36038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

List of Correspondence—Office of

Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: List of correspondence from

January 3, 2000 through March 31, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Secretary is publishing

the following list pursuant to section

607(d) of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Under section 607(d) of IDEA, the

Secretary is required, on a quarterly

basis, to publish in the Federal Register

a list of correspondence from the

Department of Education received by

individuals during the previous quarter

that describes the interpretations of the

Department of Education of IDEA or the

regulations that implement IDEA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

JoLeta Reynolds or Rhonda Weiss.

Telephone: (202) 205–5507. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 205–

5465 or the Federal Information Relay

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain a copy of this notice in an

alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to Katie Mincey, Director of the

Alternate Formats Center. Telephone:

(202) 205–8113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following list identifies correspondence

from the Department issued between

January 3, 2000 through March 31, 2000.

Included on the list are those letters

that contain interpretations of the

requirements of IDEA and its

implementing regulations, as well as

letters and other documents that the

Department believes will assist the

public in understanding the

requirements of the law and its

regulations. The date and topic

addressed by a letter are identified, and

summary information is also provided,

as appropriate. To protect the privacy

interests of the individual or individuals

involved, personally identifiable

information has been deleted, as

appropriate.

Part A: General Provisions

Section 602—Definitions

Topic Addressed: Child With a

Disability

• Letter dated March 24, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), regarding school

districts’ obligations to appropriately

evaluate children with attention deficit

disorder (ADD) under Part B of IDEA,

and clarifying applicable requirements

under Part B of IDEA for children who

have a prior medical diagnosis of ADD

and the relationship of relevant State

requirements to applicable Part B

requirements.

• Letter dated March 24, 2000 to

Education Consultant and Advocate

Michele Williams, regarding

identification, evaluation, eligibility,

and the provision of appropriate

services and interventions in the least

restrictive setting for children with

Asperger’s Syndrome determined

eligible for services under Part B of

IDEA.

Part B: Assistance for Education of all

Children With Disabilities

Section 611—Authorization; Allotment;

Use of Funds; Authorization of

Appropriations

Topic Addressed: Use of Funds

• Letter dated February 7, 2000 to

California State Department of

Education Special Education Director

Dr. Alice Parker, regarding a finding in

a Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996 audit

report questioning the use of Part B of

IDEA funds to pay parents’ or guardians’

attorneys’ fees in lawsuits against the

State and clarifying that the IDEA March

12, 1999 final regulations explicitly

prohibit using Part B of IDEA funds to

pay attorneys’ fees.

• Letter dated March 8, 2000 to U.S.

Senator Bob Graham, explaining that the

Department does not provide Federal

funds directly to parents, private

schools, or a local educational agency

(LEA) to pay the cost of special

education programs for children with

disabilities, but that State, local, or

private sources of support may be

available for this purpose.

Topic Addressed: Eligible Entities

• Letter dated March 15, 2000 to the

Office of U.S. Senator Don Nickles,

regarding eligibility of State-supported

schools for Federal education program

funds, clarifying that a State-supported

school cannot be made eligible for these

funds in the absence of authorizing

legislation, and that under many Federal

programs, including Part B of IDEA,

State-supported schools can be eligible

for funds if they qualify as local school

districts.

Section 612—State Eligibility

Topic Addressed: Free Appropriate

Public Education

• Letter dated March 29, 2000 to

Michigan Protection and Advocacy

Attorney Stewart R. Hakola, regarding

Michigan’s School-of-Choice legislation,

and clarifying that (1) States may

establish mechanisms to ensure that

students with disabilities attending

public school choice programs retain

the right to a free appropriate public

education (FAPE), and (2) the

Department’s view that a provision in

the Michigan law requiring a written

agreement between the resident district

and the non-resident district regarding

the provision of FAPE for any student

with a disability who is enrolled in a

non-resident school or program does not

violate Part B of IDEA or Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

• Letter dated March 20, 2000 to

Illinois State Board of Education Special

Education Director Dr. Gordon M. Riffel,

clarifying that there is no provision in

Part B of IDEA that would permit a

school district to make the award of

compensatory services to a student with

a disability contingent on the student’s

delaying graduation from high school,

when a determination has been made as

a result of a complaint resolution that

compensatory services are necessary to

remedy the denial of FAPE to that

student.

