederalRegister published on August 14, 2006—Volume 71, Number 156, tobe precise. The number at the end of the citation (in our example,46738) refers to the page number on which the quotation appears inthat volume. Where can you find Volume 71 of the Federal Register?NICHCY is pleased to offer it online at:

www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf


How to Operate the Slide:

• No clicks necessary.Slide self-presents.

Slide 1Introductory Slide

Use Slide 1 to orient youraudience to what this trainingwill be about: What IDEArequires with respect to initialevaluations and reevaluations.

One of Three Modules

There are actually threeseparate modules in this trainingcurriculum addressing evalua-tion. It’s a huge topic! In fact,evaluation is treated as Theme Cin Building the Legacy. That’s whyit’s a good idea to make theaudience aware that what they’regoing to learn today is only partof what there is to know aboutevaluation.

Theme C, Among OtherThemes

Just as the module existswithin a series of modulesaddressing evaluation issues,Theme C exists within a curricu-lum of multiple themes. Thosethemes represent critical compo-nents and organizing elementswithin IDEA. You may wish to

CLICK to advance to next slide.

make participants aware thatthere are other themes aroundwhich important IDEA-relatedissues can be (and are!) mean-ingfully grouped. A list ofthemes in this training curricu-lum is provided in the box

below. If participants want tolearn more on their own, they’rewelcome to visit NICHCY’s Website and download any and allmodules they wish.

Themes inBuilding the Legacy

Theme AWelcome to IDEA

Theme BIDEA

and General Education

Theme CEvaluating Children

for Disability

Theme DIndividualized Education

Programs (IEPs)

Theme EProcedural Safeguards

Available online at:www.nichcy.org/training/

contents.asp


Slide 2 Agenda

Slide loads withthis view. Noclicks are necessaryexcept to advancethe slide.


Slide 2 is an advance organizer for the audience as towhat content they’re going to hear and discuss in thismodule.

The slide loads the agenda for the module. Take a quicklook at the session’s agenda that lays out, in broadstrokes, the topics to be covered.

To activate prior knowledge of participants, you mightask for one audience contribution about each item onthe agenda. For example, what’s one “purpose” of evalua-tion? What does the audience already know about parentconsent? How does IDEA define “child with a disability”and why is this so critical?


Slide 3Purposes of Initial Evaluation

Slide loadswith this view,including Bullet 1.

Click 1:Bullet 2 appears.Picture changes.

(continued on next page)

Click 1

View 1


Click 2:Bullet 3 appears.Picture changes.

CLICK AGAIN to advance to next slide.

Click 2

Slide 3: Background and Discussion2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks

Slide 3 highlights threepurposes of initial evaluation.

These purposes are clearlyarticulated—and re-articulated—within IDEA’s regulations.1 Takea moment and have your audi-ence actually look at one ormore of IDEA’s provisionsdescribing these three centralpurposes of evaluation. Usingsometimes similar, sometimesdifferent words, the regulationsmake a point of reiterating thetypes of information that anevaluation is expected to yieldand how that informationcontributes to understanding thechild’s needs, so that an appro-priate educational program canbe designed.

For example, “Procedures forinitial evaluation” [see HandoutC-2, at §300.301(c)(2)] statesthat the initial evaluation:

(2) Must consist ofprocedures—

(i) To determine if thechild is a child with adisability under §300.8;and

1 Assistance to States for the Education of Childrenwith Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Childrenwith Disabilities, Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540(August 14, 2006) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R.pt.300). Available online at:

• www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf

• http://idea.ed.gov


(ii) The content of thechild’s IEP, includinginformation related toenabling the child to beinvolved in and progress inthe general educationcurriculum (or for apreschool child, toparticipate in appropriateactivities)...”

Still another example, this onefrom §300.304(c)(6) and (7) (onpage 3 of Handout C-2). Here,the public agency must ensurethat:

(6) In evaluating eachchild with a disabilityunder §§300.304 through300.306, the evaluation issufficiently comprehensiveto identify all of the child’sspecial education andrelated services needs,whether or not commonly

linked to the disabilitycategory in which the childhas been classified.

(7) Assessment tools andstrategies that providerelevant information thatdirectly assists persons indetermining theeducational needs of thechild are provided.

Clearly, IDEA requires a fulland comprehensive evaluationof children suspected of having adisability. The purpose of thatevaluation goes beyond identify-ing the disability in order todetermine a child’s eligibility forspecial education and relatedservices—although that is cer-tainly one of the purposes ofevaluation.

(ii) To determine theeducational needs of thechild.

Another example: Refer theaudience to page 2 of HandoutC-2. At §300.304(b)(1), IDEAand the final regulations requirethe public agency to use a varietyof assessment tools and strate-gies to gather relevant functional,developmental, and academicinformation about the child,including information providedby the parent. The stated pur-pose is to gather information“that may assist in determin-ing—

(i) Whether the child is achild with a disabilityunder §300.8; and

Note to Trainers

All references for this module are provided onpage 10-3 of the module.


Slide 4Requesting an Initial Evaluation

Slide loadswith this view,includingBullet 1.

Click 1:Bullet 2 appears.

Click 1


View 1

A parent or a publicagency can ask foran initial evaluationof a child.

Public agency mustobtain parentconsent beforeconducting the initialevaluation of thechild.


Slide 4: Background and Discussion1 Click1 Click1 Click1 Click1 Click

Slide 4 addresses the topic of“Requesting an Initial Evalua-tion” and makes clear that eitherthe parent or the public agencymay do so under IDEA 2004’sprovisions and in the regulationsat §300.301(b), as shown onHandout C-2, which states:

(b) Request forinitial evaluation.Consistent withthe consentrequirements in §300.300,either a parent of a child ora public agency mayinitiate a request for aninitial evaluation todetermine if the child is achild with a disability.

This provision is new in IDEA2004, although it does notrepresent a significant change inthe evaluation process. Theintention of this provision is tomake clear that parents, or thepublic agency, may initiate arequest for evaluation. TheSenate Committee Report onS. 1248 (the Senate version ofIDEA) summarizes the intentbehind this addition:

While current IDEA lawalready allows parents torequest evaluations, thecommittee wants to ensurethat parents are aware ofthis right. [S. Rep. No. 108-185 at 24 (2003)]

What if the public agencyrefuses to evaluate the child?

A parent may request that thepublic agency evaluate the childto determine if the child is a“child with a disability.” Thepublic agency may refuse to doso if it “does not suspect thatthe child has a disability” (71Fed. Reg. at 46636). In keepingwith IDEA’s provisions governingsuch a refusal, the public agencymust provide written notice tothe parents [consistent with§300.503(b)], “which explains,among other things, why thepublic agency refuses to conductan initial evaluation and theinformation that was used as thebasis to make that decision. Theparent may challenge such arefusal by requesting a dueprocess hearing” (Id.). Dueprocess hearings are discussed inthe module Options for DisputeResolution.

Prior written notice—what thepublic agency must provideparents to inform them of theagency’s refusal to evaluate thechild—is discussed on the nextslide. Please note that there areadditional circumstances thatalso require the public agency tosend parents prior written notice.These are discussed in greaterdetail in Modules 17-19 underProcedural Safeguards.

Discussing the Slide

Three specific points should behighlighted in going over thisslide:

• Both parents and the publicagency have the right toinitiate a request for initialevaluation of a child.

• This new provision was addedto ensure that parents areaware of their right to initiate arequest for evaluation.

• The provision’s lead-in phrase“Consistent with the consentrequirements in§300.300” is intended tounderscore that a publicagency may only conduct anevaluation of a child subject tothe informed consent require-ments at §300.300. [Assistanceto the States for the Educationof Children with Disabilitiesand Preschool Grants forChildren with Disabilities,Proposed Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. at35782, 35699 (June 21, 2005)]

This latter point—the referenceto the consent provisions ofIDEA—is important to reinforce.Informed written parentalconsent is required before apublic agency may conduct aninitial evaluation of a child. Thispoint also provides trainers withan effective segue into theupcoming slide, where parentnotification and parent consentare discussed as critical elementsin IDEA.

New inIDEA!


Slide 5 Before Any Initial Evaluation

Click 1:Bullet 2 appears:Procedural safeguardsnotice.


Click 1

View 1

Slide loads withthis view. Bullet 1(prior written notice) isalready listed.


Click 2:Bullet 2 appears:Parent consent.


Click 2

Slide 5: Background and Discussion

Slide 5 delves into the threeactions the public agency musttake before conducting any initialevaluation of a child.

These actions are very impor-tant; depending on the time youhave available for training andthe needs of your audience, youmay either state these as solidrequirements of law and moveon, or examine parent notifica-tion (both the prior writtennotice and the procedural safe-guards notice) and parent con-sent in more detail. Be aware thatboth prior written notice and theprocedural safeguards notice arediscussed in full as part of themodule Introduction to ProceduralSafeguards. Some of the back-ground text accompanying thatmodule is reproduced here, for

convenience, but if you intendto take up either of these sub-jects in any detail, you may wantto read that background materialcompletely rather than rely onwhat’s presented here, which hasbeen streamlined to focus onhow either of these two noticesmight look when they are pro-vided regarding initial evalua-tion.

What is Prior Written Notice?

Prior Written Notice refers to thepublic agency’s obligation toinform parents a reasonable timebefore it proposes to takespecific actions, or refuses totake specific actions—in thiscase, initiate an initial evaluationof the child.

According to the regulations at§300.503(a) (provided in thistraining package in the moduleIntroduction to Procedural Safe-guards, as Handout E-2), thepublic agency must provideparents with prior written noticewhenever it:

(1) Proposes to initiate orchange the identification,evaluation, or educationalplacement of the child orthe provision of FAPE tothe child; or

(2) Refuses to initiate orchange the identification,evaluation, or educational

Obtain parent’sinformedwritten consent

2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks2 Clicks


Provisions in IDEA 2004 and the Final Regulations:Content of the Prior Written Notice

(b) Content of notice. Thenotice required under paragraph(a) of this section must in-clude—

(1) A description of the actionproposed or refused by theagency;

(2) An explanation of why theagency proposes or refuses totake the action;

(3) A description of eachevaluation procedure, assess-ment, record, or report theagency used as a basis for theproposed or refused action;

(4) A statement that theparents of a child with a disabil-ity have protection under the

procedural safeguards of thispart and, if this notice is not aninitial referral for evaluation,the means by which a copy of adescription of the proceduralsafeguards can be obtained;

(5) Sources for parents tocontact to obtain assistance inunderstanding the provisionsof this part;

(6) A description of otheroptions that the IEP Teamconsidered and the reasons whythose options were rejected;and

(7) A description of otherfactors that are relevant to theagency’s proposal or refusal.

§300.503(b)

placement of the child orthe provision of FAPE tothe child. [§300.503(a)]

Within the context of thismodule, the prior written noticethat the public agency providesto parents must describe itsproposed action—in this case, toconduct an initial evaluation of achild or its refusal to do so.IDEA requires that this descrip-tion be comprehensive, as can beseen in its provisions detailingthe “content of the prior writtennotice” in the box. It is notsufficient for the agency to tellparents that it would like toevaluate their child or that itrefuses to evaluate their child.The agency must also:

• explain why it wants to con-duct the evaluation (or why itrefuses);

• describe each evaluationprocedure, assessment, record,or report used as a basis forproposing the evaluation (orrefusing to conduct the evalu-ation);

• let parents know that theyhave protection under IDEA’sprocedural safeguards and, ifthis notice is not an initialreferral for evaluation, themeans by which parents canobtain a description of thosesafeguards;

• where parents can go toobtain help in understandingIDEA’s provisions;

• what other options the agencyconsidered and why thosewere rejected; and

• a description of any otherfactors that are relevant to theagency’s proposal (or refusal)to evaluate the child.[§300.503(b)]

The purpose behind thisthorough explanation is toensure that parents are fullyinformed, understand what isbeing proposed (or refused),and understand what an evalua-tion of their child will involve(or why the public agency isrefusing to conduct an evalua-tion of the child).

What is the ProceduralSafeguards Notice?

The Procedural Safeguards Noticerefers to the comprehensivewritten explanation that publicagencies must provide parentson specific occasions to, amongother things, fully inform themof IDEA’s procedural safeguards.“Upon initial referral or parentrequest for evaluation” are twooccasions that trigger the provi-sion of the procedural safe-guards notice [§300.504(a)(1),see Handout E-4 in the moduleIntroduction to Procedural Safe-guards].


Making These NoticesUnderstandable

IDEA requires more of publicagencies than simply providingparents with the two aforemen-tioned notices. Agencies mustalso ensure that parents canunderstand the notices, whichmust involve, as necessary:

• providing notice to parents intheir native language or othermode of communication usedby the parent, unless it isclearly not feasible to do so;and

• writing the notice in languagethat is understandable to thegeneral public.[§300.503(c)(1)]

What if the parents’ language isnot a written one? IDEA 2004and the final regulations includethe following requirements insuch cases:

(2) If the native languageor other mode ofcommunication of theparent is not a writtenlanguage, the public agencymust take steps toensure—

(i) That the notice istranslated orally or byother means to the parentin his or her nativelanguage or other mode ofcommunication;

(ii) That the parentunderstands the content ofthe notice; and

(iii) That there is writtenevidence that the require-ments in paragraphs(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of thissection have been met.[§300.503(c)(2)]

Parental Consent

Consent within IDEA has a veryspecific meaning that rises outof, and is closely tied to, itsprovisions regarding priorwritten notice. Consent, inIDEA, means informed writtenconsent. The comprehensivedescription of a proposed orrefused action, as contained inthe prior written notice, isintended to inform parents fullyabout a specific issue. Only bybuilding that foundation ofunderstanding can informedconsent be given. As the Depart-ment states:

The definition of consent in§300.9 includes therequirement that a parentbe fully informed of allinformation relevant tothe activity for whichconsent is sought. Thedefinition also requiresthat a parent agree inwriting to carrying out theactivity for which theparent’s consent is sought.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46629)

Therefore, as the slide indi-cates, before a public agencymay initiate the evaluation of achild, it must obtain a parent’sinformed written consent forthat evaluation. The followingprovision makes that very clear:

The public agencyproposing to conduct aninitial evaluation todetermine if a childqualifies as a child with adisability under §300.8must, after providingnotice consistent with§§300.503 and 300.504,obtain informed consent,consistent with§300.9, from the parent ofthe child beforeconducting the evaluation.[§300.300(a)(1)(i)]

Reasonable Effortsto Obtain Consent

The final regulationsimplementing IDEA 2004 add aprovision that “[p]ublic agenciesmust make reasonable efforts toobtain informed consent fromthe parent for an initial evalua-tion to determine whether thechild is a child with a disability”[§300.300(a)(1)(iii), see Hand-out C-1]. To illuminate what ismeant by “reasonable efforts,”another new provision has beenadded to the final regulations at§300.300(d)(5) and reads, inpart:

. . .the public agency mustdocument its attempts toobtain parental consentusing the procedures in§300.322(d).

What are the procedures in§300.322(d)? They’re the same asthose required when the publicagency seeks parental consent forinitial evaluation—namely,detailed records of phone callsmade or attempted, any corre-spondence sent to parents andresponses received, and visitsmade to the parent’s home orplace of employment and theresults of those visits.

New inIDEA!


What if the Public AgencyCannot Obtain ParentalConsent?

There are two circumstancesunder which a public agencywould not be able to obtain aparent’s consent for an initialevaluation. For each, IDEAcontains explicit provisions toguide public agencies in execut-ing their duties and ensure thatthe rights of parents regardingconsent are not violated. Thesecircumstances are:

• The parent explicitly refuses toprovide consent.

• The parent fails to respond toa request to provide consent.

Both of these circumstancesare examined on Slide 7. Back-ground discussion of IDEA’sprovisions governing thesesituations is provided with thatupcoming slide. For the mo-ment, on this slide, you mightpose the question—what happensif the public agency cannot obtainparental consent?—but indicatethat the answer lies ahead on aseparate slide. Postpone thediscussion until you reach Slide7.

Notable Exception:Consent for “Wards of theState”

The foregoing discussion ofIDEA’s parent consent provisionshas focused on how they applyto most children andtheir families. ButIDEA makes anexception thatmust be noted hereand shared with your audienceas fits their needs and profes-sional duties. Are any partici-pants involved with, or do they

need to know about, mattersconcerning children who are“wards of the State?” If so, thenyou will want to make sure youshare the following information.

IDEA 2004 creates an exceptionto the parental consent require-ments for initial evaluation whena child is a ward of the State andnot residing with his or herparent. This exception applies if:

• the public agency has madereasonable efforts to obtainthe parent’s consent but isunable to discover the parent’swhereabouts;

• the rights of the parent of thechild have been terminatedunder State law; or

• the rights of the parent tomake educational decisionshave been subrogated by ajudge under State law andconsent for the initial evalua-tion has been given by anindividual appointed by thejudge to represent the child.[§300.300(a)(2)]

Only in these circumstancesmay the public agency “proceedwith the child’s initial evaluationwithout first obtaining therequisite parental consent”(71 Fed. Reg. at 46630).

Therefore, when one ormore of the circumstancesin§300.300(a)(2) is met anda surrogate has not yetbeen appointed, the publicagency need not postponethe child’s evaluation toawait the appointment of asurrogate. This isappropriate because insituations involvingrequests for initialevaluations, in most casesa surrogate parent has notyet been appointed, anddelaying an initialevaluation until after asurrogate is appointed andhas given consent may notbe in the best interests ofthe child. (Id.)

The Department contrasts thissituation (initial evaluation of award of the State) with IDEA’sprovisions regarding reevaluationof a ward of the State, where thisexception to parental consentdoes not apply. “We do not thinkit is appropriate to apply theprovisions in§300.300(a)(2) to reevaluationsituations,” the Departmentstates, because “a surrogateparent should already have beenappointed under §300.519”(Id.).

It’s important to rememberthat the public agency mustmake reasonable efforts toobtain informed consent from aparent for an initial evaluation oftheir child, as discussed earlier.“This requirement applies to allchildren,” the Departmentemphasizes, “including childrenwho are wards of the State” (71Fed. Reg. at 46631).

More is said in the Analysis ofComments and Changes thatmay be pertinent to some par-

New inIDEA!


ticipants, especially State andlocal administrators responsiblefor obtaining parental consentfor initial evaluations. We’veprovided this additional discus-sion in the Resources for Trainerssection of this module, asResource C-1, which may beshared with participants, asappropriate. Most will not needit, but the few who do may findthe analysis informative.


The slide states three essentialactions a public agency musttake before it conducts an initialevaluation of a child. The designof the slide allows you to enlargeupon any or all of these threeactions to fit your audience’sneeds.

What’s new in IDEA 2004 maybe especially important tohighlight if participants arealready well versed in IDEA’sevaluation requirements asthey’ve existed in the past.

—Space for Notes—


Slide 6More on Parent Consent (Slide 1 of 2)

Click 1:The verbatim languageof IDEA appearsbelow the line.

Starting View& Click 1

Slide loads with onlythe picture (“Signhere”) and the words“Consent for initialevaluation, nothingmore.”


Slide 6 states, in IDEA’s explicitterms, that a parent’s consent forthe initial evaluation is strictlylimited to that and that alone—consent for initial evaluation.Nothing more.

The verbatim language of IDEA,which appears below the line inthe slide, can be found at§300.300(a)(1)(ii).



Slide 7More on Parent Consent (Slide 2 of 2)

Slide 7 addresses a topicdeferred from Slide 5—namely,what happens if the publicagency cannot obtain parentconsent.

When the Public AgencyCannot Obtain ParentalConsent

As mentioned in the back-ground discussion for Slide 5,there are two circumstancesunder which a public agencywould not be able to obtain aparent’s consent for an initialevaluation. These circumstancesare:

• The parent explicitly refuses toprovide consent.

• The parent fails to respond toa request to provide consent.

In both cases, the lack ofparental consent triggers a choicefor the public agency, as therelevant regulations in the boxon the next page indicate. Theagency may choose: (a) not topursue the initial evaluation ofthe child, or (b) to pursue thatevaluation, using the mecha-nisms that IDEA’s proceduralsafeguards in Subpart E provide,to the extent that doing sowould not violate the State’s lawregarding parental consent.

If the public agency declines topursue the evaluation—option1—it is not considered to be inviolation of its obligations under§300.111 and §§300.301 through300.311.

View 1


Slide loads fully.No clicks areneeded except toadvance to the nextslide.

This last provision is a newelement in the final regulationsimplementing IDEA 2004. Priorlaw and regulations merely saidthat the public agency maycontinue to pursue the evalua-tion using specific due processprocedures [34 CFR §300.505(b)

(1999)]. The final regula-tions implementingIDEA 2004 not onlyexplicitly state that the

agency is not required topursue the evaluation (under-stood implicitly in prior law andregulations) but also that to notpursue the evaluation will not beconsidered a violation of theagency’s obligation to conductsuch evaluations when appropri-ate or to “locate, identify, andevaluate children suspected ofbeing children with a disability”(71 Fed. Reg. at 46632).

New inIDEA!


2 What is basis of knowledge?

If you’re not sure what “basis of knowledge” is or need a refresher, we would referyou to the module on Discipline Procedures to learn more.

Summarized briefly here, “Basis of Knowledge” is a factor to be determinedwhen a student who has not been determined to be eligible for special educationand related services violates a code of student conduct and becomes subject todisciplinary action.

That student may assert any of IDEA’s protections if the public agency had“knowledge” that the student was a “child with a disability” before the violation ofthe conduct code occurred [§300.534(a)].

As these two provisions of IDEA intersect, a public agency would not be deemed tohave such knowledge—and the student could not assert IDEA’s protections on thebasis that it did have such knowledge—if a public agency chose not to pursue theinitial evaluation of a student when the parent has either refused consent for theevaluation or failed to respond to the agency’s request for consent.

Intersection with IDEA’sDisciplinary Provisions

Some participants in youraudience may immediatelythink, “But what about childrenwho later become subject todisciplinary actions? Wouldn’t thisbe considered ‘basis of knowledge’under IDEA’s disciplinary provi-sions?”2

The answer is: No. IDEA 2004and final regulations explicitlyadd a provision to that effect, at§300.534(c), as follows:

(c) Exception. A publicagency would not bedeemed to haveknowledge underparagraph (b) of thissection if—

(1) The parent of thechild—

(i) Has not allowed anevaluation of the childpursuant to §§300.300through 300.311; or

(ii) Has refused servicesunder this part...[§300.534(c)]

Additional Points

The Department’s discussionin the Analysis of Commentsand Changes includes threeother points worth noting here.Any or all may be shared withyour audience, as appropriate totheir needs and the trainingsituation.

What does “fails to respond”mean? IDEA and the final regula-tions at §300.300(a)(3) refer to aparent who ‘‘fails to respond’’ toa request to provide consent.Asked by a commenter to clarifythe meaning of that term, theDepartment responds:

The meaning of “fails torespond,” in this context,is generally understood tomean that, in spite of apublic agency’s efforts toobtain consent for aninitial evaluation, theparent has not indicatedwhether the parent

(3)(i) If the parent of a child enrolled in public school or seekingto be enrolled in public school does not provide consent for initialevaluation under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or the parentfails to respond to a request to provide consent, the public agencymay, but is not required to, pursue the initial evaluation of thechild by utilizing the procedural safeguards in subpart E of this part(including the mediation procedures under §300.506 or the dueprocess procedures under §§300.507 through 300.516), if appropri-ate, except to the extent inconsistent with State law relating to suchparental consent.

(ii) The public agency does not violate its obligation under§300.111 and §§300.301 through 300.311 if it declines to pursue theevaluation.

Provisions in IDEA 2004 and the Final Regulationsat §300.300(a)(3)


consents or refusesconsent to the evaluation.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46632)

Department’s position on overrid-ing parent lack of consent. IDEA2004 and the final regulationsgive public agencies the right topursue an initial evaluation of achild whose parent has refusedconsent or failed to respond tothe agency’s request for suchconsent, given conditions speci-fied at §300.300(a)(3). But thepublic agency is not required topursue the evaluation. This latterprovision is “[c]onsistent withthe Department’s position thatpublic agencies should use theirconsent override proceduresonly in rare circumstances” andthat “State and local educationalagency authorities are in the bestposition to determine whether,in a particular case, an initial

evaluation should be pursued”(Id.).

Can IDEA’s consent overrideprocedures be applied tochildren who are homeschooled or placed inprivate school by theirparents at their ownexpense? The answer is: No. Thefinal regulations implementingIDEA 2004 clarify that consentoverride procedures apply onlyto situations where a child is“enrolled in public school orseeking to be enrolled in publicschool” [§300.300(a)(3)(i)] andthe parent refuses consent forinitial evaluation or fails torespond to the public agency’srequest for such consent. Whena child is being home schooledor is in a private school at theparents’ expense, “consentoverride should not be permit-

ted,” the Department states (71Fed. Reg. at 46635), and hasadded a new provision to thefinal regulations implementingIDEA 2004 to reflect this. Thatprovision—§300.300(d)(4)— ispresented in the box below andon page 2 of Handout C-1.

The Department provides aninteresting discussion of thisnew provision in its Analysis ofComments and Changes, whichwe provide on the next page.

(4)(i) If a parent of a child who is home schooled or placed in aprivate school by the parents at their own expense does notprovide consent for the initial evaluation or the reevaluation, orthe parent fails to respond to a request to provide consent, thepublic agency may not use the consent override procedures(described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1) of this section); and

(ii) The public agency is not required to consider the child aseligible for services under §§300.132 through 300.144.

Provisions in the Regulations Implementing IDEA 2004 at §300.300(d)(4):When Consent Override for Evaluation Is Not Available

New inIDEA!

New inIDEA!


There are compelling policy reasons why

the Act’s consent override procedures should

be limited to children who are enrolled, or

who are seeking to enroll, in public school.

Because the school district has an ongoing

obligation to educate a public school child it

suspects has a disability, it is reasonable for a

school district to provide the parents with as

much information as possible about their

child’s educational needs in order to encour-

age them to agree to the provision of special

education services to meet those needs, even

though the parent is free, ultimately, to reject

those services. The school district is account-

able for the educational achievement of all of

its children, regardless of whether parents

refuse the provision of educationally appro-

priate services. In addition, children who do

not receive appropriate educational services

may develop behavioral problems that have a

negative impact on the learning environment

for other children.

By contrast, once parents opt out of the

public school system, States and school

districts do not have the same interest in

requiring parents to agree to the evaluation

of their children. In such cases, it would be

overly intrusive for the school district to insist

on an evaluation over a parent’s objection.

The Act gives school districts no regulatory

authority over private schools. Moreover, the

Act does not require school districts to pro-

vide FAPE to children who are home schooled

or enrolled in private schools by their parents.

Public agencies do have an obligation to

actively seek parental consent to evaluate

children attending private schools (including

children who are home schooled, if a home

school is considered a private school under

State law) who are suspected of being children

with disabilities under the Act, in order to

properly identify the number of private school

children with disabilities and consider those

children as eligible for equitable services under

§§300.132 through 300.144. However, this

obligation does not extend to overriding

refusal of parental consent to evaluate paren-

tally-placed private school children.

Section 300.300(a)(3) provides that a public

agency may override parental consent for an

initial evaluation only for children who are

enrolled in public school or seeking to be

enrolled in public school, so we are not

making the suggested change in

§300.300(a)(3).

Changes: We have added a new paragraph

(4) to §300.300(d) to clarify that consent

override is not permitted for children who are

home schooled or placed in private schools by

their parents. (71 Fed. Reg. at 46635)

Department of Education’s Discussionof the New Provision in the Final Regulations at §300.300(d)(4):

When Consent Override for Evaluation Is Not Available


Slide 8Key Points about Initial Evaluation

Slide loads withBullet 1 and thepicture.





Slide 8 moves the discussionfrom prerequisites for initialevaluation (parent notificationand parent consent) to theactual process of initial evalua-tion and what the law requires.Parents’ informed consent hasbeen obtained, and it’s time toevaluate the child.

This slide and the next slideintertwine review of informationpresented in the module Intro-duction to Evaluation with newcontent, so as to build on what’salready been said. Introduction toEvaluation focused primarily onIDEA’s requirements for con-ducting a technically soundinitial evaluation, such as ensur-

ing qualified evaluators whoknow how to give the tests theyuse and administering each testaccording to the instructions thatcame with it.

This slide emphasizes twopoints, one new and one alreadytouched on in Introduction toEvaluation.

Timeframe forEvaluation

Congress added a specifictimeframe to IDEA within whichinitial evaluations must beconducted. This has beenaddressed in the regulations asfollows:

The initial evaluation—

(1)(i) Must be conductedwithin 60 days of receivingparental consent for theevaluation; or

(ii) If the State establishesa timeframe within whichthe evaluation must beconducted, within thattimeframe...[§300.301(c)(1)]

Under prior law, public agen-cies were required to conductinitial evaluations within a

New inIDEA!


Discussing the 60-Day Timeframe For Initial Evaluations:Excerpts from the Analysis of Comments and Changes

to the Part B Regulations

May a State establish a timeframe of more than 60 days tocomplete an initial evaluation?

The Department’s Discussion:Section 300.301(c), consistent with section 614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) of

the Act, requires an initial evaluation to be completed within 60days of receiving parental consent for evaluation or, if the Stateestablishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must beconducted, within such timeframe. The Department declines torequire that a State-established timeframe be less than 60 days orto place additional requirements on States with timeframes ofgreater than 60 days because the Act gives States the authority toestablish different timeframes and imposes no restrictions onState exercise of that authority. We believe this is evidence of anintent to permit States to make reasoned determinations of theappropriate period of time in which evaluations should be con-ducted based on particular State circumstances. (71 Fed. Reg. at46636-7)

May the 60-day timeframe for initial evaluation beextended by mutual agreement between the parent andthe public agency?

The Department’s Discussion:Congress was clear in limiting the exceptions to the 60-day

timeframe to the situations in section 614(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act.Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to include in theregulations other exceptions, such as permitting a parent and apublic agency to mutually agree to extend the 60-day timeframeor to include exceptions to the timeframe, that would be inaddition to those in the Act and listed in §300.301(d). However,the Act gives States considerable discretion with a State-adoptedtimeframe. A State could adopt a timeframe of 60 days or someother number of days, with additional exceptions. (71 Fed. Reg. at46637)

“reasonable period of time” afterreceiving parental consent [34CFR §300.343(b) (1999)], so thespecification of a 60-daytimeframe in IDEA 2004 repre-sents a significant change thatshould be identified as such toyour audience. It’s important tonote, however, that any timeframeestablished by the State takesprecedence over the 60-day timelinerequired by IDEA, as is clear in useof the word “or” between (i) and(ii). The Analysis of Commentsand Changes that accompaniespublication of the final regula-tions also makes this clear. Someof the questions that the Depart-ment answers on this topic areinteresting and serve to illumi-nate implementation of this newprovision. We’ve excerpted twoquestions in the box at the right.

Exceptions to the60-Day Timeframe

As can be seen by IDEA’sprovision itself, there are excep-tions to the new 60-daytimeframe for conducting initialevaluation. Perhaps the mostnoticeable exception is that anytimeframe established by theState will be the prevailingtimeframe to be applied. ThatState-established timeframe canbe more than 60 days or lessthan 60 days, as the Statechooses, and it still is the re-quired timeframe for conductinginitial evaluations. Some Statesmay not specify such atimeframe, in which case IDEA2004’s timeframe of 60 daysfrom receipt of parent consent tocompletion of the evaluationwill apply.

What are other exceptions toIDEA’s 60-day provision? Twoare stated, in §300.301 and onHandout C-2, and are:

• if the parent of a child repeat-edly fails or refuses to producethe child for the evaluation.

• when a child enrolls in aschool of another publicagency after the relevanttimeframe (either IDEA’s orthe State’s) has begun, andbefore the child’s previouspublic agency makes a deter-mination as to whether the


child is a child with a disabilityunder §300.8. [§300.301(d)]Note the exception to this excep-tion below!

In the second case above, theexception only applies if the newpublic agency “is making suffi-cient progress to ensure aprompt completion of theevaluation,” and the parent andthe new public agency “agree to aspecific time when the evalua-tion will be completed”[§300.301(e)]. This exception tothe exception will be discussedin a moment.

First, let’s look, one at a time,at what the two main exceptionsinvolve. Both are thoroughlydiscussed in the Analysis ofComments and Changes, asyou’ll see.

Defining “Repeatedly Fails”and “Refuses to Produce”

The Department declined todefine these two phrases, usedin the first exception listedabove, saying, “[T]he meaning ofthese phrases will vary depend-ing on the specific circumstancesof each case” (71 Fed. Reg. at46638). This variability is thenillustrated with the followingexample:

For example, situations inwhich a child is absent onthe days the evaluation isscheduled because thechild is ill would be treateddifferently than if a parentrepeatedly fails to keepscheduled appointments.Similarly, situations inwhich a parent fails tokeep scheduledappointments when apublic agency repeatedlyschedules the evaluation toaccommodate the parent’sschedule would be treated

differently than situationsin which a public agencymakes no attempt toaccommodate a parent’sschedule. (Id.)

Documenting efforts. Does thepublic agency have to documentits efforts to address a parent’sconcerns and issues about theevaluation? The Departmentdoes not believe it is necessary toclarify that an LEA must docu-ment that it has made severalattempts to address a parent’sconcerns and issues about theevaluation. It states, “As a matterof practice, LEAs attempt toaddress parent’s concerns andissues prior to scheduling anevaluation because repeatedcancellations of appointments orrepeated failures to produce thechild for an evaluation are costlyin terms of staff time and effort”(Id.). However, as noted above,the final regulations implement-ing IDEA 2004 at §300.300(d)(5)require a public agency to docu-ment that it has made reason-able efforts to obtain informedconsent from the parent for aninitial evaluation.

Timeframes for EvaluatingChildren Who Transfer

In its analysis, the Departmentpoints out that the secondexception to IDEA’s newtimeframe provisions—when achild transfers to a new publicagency before being determineda “child with a disability” by theprior public agency—does not

apply when a child transfers to anew school in the same publicagency. The exception onlyapplies when the child hastransferred to a school in adifferent (new) public agency[§300.323(e)-(f)]. TheDepartment states:

[I]t is important that it isunderstood that the 60-day or State-establishedtimeframe does not applywhen a child transfers fromone school to anotherschool in the same publicagency. When a childtransfers from one schoolto another school in thesame public agency, weexpect that an initialevaluation will beconducted within 60 daysof receiving parentalconsent for the evaluation,or within the State-established timeframe.(Id.)

It’s also important to recognizethat this exception to the 60-dayor State-established timeframeonly applies if the new publicagency “is making sufficientprogress to ensure promptcompletion of the evaluation”and the parent and the newpublic agency “agree to a specifictime when the evaluation will becompleted” (71 Fed. Reg. at46638). That’s the exception tothe exception!

Defining “SufficientProgress”

The Department also declinesto define “sufficient progress,”because “the meaning will varydepending on the specificcircumstances in each case” (Id.).

[T]here may be legitimatereasons for not completingthe evaluation within the60-day timeframe, such as


differences in assessmentinstruments used in theprevious and new publicagencies, and the length oftime between a childleaving one school andenrolling in the nextschool. Therefore, webelieve that whether a newpublic agency is makingsufficient progress toensure prompt completionof an evaluation is best leftto the discretion of Stateand local officials andparents to determine. (Id.)

The Department goes on todiscuss the coordination thatmust go on between the twopublic agencies—the old and thenew—regarding the child’srecords. IDEA requires the newschool in which the child enrollsto take reasonable steps topromptly obtain the child’srecords from the prior agency.

IDEA also requires that the prioragency promptly respond to arequest from the new agency forthe child’s records. [71 Fed. Reg.at 46639, discussing §300.323(g)]

Bullet 2: “Full and IndividualEvaluation”

The 2nd bullet on the slideindicates that initial evaluationmust be full and individual,which comes directly from theIDEA and the final regulations at§300.301(a) (as shown in thevery first paragraph on HandoutC-2). This is a longstandingprovision of IDEA, as was dis-cussed in Introduction to Evalua-tion. The point needs only to bereemphasized here.


View 1

Slide 9More Key Points about Initial Evaluation

Slide loads with thisview, with Bullet 1visible.

Click 1:Bullet 2 and whatconstitutes “relevantinformation” appear.

Click 1

(discussion on next page)




Slide 9 looks at two morebullets of “Key Points AboutInitial Evaluation.” The pointsmade on this slide are drawndirectly from §300.304(b)(1),which states:

(b) Conduct of evaluation.In conducting theevaluation, the publicagency must—

(1) Use a variety ofassessment tools andstrategies to gather relevantfunctional, developmental,and academic informationabout the child, includinginformation provided bythe parent, that may assistin determining—

(i) Whether the child is achild with a disabilityunder §300.8; and

(ii) The content of thechild’s IEP, includinginformation related toenabling the child to beinvolved in and progress inthe general educationcurriculum (or for apreschool child, toparticipate in appropriateactivities). [§300.304(b)(1)]

These key purposes of initialevaluation have already beenaddressed in the introductorymodule to evaluation. They arere-iterated here because they areso central to the reason an initialevaluation is conducted and theresults that are expected to

emerge from it. In an upcomingmodule, Contents of the IEP, thestrong thread that runs betweenevaluation and development ofthe IEP will become very evident,but for an audience that has notyet completed that module, itmay be appropriate to mentionthat connection now. Evaluationresults are first used to deter-mine if a child is a “child with adisability” as defined by IDEAand the final regulations at§300.8. If the child is, in fact,determined eligible for specialeducation and related services,an individualized educationprogram (IEP) must be devel-oped. That IEP must detail,among other things, the child’s“present levels of academicachievement and functionalperformance” [§300.320(a)(1)].So the information gathered inthe evaluation, to be relevant toIEP development, would need toinclude relevant “functional,developmental, and academicinformation about the child” asthe slide indicates. This willinclude information that theparents may provide.

We recommend that you take athorough look at the Introductionto Evaluation module to identifyany additional information youfeel would be important torepeat to this audience. This slideand the previous one offer anopportunity to review theevaluation considerations cov-ered in the Introduction to Evalua-tion module.


Slide 10Review of Existing Evaluation Data (Slide 1 of 4)


Clicks 1-2

View 1

Slide loadswith this view.

State)

Clicks 1 - 2:Click 1 brings Bullet 1.Click 2 brings Bullet 2.


Slide 10 begins the discussionof one step in evaluation underIDEA—review of existing evalua-tion data. The slide is drawndirectly from the requirement inIDEA and the final regulations at§300.305(a)(1), which reads asfollows:

(a) Review of existingevaluation data. As part ofan initial evaluation (ifappropriate) and as part ofany reevaluation underthis part, the IEP Team andother qualifiedprofessionals, asappropriate, must—

(1) Review existingevaluation data on thechild, including—

(i) Evaluations andinformation provided bythe parents of the child;

(ii) Current classroom-based, local, or Stateassessments, andclassroom-basedobservations; and

(iii) Observations byteachers and relatedservices providers...

This provision is quite similarbut not precisely the same aswhat existed under IDEA ‘97.IDEA ‘97 stated that the evalua-tion must include “currentclassroom-based assessmentsand observations” [§300.533(a)(1)(ii)(1999)]. IDEA 2004clarifies that “current assess-ments” include those that areclassroom-based, local, or Stateassessments.

In Other Words

The IEP Team (which includesthe child’s parents) and otherqualified professionals, asappropriate, begin the child’sevaluation by looking at what isalready known about the child.This requires looking at existingevaluation data on the child—for example, the child’s schoolfile, his or her recent test scoreson State or district assessments,classroom work, and so on.Parents and the child’s teachermay provide information to beincluded in this review.

What this group of individualsis looking for in this review—thequestions they must answer—isthe subject of the next slide.


Clicks 3-4

Slide 10: Background and Discussion


4 Clicks4 Clicks4 Clicks4 Clicks4 Clicks


Slide 11

Slide loadswith this view.

Review of Existing Evaluation Data (Slide 2 of 4)

View 1

Clicks 1-2





Clicks 3-4



Slide 11 takes up where Slide10 left off in the sequence ofevaluation. As the slide indicates,based on the review of existingevaluation data and input fromthe child’s parents, the groupinvolved in the evaluation—according to IDEA, that’s the IEPTeam (including the parents) andother qualified professionals—must determine what additionalinformation is needed (if any) tomake the determinations indi-cated on the slide.

When the last bullet loads, anarrow and the word “And”appear at the bottom right of thescreen, to signal that these arenot the only issues the groupwill need to determine. More willbe outlined on the next slide.

For now, though, the fourbullets listed on the slide areworth examining. They comenearly verbatim from the regula-tions at §300.305(a)(2), whichare presented in the box on thenext page (including the missing“And” item noted above). Theseprovisions also appear on page 3of Handout C-2, for youraudience’s reference.

Go over each item, posingquestions to your audience asneeded to connect this informa-tion to other information they’vediscussed and to the ultimatepurposes of initial evaluation.For example:

• Why is this phrase—child witha disability—in quotationmarks? (To indicate that thephrase is a term possessing aspecific meaning under thelaw. IDEA and the final regula-tions define “child with adisability” at §300.8.)


Relevant in IDEA 2004 and the Final Regulations onReview of Existing Evaluation Data

(2) On the basis of that review, and input from the child’s parents, identifywhat additional data, if any, are needed to determine—

(i)(A) Whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8, andthe educational needs of the child; or

(B) In case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to havesuch a disability, and the educational needs of the child;

(ii) The present levels of academic achievement and related developmentalneeds of the child;

(iii)(A) Whether the child needs special education and related services; or

(B) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues toneed special education and related services; and

(iv) Whether any additions or modifications to the special education andrelated services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annualgoals set out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in thegeneral education curriculum.

§300.305(a)(2)

• Where have we heard the term“present levels” before? (Thechild’s “present levels ofacademic achievement andfunctional performance” mustbe described in the IEP.)

• Developmental? Heard thatbefore, too. Where? (Slide 9addressed the need to collectacademic, developmental, andfunctional information aboutthe child.)

The first and last bulletsaddress the need to determine achild’s eligibility for specialeducation and related servicesunder IDEA. The middle twoaddress the information that will

be needed if the child is deter-mined to be eligible for specialeducation. That information willbe critical in developing thechild’s IEP.

So will the informationaddressed on the next slide.


Slide 12

Slide loads with thisview, includingCheckmark 1.

Click 1:Picture changes,Checkmark 2 appears(re: participating ingeneral educationcurriculum).

Review of Existing Evaluation Data (Slide 3 of 4)

Click 1

View 1



Click 2:The text at the verybottom appears:Group may conductits review without ameeting.

Slide 12 finishes the list begunin the last slide. In addition tothe four items listed there, thegroup involved in the evaluationmust also use the review ofexisting evaluation data andinput from the parents to makethe determinations.

The text on the slide is drawnfrom IDEA and the final regula-tions at §300.305(a)(2)(iv),shown in the box on the previ-ous page with the other itemsthe group needs to determine.That provision reads:

Whether any additions ormodifications to thespecial education andrelated services are neededto enable the child to meetthe measurable annual

goals set out in the IEP ofthe child and toparticipate, as appropriate,in the general educationcurriculum.

For a child who has not yetbeen determined to be a “childwith a disability” and, by reasonthereof, in need of specialeducation and related services, itmay seem a bit odd that IDEAtalks about identifying “anyadditions or modifications tothe special education and relatedservices that are needed toenable the child to meet themeasurable annual goals set outin the IEP of the child.” Thisprovision of IDEA is also in-tended to apply to reevaluations,where a child has been deter-mined eligible for special educa-

tion and related services. More-over, the evaluation process issupposed to gather informationneeded to inform IEP develop-ment—at which time the IEPTeam will consider what addi-tions or modifications to thespecial education and relatedservices are needed to enable thechild to meet the goals beingwritten in that IEP.

Thus, the group reviewing theexisting evaluation data mustdetermine if enough informationexists to answer the questioninherent in this item.


Click 2



Conducting the ReviewWithout Meeting

As the last item on the slide toappear indicates, the evaluationgroup may conduct this reviewof existing evaluation datawithout a meeting[§300.305(b)]. How is thatpossible, you might ask, consid-ering the questions that must beaddressed and the determina-tions that must be made? How-ever, neither the statute nor theregulations require that thepublic agency call a meeting forthe purpose of reviewing achild’s existing evaluation data.While this provision of law isnot new in this reauthorization,IDEA 2004 does make a point ofattempting to reduce the num-ber of required meetings overallby giving parents and the schoolsystem other options. Forexample:

• The regulations require publicagencies to encourage, to theextent possible, the consolida-tion of reevaluation meetingsfor the child and other IEPmeetings for the child[§300.32 4(a)(5)].

• IEP teams may now amendthe IEP without meeting,under the specific conditionsenumerated at §300.324(a)(4).

• The regulations also open thedoor to “other methods ofensuring parent participation”in IEP meetings and “alterna-tive means of meeting partici-pation” in both IEP meetingsand placement meetings, suchas video conference andconference calls [see§§300.328 and 300.322(c)].

The regulations do not specifywhat other means or methodsthe evaluation group might useto make the determinations theyneed to make, based on thereview of existing evaluationdata and parent input. As inmany other matters, this is leftup to State and local authority.Either might require a meetingbe held to review these data. Butthe IDEA does not require this,only that the review be con-ducted by the group specified at§300.305(a), and that the deter-minations identified in these lasttwo slides—and the ones in thenext slide— are made.


Click 1

View 1


Slide 13Review of Existing Evaluation Data (Slide 4 of 4)

Slide loads with thisview, answering thequestion, “No.”

Click 1:The text below “No”appears, saying whatthe public agencymust now do.


Click 3

Click 2


Click 2:Now the questionis answered, “Yes.”Bullet 1, what theLEA has to do,appears.

Click 3:Bullet 2, anotherthing the LEA hasto do, appears.



(d) Requirements if additional data are not needed. (1) If the IEP Teamand other qualified professionals, as appropriate, determine that noadditional data are needed to determine whether the child continues tobe a child with a disability, and to determine the child’s educationalneeds, the public agency must notify the child’s parents of—

(i) That determination and the reasons for the determination; and

(ii) The right of the parents to request an assessment to determinewhether the child continues to be a child with a disability, and todetermine the child’s educational needs.

(2) The public agency is not required to conduct the assessmentdescribed in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section unless requested to doso by the child’s parents.

§300.305(d)

Provisions in IDEA and the Final Regulations at §300.305(d):Requirements if Additional Data Are Not Needed


Slide 13 moves the evaluationgroup from reviewing existingdata to answering the questionat the top of the slide: Is thereenough data to provide the infoneeded? Using the existing data,can the group determine:

• if the child is a “child with adisability?”

• what the child’s educationalneeds are?

• the child’s present levels ofacademic achievement andrelated developmental needs?

• whether child needs specialeducation and related services?

• whether any additions ormodifications are needed tothe special education andrelated services to enable thechild to meet the annual goalsin the IEP and participate inthe general education curricu-lum (as appropriate)?

The slide is divided into twoparts: Yes and No, and what mustoccur next, given that answer tothe questions above.

No, Not Enough Information

The slide treats the “No”answer first—meaning that thegroup determines that there isnot enough information avail-able to make the determinationsthey need to make. What musthappen then? As the slideindicates, the public agency mustadminister assessments andother measures to produce thedata needed, as stated in IDEA2004 and the final regulations at§300.305(c):

(c) Source of data. Thepublic agency mustadminister suchassessments and otherevaluation measures asmay be needed to producethe data identified underparagraph (a) of thissection.

If this is the case, the selectionand administration of thoseassessments and other measureswould need to adhere to IDEA’sevaluation procedures as speci-fied §300.304 and examined inthe Introduction to Evaluationmodule.

Before the public agency mayproceed with the initial evalua-tion of the child, it must notifythe parents (in other words,provide prior written notice),request their consent for theevaluation, provide the proce-dural safeguards notice, andobtain their informed consent.The evaluation may then pro-ceed.

Yes, There’s EnoughInformation

Next on the slide: the “Yes”scenario—meaning that thegroup determines there is suffi-cient information available tomake the determinations theyneed. In this case and as theslide indicates, the public agencymust notify parents:

• of that determination and thereason for it; and

• that parents have the right torequest assessment of thechild.

The public agency is notrequired to conduct the assess-ment of the child unless theparents request that it does so.The provisions in IDEA and thefinal regulations in this regardare provided in the box and onHandout C-2 at §300.305(d).


Slide 14Determining the Child’s Eligibility

Click 1:Bottom text appearscompletely, allbullets loaded.


Slide loads withthis view.

Click 1


View 1


Slide 14 moves to the next stepin the evaluation process—determining the child’s eligibilityfor special education and relatedservices under IDEA.

Child with a disability appears inquotes on the slide to indicatethat the term refers to “childwith a disability” as defined byIDEA and the final regulations at§300.8. This will be the subjectof upcoming slides, for thedefinition of the term in IDEAand the final regulations iscritical in making a determina-tion of the child’s eligibility.First, let’s look more closely atwhat the law has to say aboutthe process to be used to deter-mine eligibility.

Group Determining Eligibility

The first noteworthy elementof this important step is thatIDEA assigns the task of deter-mining eligibility to “a group ofqualified professionals and theparent” [§300.306(a)(1)]. It isleft up to the public agency todetermine what constitutes a“qualified professional.”

This group may or may not bethe same individuals who wereinvolved in the review of existingevaluation data. That group wascomprised of “the IEP Team andother qualified professionals, asappropriate” [§300.305(a)], sothere may be overlap in themembership of these two

groups. Certainly the parents areentitled to be involved in bothgroups and in the decisions eachgroup makes.

Introduction to the Factorsto Consider

The second noteworthy ele-ment involved in determining achild’s eligibility relates to therange of factors that IDEA 2004requires the “eligibility” group toconsider as part of making thatdetermination. The exact provi-sions in IDEA and the finalregulations from which the slideis drawn are presented in thebox on the next page. Theprovisions also appear on thelast page of Handout C-2.

The next slides will look ingreater detail at each of thesefactors. You should indicate thisto your audience. Specifically,you may want to say the defini-tion in IDEA and the finalregulations of “child with adisability” will be saved, like atreat, for last in the lineup.Because of the definition’scentrality in special educationand the provisions of IDEA, itwill receive a lengthy examina-tion and discussion. First,however, the audience will hearabout the other two factorsnoted on this slide.



Provisions in IDEA and the Final Regulationsat §300.306(b) and (c):

Factors to Consider in Eligibility Determination

(b) Special rule for eligibility determination. A child must not be determined to be a childwith a disability under this part—

(1) If the determinant factor for that determination is—

(i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components ofreading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA);

(ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or

(iii) Limited English proficiency; and

(2) If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under §300.8(a).

(c) Procedures for determining eligibility and educational need. (1) In interpreting evalua-tion data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under§300.8, and the educational needs of the child, each public agency must—

(i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achieve-ment tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information aboutthe child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior....

§300.306(b)-(c)

Editor’s note: The ESEA’s definition isprovided and discussed under thenext slide.


Slide 15 IDEA’s Special Rule

View 1


Slide loads fully.No clicks areneeded except toadvance to thenext slide.

Slide 15 delves into the detailsof the 2nd bullet on the lastslide: IDEA’s special rule foreligibility determination.

Background

The “special rule for eligibilitydetermination” was first incorpo-rated into law under IDEA ‘97and is maintained under IDEA2004, with certain refinementsand additions. The overall thrustof this special rule is to ensurethat children are not found to beeligible for special education andrelated services because of a lackof appropriate instruction inspecific key subjects or becausethey have a limited proficiency inEnglish.

When originally included inIDEA ‘97, Congress’s intentionwas that those who are involvedin the evaluation of a child:

...give seriousconsideration at theconclusion of theevaluation process to otherfactors that might beaffecting a child’sperformance. There aresubstantial numbers ofchildren who are likely tobe identified as disabledbecause they have notpreviously received properacademic support” [S. Rep.No. 105-17 at 19 (1997)].3

Congress believed that thespecial rule for eligibility deter-mination “will lead to fewerchildren being improperlyincluded in special educationprograms where their actualdifficulties stem from anothercause and that this will leadschools to focus greater atten-tion on these subjects in theearly grades” (Id.).

3 ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 315. Availableonline at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/70/95.pdf


Special Rule under IDEA2004

The same Congressional intentundergirds IDEA 2004’s mainte-nance and strengthening of thisprovision, as is described below.The exact provision in the finalregulations implementing IDEA2004 appears on the last page ofHandout C-2.

During the Department ofEducation’s internal review ofthe proposed regulations, itrealized that the special rule at§300.306(b)(1)(i) was inconsis-tent in its use of the word“appropriate” when describinglack of instruction in reading andmath. Look at the proposedregulations below, and you’ll seethat appropriate was used only inreferring to a lack of instructionin reading. The word appropriatewas not included when referringto a lack of instruction in math.

A child must not bedetermined to be a childwith a disability under thispart—

(1) If the determinantfactor for thatdetermination is—

(i) Lack of appropriateinstruction in reading, . . .

(ii) Lack of instructionin math; or . . . (70 Fed.Reg. at 35864)

ESEA’s Definition ofEssential Components of Reading Instruction

from section 1208(3) of the ESEA

Essential Components of Reading Instruction—The term ‘‘essentialcomponents of reading instruction’’ means explicit and system-atic instruction in—

(A) Phonemic awareness;

(B) Phonics;

(C) Vocabulary development;

(D) Reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and

(E) Reading comprehension strategies.

Accordingly, this inconsistencywas addressed in the finalregulations by adding the wordappropriate where it was missing,because:

The Department believes itis equally important that achild not be determined tobe a child with a disabilityif the determinant factor isthe lack of “appropriate”instruction in math. (71Fed. Reg. at 46646)

The special rule at§300.306(b)(1) now states:

A child must not bedetermined to be a childwith a disability under thispart—

(1) If the determinantfactor for thatdetermination is—

(i) Lack of appropriateinstruction in reading,including the essentialcomponents of readinginstruction (as defined insection 1208(3) of theESEA); and

(ii) Lack of appropriateinstruction in math...

If you’re wondering whatESEA’s definition of “essentialcomponents of reading instruc-tion” is, the Department in-cludes it in the Analysis ofComments and Changes (71 Fed.Reg. at 46646). We’ve reproducedit in the box below.

Determining “Lack ofAppropriate Instruction”

The determination of whethera child has received “appropriateinstruction” is, in the words ofthe Department, “appropriatelyleft to State and local officials”(Id.).


Slide 16“Variety of Sources”

View 1


Slide loadsfully. Noclicks areneededexcept toadvance tothe nextslide.

Slide 16 delves into the detailsof the 3rd bullet on Slide 14: “AVariety of Information Sources.”

What IDEA and the FinalRegulations Require

When a child’s eligibility forspecial education and relatedservices is being determined, thepublic agency must:

(i) Draw uponinformation from a varietyof sources, includingaptitude and achievementtests, parent input, andteacher recommendations,as well as informationabout the child’s physicalcondition, social orcultural background, andadaptive behavior; and

(ii) Ensure thatinformation obtained fromall of these sources isdocumented and carefullyconsidered.[§300.306(c)(1)]

“A variety of informationsources” was included on Slide14 as a factor that needs to beconsidered in determining thechild’s eligibility. Much moredetail is available on the currentslide to expand the discussion ofwhat IDEA 2004 and the finalregulations consider an appropri-ate “variety of sources.” Gothrough the examples on thisslide, referring participants to thelast page of Handout C-2, wherethe exact provision [§300.306(c)]of the final regulations appears.Also point out that IDEA rein-forces this by requiring the

public agency to “document andcarefully consider” the informa-tion from all of these sources.It’s not enough to merely gatherit and have it available in afolder. There must also beevidence that the information, inits variety, was considered inmaking the determinationregarding the child’s eligibility.


Slide 17P.S. Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities

View 1


Slide loadsfully. No clicksare neededexcept toadvance to thenext slide.

Slide 17 provides a “p.s.” tothis discussion of IDEA’s require-ments for evaluating childrensuspected of having a disabilityand determining whether or notthey need special education andrelated services. It’s importantthat the audience know that, inaddition to all that’s been saidso far on this subject, there areyet more provisions within IDEAthat may be very relevant to theevaluation process and thefactors that must be consideredwhen determining a child’seligibility—namely, provisions inIDEA and the final regulations at§§300.307-300.311, called “Addi-tional Procedures for IdentifyingChildren with Specific LearningDisabilities.”

Now, however, is not the timeto examine what those addi-tional procedures entail orrequire. They are the subject ofthe last module in this evalua-tion series: Identification ofChildren with Specific LearningDisabilities.

This slide is included here toalert the audience to both theexistence of additional evalua-tion procedures, to be applied toidentifying children with learningdisabilities, and the availabilityof a stand-alone training on thematter.

What’s Next?

All right—now the momentwe’ve all been waiting for: thedefinition in IDEA and the finalregulations of a “child with adisability.” Consider whetheryou wish to launch into thisrather lengthy topic or give youraudience a break first.


Slide 18IDEA’s Definition of “Child with a Disability”

Click 1

View 1


Slide loads withthis question.

Click 1:View changes tothe full definitionof “child with adisability”—verysmall!

(a) General. (1) Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with§§300.304 through 300.311 as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment (includingdeafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), aserious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), anorthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specificlearning disability, deafblindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needsspecial education and related services.

(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, if it is determined, through anappropriate evaluation under §§300.304 through 300.311, that a child has one of thedisabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but only needs a related service andnot special education, the child is not a child with a disability under this part.

(ii) If, consistent with §300.39(a)(2), the related service required by the child is consideredspecial education rather than a related service under State standards, the child would bedetermined to be a child with a disability under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) Children aged three through nine experiencing developmental delays. Child with a disability forchildren aged three through nine (or any subset of that age range, including ages threethrough five), may, subject to the conditions described in §300.111(b), include a child—



Click 2


Click 2:The woman’sface appears,clearlysquinting totry and readthe slide.

Slide 18 is both the truth anda bit of a joke. It asks, “How doIDEA and the final regulationsdefine ‘child with a disability’???” On your CLICK, the audiencewill get a gander at the fulldefinition. To fit on the screen,the text is very tiny, whichillustrates two things simulta-neously:

• how detailed and involved thedefinition of this all-impor-tant term is, and

• the reason why you’re goingto break the definition downand look at it a piece at a time.

Let the audience see thecrowded screen of this slide for asmall bit of time, enough toabsorb the absurdity of trying toread it—and then CLICK to bringup the woman’s squinting face.Indicate that maybe it would bebest if you all tackled this crucialdefinition a piece at a time, andCLICK to advance to the nextslide.

Module 10 10-49 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation

Slide 19 “Child with a Disability”

Slide loads with justthe header text andthe picture of thegirl.

Click 1:First 3 disabilities inIDEA’s definitionappear.

Click 2:The next 3 disabilitiesappear.

Click 2



autismdeaf-blindnessdeafness

emotional disturbancehearing impairmentmental retardation

Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance

with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having…



Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation 10-50 Module 10

Click 3:The next 3disabilities appear.

Click 4:The last 4 disabilitiesappear.





Click 3

multiple disabilitiesorthopedic impairmentother health impairment

specific learning disabilityspeech or language impairmenttraumatic brain injury, or

visual impairment (includingblindness)


Click 4


Slide 19 (presented across 5separate boxes on the last 2pages and finishing above)moves through the 13 disabili-ties listed in IDEA 2004 and thefinal regulations, giving trainersthe opportunity to present thesedisability categories in the levelof detail they deem appropriatefor the needs of their audience.It’s important for the audienceto know these 13 categories, forthey are part of the core defini-tion of “child with a disability,” aterm with enormous implica-tions under IDEA—includingbut certainly not limited towhether or not a child is deter-mined to be eligible for specialeducation and related services.State and local educationalagencies have multiple andserious obligations toward every



Click 5:Full list appears, withthe text below the lineemphasizing“by reason thereof...”

child that is determined eligiblefor these services as a “child witha disability.”

The slide presents these dis-ability categories:

• autism

• deaf-blindness

• deafness

• emotional disturbance

• hearing impairment

• mental retardation

• multiple disabilities

• orthopedic impairment

• other health impairment

• specific learning disability

• speech or language impair-ment

• traumatic brain injury or

• visual impairment (includingblindness).

What’s the Same, What’sNew, What’s Different?

Same. The broad “titles” of the13 disability categories remainthe same as in IDEA ‘97.

New or different. Different,however, are some of the finerpoints within the categories andway that IDEA 2004 and the finalregulations define the disabilitiesthemselves. There are newaspects, including deletions.



autismdeaf-blindnessdeafnessemotional disturbancehearing impairmentmental retardationmultiple disabilitiesorthopedic impairmentother health impairmentspecific learning disabilityspeech or language impairmenttraumatic brain injury, orvisual impairment (including blindness)

Click 5


Handout C-3 presents IDEA2004’s complete definition of“child with a disability” at§300.8. Refer participants to thishandout for their later reading ifyou’re skimming over thesecategories. If you’re taking adeeper look, consider highlight-ing the points below aboutwhat’s new or different in IDEA’sdisability definitions. (Postponediscussing the meaning of “byreason thereof,” which will bediscussed on the next slide.)

• In orthopedic impairment: Theseregulations maintain “a con-genital anomaly” as one typeof orthopedic impairmentincluded in the definition butremove the examples given inthe prior regulation(“e.g.,clubfoot, absence of somemember, etc.” at 34 CFR§300.7 (c)(8)(1999)). Theseexamples of congenitalanomalies were deleted be-cause they “are outdated andunnecessary to understand themeaning of orthopedic impair-ment” (71 Fed. Reg. at 46550).

• To the definition ofother health impair-ment, an addition:Tourette syndrome isnow included as an exampleof “chronic or acute healthproblems” [§300.8(c)(9)(i)].

Elaborating on the addition ofTourette syndrome to the list ofexamples of other health impair-ments, the Department explains:

Tourette syndrome iscommonly misunderstoodto be a behavioral oremotional condition,rather than a neurologicalcondition. Therefore,

including Tourettesyndrome in the definitionof other health impairmentmay help correct themisperception of Tourettesyndrome as a behavioralor conduct disorder andprevent the misdiagnosisof their needs. (Id.)

As part of this discussion, theDepartment also explains whyother examples of “other healthimpairment” were not added tothe regulations—specifically fetalalcohol syndrome (FAS), bipolardisorders, dysphagia, and otherorganic neurological disorders.The reason? “...because theseconditions are commonly under-stood to be health impairments”(Id.). So, one can conclude that,while these last conditions arenot explicitly mentioned in theregulations, they are conditionsnonetheless considered to beother health impairments. As theDepartment observes:

The list of acute or chronichealth conditions in thedefinition of other healthimpairment is notexhaustive, but ratherprovides examples ofproblems that childrenhave that could make themeligible for specialeducation and relatedservices under the categoryof other healthimpairment. (Id.)

Note that the Departmentuses the phase “could makethem eligible”—could, not does.Other aspects are considered indetermining eligibility for specialeducation and related services,not solely the existence of thedisability or condition. First, thedetermination of eligibility ismade by a “team of qualifiedprofessionals and the parent of

the child, consistent with§300.306(a)(1)” and this group“must base their decision oncareful consideration of informa-tion from a variety of sources,consistent with §300.306(c)”(Id.).

Other Areas of Interest

With the above exceptions andseveral small wording changesfor the sake of grammar andclarity, the regulations describingand defining the 13 disabilitycategories remain unchanged inIDEA 2004 and the final regula-tions. Nonetheless, there arenumerous interesting pointsraised and discussed in theDepartment’s Analysis of Com-ments and Changes that we listhere, should you care to shareany with your audience.

Disability category or studentneed? The Department remindsus that “[s]pecial education andrelated services are based on theidentified needs of the child andnot on the disability category inwhich the child is classified”(71 Fed. Reg. at 46549).

What does “adversely affectseducational performance” mean?May school district personnelinterpret the phrase “adverselyaffects a child’s educational

New inIDEA!


performance” to mean that achild must be failing in schoolto receive special education andrelated services? No, accordingto the Department. In fact, “wehave clarified in §300.101(c) thata child does not have to fail orbe retained in a course or gradein order to be considered forspecial education and relatedservices” (Id.). And what does§300.101(c) say? Take a look inthe box at the right, where theprovision is presented, alongwith the lead-in paragraph, forcontext. This is one amongmany provisions related toFAPE.

Terminology: Mental retardationor intellectual disability? Those inyour audience who are involvedwith children or adults whohave intellectual disabilities mayhave opinions about the contin-ued use of the term “mentalretardation.” Certainly, there is anoticeable movement in thefield away from using that term,as witnessed by many namechanges in recent years, includ-ing the 2003 Executive Order12994 to change the name ofthe President’s Committee onMental Retardation to thePresident’s Committee forPeople with Intellectual Disabili-ties (PCPID) and the adoptionof the same terminology by theU.S. Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC). TheDepartment of Educationacknowledges this recent trendbut maintains the IDEA’s use ofthe term “mental retardation,”explaining as follows:

Section 602(3)(A) of theAct refers to a ‘‘child withmental retardation,’’ not a‘‘child with intellectualdisabilities,’’ and we donot see a compellingreason to change the term.

Provisions in IDEA 2004 and the Final Regulationsat §300.101(c)

§300.101 Free appropriate public education (FAPE).

(a) General. A free appropriate public education must beavailable to all children residing in the State between the ages of3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who havebeen suspended or expelled from school, as provided for in§300.530(d).

(b) ...

(c) Children advancing from grade to grade. (1) Each State mustensure that FAPE is available to any individual child with adisability who needs special education and related services, eventhough the child has not failed or been retained in a course orgrade, and is advancing from grade to grade. (2) The determina-tion that a child described in paragraph (a) of this section iseligible under this part, must be made on an individual basis bythe group responsible within the child’s LEA for making eligibil-ity determinations.

However, States are free touse a different term to referto a child with mentalretardation, as long as allchildren who would beeligible for specialeducation and relatedservices under the Federaldefinition of mentalretardation receive FAPE.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46550)

The Department goes on to say:

We do not believe thedefinition of mentalretardation needs to bechanged because it isdefined broadly enough in§300.8(c)(6) to include achild’s functionallimitations in specific lifeareas...There is nothing inthe Act or these regulationsthat would prevent a Statefrom including ‘‘functionallimitations in specific lifeareas’’ in a State’s

definition of mentalretardation, as long as theState’s definition isconsistent with theseregulations. (Id.)

Defining emotional disturbance.The Department received manycomments on the definition of“emotional disturbance” in IDEAand the final regulations. In theend, the definition was main-tained unchanged from prior


law. The Department’s remarksare interesting in that theyprovide a mini-review of howthis term and its definition havebeen scrutinized in the past. TheDepartment’s remarks are pro-vided in the box at the right.

Multiple disabilities? But it’s notin the Act! Some in your audiencemay wonder why “multipledisabilities” is included in the listof disability categories in thefinal regulations and definedthere [at §300.8(c)(7)], when it isnot included in the statute’s listof disability categories. TheDepartment explains, as follows:

The definition of multipledisabilities has been in theregulations since 1977 anddoes not expand eligibilitybeyond what is providedfor in the Act. Thedefinition helps ensurethat children with morethan one disability are notcounted more than oncefor the annual report ofchildren served becauseStates do not have todecide among two or moredisability categories inwhich to count a childwith multiple disabilities.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46550)

Department of Education Remarks on the Definition in IDEA and the Final Regulations

of “Emotional Disturbance”

“Historically, it has been very difficult for the field to cometo consensus on the definition of emotional disturbance,which has remained unchanged since 1977. On February 10,1993, the Department published a ‘‘Notice of Inquiry’’ in theFederal Register (58 FR 7938) soliciting comments on theexisting definition of serious emotional disturbance. The com-ments received in response to the notice of inquiry ex-pressed a wide range of opinions and no consensus on thedefinition was reached. Given the lack of consensus and thefact that Congress did not make any changes that requiredchanging the definition, the Department recommended thatthe definition of emotional disturbance remain unchanged. Wereviewed the Act and the comments received in response tothe NPRM and have come to the same conclusion. There-fore, we decline to make any changes to the definition ofemotional disturbance.”

Analysis of Comments and Changes, 71 Fed. Reg. at 46550

Concluding the Discussion

As noted earlier in the discus-sion, having a disability does notnecessarily mean that a childmeets IDEA’s definition of “childwith a disability.” There arenumerous factors involved inreaching that determination,including how IDEA and thefinal regulations define eachindividual disability term. How-ever, one very crucial factormerits a close look on its own.“By reason thereof...” is a part ofthe definition in IDEA and thefinal regulations of a “child witha disability” and is the subject ofthe next slide.


Slide 20By Reason Thereof

From Definition in IDEA and the Final Regulationsof “Child with a Disability”

(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, if it isdetermined, through an appropriate evaluation under§§300.304 through 300.311, that a child has one of the disabili-ties identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but onlyneeds a related service and not special education, the child isnot a child with a disability under this part.

(ii) If, consistent with §300.39(a)(2), the related servicerequired by the child is considered special education ratherthan a related service under State standards, the child would bedetermined to be a child with a disability under paragraph(a)(1) of this section.

§300.8(a)(2)

Slide 20 sets the phrase “Who,by reason thereof...” apart from therest of IDEA’s definition of a“child with a disability” because“Who, by reason thereof…” isoften forgotten but is actually acritical part of that definition.The phrase adds another level towhat it means for a child withdisabilities to be eligible forspecial education and relatedservices under IDEA 2004.

As previously stated, having adisability does not necessarilyqualify a child for special educa-tion services under IDEA. Manychildren have disabilities but donot need special education.IDEA’s definition of “child with adisability” explicitly acknowl-edges this fact—by including thephrase “who, by reason thereof”and by containing the provisionswe’ve provided in the box at theright. If you look at those provi-sions, you’ll see they relate to a

Slide loads completely. Noclicks necessary except toadvance to the next slide.



child who has one of the dis-abilities identified within IDEAbut who only needs a relatedservice, not special education.That child would not be consid-ered a “child with a disability”under Part B—unless underState standards the relatedservice required by the child isconsidered special education,not a related service. This provi-sion recognizes that, althoughIDEA may list a service as arelated service, a State mayclassify the very same service asspecial education.

It is very important to discusswith the audience that not allchildren with a disability will beeligible under IDEA. That is onereason this training curriculumfrequently puts the term inquote marks—”child with adisability”—which is intended toremind everyone that the termhas a specific meaning withinthis law.

You may want to point outthat a child who has a disabilitybut who is not eligible underIDEA, may be eligible for theprotections afforded by otherlaws—such as Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asamended. It’s not uncommonfor a child to have a 504 plan atschool to address disability-related educational needs,instead of an IEP.

It’s obviously beyond thescope of this training curriculumto go into the protectionsoffered by other laws, but moreinformation is available aboutthem at NICHCY’s Web site(www.nichcy.org) or by callingNICHCY (1.800.695.0285),should you or any participantswant to pursue this topic.



Slide 21“Child with a Disability”

Slide loads with thisview, representing“State definitions ofdisability.”

Click 1:Arrow, “plus” sign, and 2nd picture appear,representing “State definition + Federaldefinition = “

No click is necessary; last picture loads itself, asshown on next page.

View 1

Click 1




Final ViewSelf-Loads

This final picturerepresents theinteraction betweenIDEA’s definition ofa “child with adisability” andindividual Statedefinitions of thatterm.

Slide 21 adds to this examina-tion of what it means to meetthe definition of “a child with adisability” by looking at theinteraction of the federal defini-tion contained within IDEA withindividual State definitions.States can further define thedisability areas and frequentlydo, establishing policies of theirown that define each of thesedisabilities in their own terms,provided that all children withdisabilities who are in need ofspecial education and relatedservices who have impairmentslisted in the definition in IDEAand the final regulations of“child with a disability” receiveappropriate instruction andservices. Specific learning disabilityis an excellent example. Statesdiffer in how they define thisterm; in one State a child may be

considered to have a specificlearning disability, while inanother State the child will not.


The slide has no text, only theopening graphic of the UnitedStates shown as all the separateStates. This allows trainers tointroduce the additional elementof State-specific definitions ofIDEA’s disability categories.

One CLICK will unravel the restof the story: a line will appear,then a “plus” sign (+), and thenthe graphic of the United Statesas a whole, with the legal-look-ing backdrop. This graphic isintended to indicate the federaldefinition of “child with adisability” available under IDEA.The plus sign (+) joins the two—

State and federal definition—toyield the top graphic, which is afriendly, “in agreement” hand-shake with the United States yetagain in backdrop.

Summarized, the slide is meantto show that, while the term“child with a disability” is de-fined within IDEA and the finalregulations, the term also has anoperational definition at theState level. In the end, what theterm really means, and whetheror not a group of people decidesthat a child qualifies as a “childwith a disability” under IDEA, isa matter of how the federaldefinition interacts with Statedefinitions and policies.



Slide 22Developmental Delay (Slide 1 of 2)

Slide loads completely. Noclicks necessary except toadvance to the next slide.


Slide 22 introduces anotheraspect of the term “child with adisability”—how it can beapplied to children who have adevelopmental delay. The term“developmental delay” can onlybe applied to children aged 3through 9 under Part B of theIDEA. (Under Part C of theIDEA, this term is used forchildren aged birth to three.) Asyou can see on this slide, underthe conditions specified at§300.111(b), a State may applythe term “child with a disability”to a child aged 3 through 9, or toa subset of that age range, who:

• experiences developmentaldelays, and

• by reason thereof needsspecial education and relatedservices.

There’s that phrase again—byreason thereof. It means the samething here as just discussed.

In the past, the term “develop-mental delay” was used todescribe children from ages 3through 5. With IDEA ‘97, theage range was expanded to ages3 through 9, and this age range ismaintained under IDEA 2004.Subject to the conditions at§300.111(b), this provisionallows States to find a child withdevelopmental delays (aged 3through 9, or any subset of ageranges within) to be an eligible“child with a disability” and toprovide that child with specialeducation and related serviceswithout having to classify thechild under a specific disabilitycategory. This provision of law isintended to address the oftendifficult process of determiningthe precise nature of a child’sdisability in the early years of hisor her development.

It’s useful that the final regula-tions at §300.8(b) have beenrevised to clarify the provisionsestablished in IDEA ‘97, whichmany people found confusing.The final regulations remove thephrase “at the discretion of theState and LEA” used in 34 CFR§300.7(b)(1999) and replace itwith “in accordance with theconditions in §300.111(b).”Those conditions are presentedon the next page.

As §300.111(b) indicates, andas the Department of Educationsummarizes:

Section 300.8(b) statesthat the use of thedevelopmental delaycategory for a child with adisability aged threethrough nine, or anysubset of that age range,must be made inaccordance with§300.111(b). Section


300.111(b) gives States theoption of adopting adefinition ofdevelopmental delay, butdoes not require an LEA toadopt and use the term.However, if an LEA usesthe category ofdevelopmental delay, theLEA must conform to boththe State’s definition ofthe term and the age rangethat has been adopted bythe State. If a State doesnot adopt the category ofdevelopmental delay, anLEA may not use thatcategory as the basis forestablishing a child’seligibility for specialeducation and relatedservices. (71 Fed. Reg. at46549)

Provisions in IDEA and the Final Regulationsat §300.111(b)

(b) Use of term developmental delay. The following provisionsapply with respect to implementing the child find requirements ofthis section:

(1) A State that adopts a definition of developmental delay under§300.8(b) determines whether the term applies to children agedthree through nine, or to a subset of that age range (e.g., ages threethrough five).

(2) A State may not require an LEA to adopt and use the termdevelopmental delay for any children within its jurisdiction.

(3) If an LEA uses the term developmental delay for childrendescribed in §300.8(b), the LEA must conform to both the State’sdefinition of that term and to the age range that has been adoptedby the State.

(4) If a State does not adopt the term developmental delay, an LEAmay not independently use that term as a basis for establishing achild’s eligibility under this part.

There’s still more to IDEA’s“developmental delay” provi-sions that may be important foryour audience to know. Theseare examined on the next slide.


Slide 23

Slide loads with only“DevelopmentalDelay?” at the top.Then “Defined bythe state” and thepicture appear.

Click 1:“Measured byappropriate diag-nostic instru-ments...” appears,with a new picture,and Bullets 1-5 (as agroup).

Developmental Delay (Slide 2 of 2)

Click 1

View 1



Click 2:The text “Definitionincludes that all-important by reasonthereof...” appears.


Click 2


Slide 23 concludes the discus-sion of using “developmentaldelay” within the definition of“child with a disability.” Thisslide corresponds directly to theprovisions at §300.8(b)(1) and(2), which indicate that, forchildren ages 3 through 9, or anysubset of that age range, the term“child with a disability” caninclude a child:

(1) Who is experiencingdevelopmental delays, asdefined by the State and asmeasured by appropriatediagnostic instruments andprocedures, in one or moreof the following areas:Physical development,cognitive development,communicationdevelopment, social oremotional development,

or adaptive development;and

(2) Who, by reasonthereof, needs specialeducation and relatedservices.

These provisions are unchangedfrom prior law, so you may haveparticipants who are alreadyfamiliar with the information onthis slide. For those who are not,however...

Defined by the State

Again we see that State policieshave much to contribute towhether or not a child is consid-ered to be a “child with a disabil-ity” under IDEA. This alone is avery good reason to know whatyour State policies are in thisregard.

A State is not required toadopt this term or define it. If itdoes define the term, then it isthe State (not an LEA) thatdetermines whether the termapplies to children ages 3through 9, or to a subset of thatage range (e.g., ages 3 through5), as §300.111(b) makes clear.The LEA must conform withboth how the State defines theterm and the age range(s) towhich it applies the term. If theState chooses not to adopt theterm, then the LEA may notseparately and independently doso. However, the converse is nottrue. The State may adopt the


term, but the LEA does not haveto adopt it and cannot be com-pelled by the State to do so.

As Measured By...

The meaning of the middlepart of the slide is clear andunsurprising, given IDEA’s re-quirement that evaluation ofchildren be technically soundand utilize instruments andmethods that are appropriate tothe purpose of the evaluation.Comprehensiveness of evalua-tion is required as well, just aswith any child suspected of


having a disability involved ininitial evaluation and, ultimately,subject to a determination ofeligibility. The areas of develop-ment mentioned are broad butextensive:

• physical development

• cognitive development

• communication development

• social or emotional develop-ment or

• adaptive development.

By Reason Thereof

The slide specifically notes thatthe phrase “by reason thereof...” isalso included as part of IDEA’srequirements regarding “devel-opmental delay.” Used here, ithas the same meaning as previ-ously discussed.


Slide 24Determining the Child’s Eligibility

Slide 24 draws the threadsback together of the many slidesyou’ve gone through, from thereview of existing evaluation datathrough the definition in IDEAand the final regulations of a“child with a disability.” WithSlide 24, we can now return tothat very big and original pur-pose of the evaluation and thequestions that the group deter-mining eligibility must nowanswer: Is this child a “child witha disability” under IDEA and thefinal regulations? Is he or sheeligible for special education andrelated services?

Use the slide to re-focusattention on determination ofeligibility as a way of seguing tothe next slide, which lists whatIDEA requires after the comple-tion of the administration ofassessments and other evalua-tion measures.

Slide loads completely.No clicks necessaryexcept to advance to thenext slide.



Slide 25After Child’s Eligibility is Determined

§300.306 Determination of eligibility.

(a) General. Upon completion of the administration ofassessments and other evaluation measures—

(1)...

(2) The public agency provides a copy of the evaluation reportand the documentation of determination of eligibility at nocost to the parent.

Slide loads completely.No clicks necessaryexcept to advance to thenext slide.


With Slide 25, the administra-tion of assessments and otherevaluation measures has beencompleted. Regardless of whatthat determination is—yes, thechild is eligible, or no, the childisn’t—the public agency mustprovide the parent with thesetwo items:

• a copy of the evaluationreport, and

• the documentation of determi-nation of the child’s eligibility.

Both of these must be pro-vided at no cost to the parent.This “no-cost” stipulation is anew provision in the final regula-tions. The relevant regulation ispresented in the box at the rightand on the last page of HandoutC-2.

Additional Observations

The following two observa-tions are excerpted from theAnalysis of Comments andChanges that accompaniedpublication of the final regula-tions.


• The Act does not establish atimeline for providing a copyof the evaluation report or thedocumentation of determina-tion of eligibility to the par-ents and we do not believethat a specific timeline shouldbe included in the regulationsbecause this is a matter that isbest left to State and localdiscretion. It is, however,important to ensure thatparents have the informationthey need to participatemeaningfully in IEP Teammeetings.... (71 Fed. Reg. at46645)

• [I]t would not be appropriatefor a public agency to providedocumentation of the deter-mination of eligibility prior todiscussing a child’s eligibilityfor special education andrelated services with theparent. Section 300.306(a)(1)and section 614(b)(4)(A) ofthe Act require that a group ofqualified professionals andthe parent determine whetherthe child is a child with adisability. Therefore, providingdocumentation of the eligibil-ity determination to a parentprior to a discussion with the

parent regarding the child’seligibility would indicate thatthe public agency made itsdetermination without includ-ing the parent and possibly,qualified professionals, in thedecision. (Id.)




Slide 26Reevaluations

Slide loads with theintro phrase “Mayoccur not more thanonce a year—” andthe picture.

Click 1:Text appears below, tonote the exception tothe above statement.

Click 2:The “Must occur” textappears, including theexception in italics.


Click 2



§300.303 Reevaluations.

(a) General. A public agency must ensure that a reevaluationof each child with a disability is conducted in accordancewith §§300.304 through 300.311—

(1) If the public agency determines that the educational orrelated services needs, including improved academic achieve-ment and functional performance, of the child warrant areevaluation; or

(2) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.

(b) Limitation. A reevaluation conducted under paragraph(a) of this section—

(1) May occur not more than once a year, unless the parentand the public agency agree otherwise; and

(2) Must occur at least once every 3 years, unless the parentand the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unneces-sary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2))


Slide 26 addresses the topic ofreevaluation, the last subject inthis module. The purpose ofreevaluation is to find out:

• if the child continues to be a“child with a disability,” asdefined by IDEA and the finalregulations, and

• the child’s educational needs.

There’s a lot that can be saidabout reevaluation, as most ofthe provisions just describedregarding initial evaluation applyto the reevaluation process. Thesimilarities will be explicitlyidentified in the next slide,giving you an opportunity toreview with the audience theinformation that’s been pre-sented so far in this module.

To introduce the topic, how-ever, it is appropriate to startwith when IDEA requires a childto be reevaluated, as summa-rized on the slide. Each of thetwo instances comes with acaveat, the text on the slide initalics. Specifically, under IDEA:

• Reevaluations are not to occurmore than once a year—unlessthe parent and the publicagency agree otherwise.

• Reevaluations must occur atleast once every three years—unless the parent and publicagency agree that a reevalua-tion is unnecessary.

These provisions come directlyfrom IDEA and the final regula-tions at §300.303(b), as shownin the box at the right and onHandout C-2.

The limitations the law placeson reevaluations are intended toreduce the burden on the publicagency and the child of repeatedand often costly evaluations. Asthe Senate Committee Reporton S. 1248 states: “The Commit-tee believes that requiring costlyand time-consuming reevalua-tions when both parents andlocal educational agencies deemthem to be unnecessary iscounterproductive” [S. Rep. No.108-185 at 24 (2003)]. However,the law also provides flexibilityto parents and public agenciesalike, so that if they agree eitherthat a reevaluation is warrantedor, conversely, that it is notnecessary, the need for a reevalu-ation can be addressed in aresponsive and child-focusedmanner.

As you can also see in the boxbelow, and on Handout C-2,IDEA provides that a reevalua-tion must be conducted:

• If the public agency deter-mines that the educational orrelated services needs, includ-ing improved academicachievement and functionalperformance, of the childwarrant a reevaluation; or

• If the child’s parent or teacherrequests a reevaluation.


Children grow and change, andthe public agency has an affirma-tive obligation to monitor theireducational and developmentalprogress. As progress is noted, oras the child’s needs change, thepublic agency may ask to re-evaluate the child to ensure thathis or her educational programreflects current educational orrelated services needs. Teachersare also in a good position toobserve a child’s developmentand progress, and may request areevaluation to determine if theexisting program of specialeducation and related servicescontinues to appropriatelyaddress the child’s needs. Thesame is true of the parent.

New Aspectsin IDEA

The above provi-sions of IDEA bring somechanges to what the law speci-fied for reevaluations, as summa-rized on Handout C-4, OSEP’stopical brief, Changes in InitialEvaluation and Reevaluation. Thesechanges include:

• limiting reevaluations to nomore than once a year (unlessthe parent and public agencyagree otherwise);

• the option that a reevaluationdoes not have to occur at leastonce every three years if theparent and public agencyagree that a reevaluation isunnecessary; and

• the greater specification [at§300.303(a)(1)] as to when areevaluation would be war-ranted.

“Agreement” and “Consent”

The discussion in the Analysisof Comments and Changes alsoincludes a point we feel isimportant to highlight here—and that is the difference be-tween parent agreement andparent consent. This differencehas been discussed elsewhere inthis training package, but eachtime it comes up, it is worthnoting because there is a differ-ence that is often overlooked.

An agreement between a parentand a public agency—as isrequired for either not conduct-ing a three-year reevaluation orfor conducting more than onereevaluation of a child in ayear—is not the same thing asparent consent as defined in§300.9. The Department summa-rizes the implications of the term“agreement” as it is used inIDEA’s reevaluation provisions:

Rather, an agreement refersto an understandingbetween a parent and thepublic agency and doesnot need to meet therequirements for parentalconsent in §300.9.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46641)

Additional Points of Interest

The Department discusses thenew aspects of reevaluation andhow they might play out inreality. We’ve summarized severalrelevant points below.

Do parents have to give a reasonfor requesting a reevaluation of theirchild? No. As the Departmentnotes:

Section 300.303(b)...statesthat a reevaluation mayoccur if the child’s parentor teacher requests areevaluation. There is norequirement that a reasonfor the reevaluation begiven and we agree that areevaluation cannot beconditioned on the parentproviding a reason forrequesting a reevaluation.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46640)

If a parent requests a reevalua-tion and the public agencydisagrees that a reevaluation isneeded, may the public agencyrefuse to conduct the reevaluation ofthe child? Yes. As in so manyother areas when parents andpublic agencies disagree, theIDEA provides a process to befollowed and options for resolv-ing disputes. In this case:

New inIDEA!


[T]he public agency mustprovide the parents withwritten notice of theagency’s refusal to conducta reevaluation, consistentwith §300.503...thatexplains, among otherthings, why the agencyrefuses to conduct thereevaluation and theparent’s right to contestthe agency’s decisionthrough mediation or adue process hearing. (Id.)

May the parent disagree with (andrefuse) the public agency’s request toreevaluate the child? Yes. As theDepartment discusses:

In situations where apublic agency believes areevaluation is necessary,but the parent disagreesand refuses consent for areevaluation, new§300.300(c)(1)(ii) is clearthat the public agency may,but is not required to,pursue the reevaluation byusing the consent overrideprocedures described in§300.300(a)(3). (Id.)

Is an Independent EducationalEvaluation (IEE) considered areevaluation? No, it is not. As theDepartment states:

An IEE would beconsidered as a potentialsource of additionalinformation that thepublic agency and parentcould consider indetermining whether theeducational or relatedservices needs of the childwarrant a reevaluation, butit would not be considereda reevaluation. (71 Fed.Reg. at 46641)

If parents and the public agencyagree that a three-year reevaluationis unnecessary, does the agency haveto again offer to reevaluate the childnext year? No. Of this situation,the Department points out:

[I]f parents who havewaived a three yearreevaluation later decide torequest an evaluation, theycan do so. (Id.)

However, this point is alsoworth noting, with respect toagency responsibility:

Also, public agencies havea continuing responsibilityto request parental consentfor a reevaluation if theydetermine that the child’seducational or relatedservices needs warrant areevaluation. (Id.)

And this last point is similarlyimportant:

It is not necessary to addlanguage clarifying thatwaiving three-yearreevaluations must not bea routine agency policy orpractice because theregulations are clear thatthis is a decision that ismade individually for eachchild by the parent of thechild and the publicagency. (Id.)


Slide 27What Reevaluation Shares With Initial Evaluation

Slide loads with theheader “What reevalua-tion shares with initialevaluation”

Click 1—Click 5:Bullets 1-5 appear, oneper CLICK.

Click 6—Click 10:Bullets 6-10 appear,one per CLICK.

Starting View& Clicks 1-5

Clicks 6-10





Slide 27 delves into whatreevaluation shares with initialevaluation in terms of its re-quirements. This provides agood opportunity to reviewwhat’s been said so far as a wayof both solidifying theaudience’s knowledge aboutinitial evaluation and havingthem apply this to reevaluation.We discuss here the variouselements on the slide, andwould suggest that you gothrough those points, askingparticipants to summarize whatIDEA requires with respect toeach and what that means forthe process of reevaluation.Correct any erroneous informa-tion they might offer and fill inimportant aspects they don’tmention. The summary below isprovided to help you guide thisdiscussion and emphasizeaccuracy. Refer back to earlierslides and discussion sections asnecessary.

Purposes

The purposes of initial evalua-tion were discussed on Slide 3.They are:

• To see if the child is a “childwith a disability,” as definedby IDEA and the final regula-tions;

• To gather information that willhelp determine child’s educa-tional needs; and

• To guide decision makingabout appropriate educationalprogram for the child.

These are also the basic pur-poses of reevaluation, where thegroup involved in the evaluationneeds to determine:

• “whether the child continuesto have such a disability, andthe educational needs of thechild” [§300.305(a)(2)(i)(B)];

• “[t]he present levels of aca-demic achievement and relateddevelopmental needs of thechild [§300.305(a)(2)(ii)];

• “whether the child continuesto need special education andrelated services”[§300.305(a)(2) (iii)(B)]; and

• “[w]hether any additions ormodifications to the specialeducation and related servicesare needed to enable the childto meet the measurable an-nual goals set out in the IEP ofthe child and to participate, asappropriate, in the generaleducation curriculum”[§300.305(a)(2)(iv)].

Prior Written Notice

As was discussed on Slide 5with respect to initial evaluation,prior to a reevaluation of a child,the public agency must provideparents with prior written noticethat describes its proposedaction—in this case, to conduct areevaluation of a child. All thatwas said about prior writtennotice on Slide 5 (and, in moredetail, in the module Introductionto Procedural Safeguards) applies

here—the comprehensiveness ofthe notice and use of theparent’s native language or othermode of communication (asnecessary and feasible), forexample.

Procedural SafeguardsNotice

Also as discussed on Slide 5with respect to initial referral orparent request for an evaluation,the public agency must provideparents with the proceduralsafeguards notice. This is acomprehensive written explana-tion that public agencies mustprovide to parents to fullyinform them of IDEA’s proce-dural safeguards. “Upon initialreferral or parent request forevaluation” are two occasionsthat trigger the provision of theprocedural safeguards notice[§300.504(a)(1)].

Review of ExistingEvaluation Data

Reevaluation also requires thatthe “IEP Team and other quali-fied professionals, as appropri-ate” review existing evaluationdata to determine if enoughinformation already exists tomake the determinations theyneed to make about the child’sstatus as a “child with a disabil-ity” and the child’s educationalneeds, or if more data need tobe collected. This is readily


apparent in the following provi-sion at §300.305(a):

(a) Review of existingevaluation data. As part ofan initial evaluation (ifappropriate) and as part ofany reevaluation under thispart, the IEP Team andother qualifiedprofessionals, asappropriate, must—

(1) Review existingevaluation data on thechild, including—

The “including” above has thesame meaning as describedunder Slide 10 where initialevaluation was discussed.

The “decision path” outlinedon Slide 13 is also the same forreevaluation. If the group de-cides that enough data exist tomake the determinations theyneed to make—in other words,that no additional data areneeded—then the public agencymust notify parents:

• of that determination and thereason for it; and

• that parents have the right torequest an assessment of thechild.

The agency is not required toconduct the assessment of thechild unless the parents requestthat it does so. [§300.305(d)(2)]

Conversely, if the groupdetermines that more datais necessary—the “yes”path on Slide 13—thepublic agency must admin-ister such assessments andother evaluation measuresas may be needed toproduce the data[§300.305(c)].

And, as noted on Slide 12 forinitial evaluation, the group mayconduct its review of existingevaluation data without a meet-ing [§300.305(b)].

Parent Consent

Parent consent(see discussionunder Slide 5) isalso required before a publicagency may conduct a reevalua-tion of a child. The schoolsystem may conduct the reevalu-ation without the parent’sinformed written consent if itcan demonstrate that it hasmade reasonable efforts toobtain parental consent and theparent has failed to respond.Then the same conditions andconsiderations apply as de-scribed under Slide 7 regardinginitial evaluation (e.g., theagency must document itsattempts to obtain parentconsent, if a parent refuses toprovide consent, the agency may,but is not required to, pursuethe evaluation through IDEA’sdue process procedures). Thisincludes the public agency’s rightto not pursue the reevaluation,if it so chooses, and to not beheld in violation of IDEA’sevaluation requirements.

As noted on the last slide,however, consent is different fromthe agreement that a parent andpublic agency might reach to notconduct a three-year reevaluationbecause they believe it unneces-sary. Reaching such an agreementdoes not require parent consent.By the very agreement to notconduct a reevaluation, the needfor prior written notice, theprocedural safeguards notice,and parent consent are elimi-nated.

Parent Involvement inEvaluation Group

The same level of parentinvolvement described underinitial evaluation applies inreevaluation. This includes beingpart of the group that is respon-sible for the review of existingevaluation data and the oppor-tunity to provide input regardingthe child.

Parent Involvement inEligibility Determination

Not surprisingly, parents havethe same right to be a part of anygroup that makes the eligibilitydetermination as to their child’scontinued eligibility for specialeducation and related services asa “child with a disability.”


Factors Involved inDetermining Eligibility

The factors involved in deter-mining a child’s continuingeligibility under IDEA followingreevaluation are the same asrequired following initial evalua-tion. These include the factorslisted on Slide 14.

Reporting to Parents

As discussed on Slide 25,public agencies have an obliga-tion to provide parents a copy ofthe evaluation report and docu-mentation of the results of theeligibility determination at nocost to the parent. The samerequirements exist for reevalua-tion as for initial evaluation.Regardless of what that determi-nation is—yes, the child is

eligible, or no, the child isn’t—the public agency must providethe parent with these two items:

• a copy of the evaluationreport, and

• the documentation of deter-mination of the child’s eligibil-ity.

Both of these must be pro-vided at no cost to the parent.[§300.306(a)(2)]



Slide 28Other Evaluation Provisions

Click 1:Exception toevaluation before achange in eligibilityappears.

Slide loads with thisview.

View 1

...when the child’s eligibility underPart B ends because:

The child graduates from secondaryschool with a regular diploma; or

The child exceeds age eligibilityfor FAPE under State law.

Click 1





New Provisions in IDEA and the Final Regulations:Exceptions to Reevaluation Before a Change in Eligibility

(e) Evaluations before change in eligibility.(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of thissection, a public agency must evaluate a child witha disability in accordance with §§300.304 through300.311 before determining that the child is nolonger a child with a disability.

(2) The evaluation described in paragraph (e)(1) of this sec-tion is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibilityunder this part due to graduation from secondary school with aregular diploma, or due to exceeding the age eligibility for FAPEunder State law.

(3) For a child whose eligibility terminates under circumstancesdescribed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a public agencymust provide the child with a summary of the child’s academicachievement and functional performance, which shall includerecommendations on how to assist the child in meeting thechild’s postsecondary goals.

§300.305(e)

New inIDEA!

Slide 28 discussesnew provisions ofIDEA that will besignificant for publicagencies, children, and parentsalike. Appearing at §300.305(e),in the box below and on page 4of Handout C-2, these provi-sions detail two exceptions toIDEA’s requirement that anevaluation must be conductedbefore a public agency maydetermine that the child is nolonger “a child with a disability.”Such a determination wouldbring about a change in thechild’s eligibility for specialeducation and related servicesand, thus, is important for boththe public agency and the child.

IDEA now permits the publicagency to not conduct a reevalua-tion before terminating astudent’s eligibility under IDEAwhen:

• the student graduates fromsecondary school with aregular diploma, or

• when the student exceeds theage eligibility for FAPE underState law.

What the Public AgencyMust Do

The public agency must pro-vide prior written notice regard-ing the termination of suchchildren’s eligibility, because it isproposing to initiate or changethe identification, evaluation, oreducational placement of thechild or the provision of FAPE tothe child. [§300.503(a)] The lawalso expressly requires priorwritten notice when a studentgraduates from high school witha regular diploma, as follows:

(iii) Graduation from highschool with a regular highschool diploma constitutesa change in placement,requiring written priornotice in accordance with§300.503. [§300.102(a)(3)(iii)]

This slide does not focus onanother obligation of publicagencies in these two circum-stances (because the next slidedoes focus on it): The publicagency must provide the childwith a summary of his or heracademic achievement andfunctional performance. Thissummary must include recom-mendations on how to assist thechild in meeting the child’spostsecondary goals.

More will be said about this inthe next slide, so you may notwant to mention this obligationyet.

New inIDEA!


Senate Committee Remarks

The Senate Committee Reporton S. 1248 included an explana-tion of why these new provi-sions were included in thereauthorized law. The Commit-tee states:

Exit evaluationsThe committee has heardthat local educationalagencies feel compelled bycurrent statutory languageto conduct a reevaluationof a child with a disabilitywhen he or she eithergraduates from secondaryschool or ages out of IDEAeligibility. Both parentsand schools havecomplained that areevaluation seemsunnecessary, time-consuming, and costly. Thecommittee agrees.Therefore, the committeehas included language insection 614(c)(5)(B), basedupon existing Federaleducation regulations (34C.F.R. 300.534(c)(2)),stating that a student doesnot need to be reevaluatedbefore leaving secondaryschool. [S. Rep. No. 108-185 at 27 (2003)]

Department of EducationAnalysis

The Department of Educationelaborates on the dimensions ofa public agency’s obligations toreevaluate students who meetthe exceptions noted here.

While the requirements forsecondary transition areintended to help parentsand schools assist childrenwith disabilities transitionbeyond high school,section 614(c)(5) in the Actdoes not require a publicagency to assess a childwith a disability todetermine the child’seligibility to be considereda child with a disability inanother agency, such as avocational rehabilitationprogram, or a college orother postsecondarysetting. The Act also doesnot require LEAs toprovide the postsecondaryservices that may beincluded in the summaryof the child’s academicachievement andfunctional performance.We believe it wouldimpose costs on publicagencies not contemplatedby the Act to include suchrequirements in theregulations. (71 Fed. Reg. at46644)

What is Considereda Regular Diploma?

Also relevant to these newprovisions is how the finalregulations implementing IDEA2004 define “regular diploma.”As stated in §300.102(a)(3)(iv):

[T]he term regular highschool diploma does notinclude an alternativedegree that is not fullyaligned with the State’sacademic standards, suchas a certificate or a generaleducational developmentcredential (GED).


Slide 29Other Evaluation Provisions

Slide loads with thisview.

Clicks 1-2


View 1





Slide 29 continues discussionof the exceptions to reevaluationidentified in the last slide—thistime focusing upon what thepublic agency must do for a childwhose eligibility terminatesunder those circumstances. Asstated at §300.305(e)(3):

...a public agency mustprovide the child with asummary of the child’sacademic achievement andfunctional performance,which shall includerecommendations on howto assist the child inmeeting the child’spostsecondary goals.

Go over the slide and thisrequirement with your audience.

More Senate CommitteeRemarks

The Senate Committee Reporton S. 1248 also com-mented on this newprovision saying:

The bill also requireslocal educational agenciesto provide a summary ofthe child’s performance.The committee intends forthis summary to providespecific, meaningful, andunderstandableinformation to thestudent, the student’sfamily, and any agency,including postsecondaryschools, which mayprovide services to thestudent upon transition.The committee does notintend that the contents ofthis summary be subject toany determination ofwhether a free appropriate

public education has beenprovided. Further, thecommittee does not expectlocal educational agenciesto conduct any newassessments or evaluationsin providing the summary;rather, it should be basedupon information theschool has alreadygathered on the child. [S.Rep. No. 108-185 at 27-28(2003)]

What Might the Summary Contain?

As to the content of this summary, the law specifiesonly what you see in the provision at the left. Urged bycommenters to specify the summary’s contents in greaterdetail, the Department declined, saying:

The Act does not otherwise specify theinformation that must be included in thesummary and we do not believe that theregulations should include a list of requiredinformation. Rather, we believe that State and localofficials should have the flexibility to determinethe appropriate content in a child’s summary,based on the child’s individual needs andpostsecondary goals. (71 Fed. Reg. at 46645)

New inIDEA!


Slide 30Round-Up!

Use this slide for a review and recap of your own devising,or open the floor up for a question and answer period.Depending on how much time you have available for thistraining session, you can have participants work in smallgroups to make a quick list of what information they’vegleaned from this session, what’s different in IDEA 2004,what’s the same, or what aspects of initial evaluation orreevaluation are most pertinent to them. Emphasize thelocal or personal application of the information presentedhere.

Slide loads completely. Noclicks necessary except toEND the slide show.

CLICK to END the slide show.

Documents

Module 10 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation 10 Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation. Module 10 10-2 Visit NICHCY at: ... The final Part B regulations are codified in Title 34 of the