Topic Addressed: Children With

Disabilities Placed in Private Schools by

Their Parents

• Letter dated January 21, 2000 to

U.S. Congressman David L. Hobson,

regarding a parent’s request for speech

services for their child with a disability

who is parentally-placed at a private

school, and clarifying that the March 12,

1999 final regulations regarding the

participation of parentally-placed

private school children with disabilities

accurately reflect the applicable

statutory provision in the IDEA

Amendments of 1997 and the

Department’s longstanding

interpretations of the relevant statutory

and regulatory requirements regarding

the participation of these children in

programs assisted or carried out under

Part B of IDEA.

Topic Addressed: State Educational

Agency General Supervisory

Responsibility

• Letter dated February 9, 2000 to

Massachusetts Department of Education

Program and Quality Assurance

Administrator John Stager, regarding the

State’s obligation to recover the Part B

of IDEA funds received by the Boston

Renaissance Charter School because the

charter school counted children with

disabilities but did not produce required

documentation that those children had

received appropriate special education

and related services.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 36039

• Letter dated February 10, 2000 to

Lawrence M. Siegel, Esq., explaining the

Department’s view that a State

complaint unit’s decision—which found

that a complaint did not allege a

violation of Part B of IDEA—was valid,

since the issue raised in the particular

complaint concerned the district’s

alleged failure to provide services for a

student with a disability in the

succeeding school year.

• Letter dated February 10, 2000 to

Maryland State Department of

Education Special Education Assistant

Superintendent Carol Ann Baglin,

regarding the State’s authority to require

a corrective action in resolving a

complaint against a school district

which prohibits that district from

allowing parents to voluntarily waive

their right to receive a copy of

procedural safeguards available to

parents under Part B of IDEA, since the

statute specifies the times when the

procedural safeguards notice must be

provided and does not authorize any

exceptions.

• Letter dated February 28, 2000 to

Alaska Department of Education and

Early Development Commissioner

Richard S. Cross, informing Alaska that,

despite the unique circumstances set

out in its inquiry, there is no authority

in IDEA for the Department to grant a

State a waiver of the requirement that it

revise its State statutes to comply with

the requirements of the IDEA

Amendments of 1997 in order for the

State to receive its Part B of IDEA grant

awards for FFY 2000.

• Letter dated March 27, 2000 to

Virginia Department of Education

Acting Superintendent Dr. Jo Lynne

DeMary, informing the Virginia

Department of Education that (1) its

failure to comply with the regulation at

34 CFR 300.514(c)—which addresses

what constitutes a child’s ‘‘stay-put’’ or

‘‘pendency’’ placement if the decision of

a hearing officer in a due process

hearing conducted by the SEA or a State

review official in an administrative

appeal agrees with the child’s parents

that a change of placement is

appropriate—could result in

enforcement action against the State,

and (2) compliance with this regulation,

which is a valid and appropriate

exercise of the Department’s regulatory

authority, is required of all States

receiving IDEA funds.

Topic Addressed: Coordinated Services

• Memorandum to Chief State School

Officers dated January 24, 2000,

regarding distribution of Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Memorandum 00–7 dated January 13,

2000 to State Directors of Special

Education, which explains five

provisions in the IDEA Amendments of

1997 that enhance coordinated services

and are designed to improve results for

students with disabilities.

Topic Addressed: Participation in State

and District-Wide Assessment Programs

• Letter dated February 4, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), regarding the

importance of ensuring that students

with disabilities are fully included in

the benefits of State and district-wide

assessment programs and that States

that report data about the performance

of nondisabled children on assessments

at the district or State level must also do

so for disabled children.

Section 613—Local Educational Agency

Eligibility

Topic Addressed: Charter Schools

• Letter dated March 31, 2000 to New

York State Education Department

Deputy Commissioner Lawrence

Gloeckler, clarifying that an LEA is not

required to distribute Part B of IDEA

flow-through funds to charter schools

that are not established as LEAs or as

public schools of the LEA.

Section 615—Procedural Safeguards

Topic Addressed: Student Discipline

• Letter dated February 4, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), regarding options

available to school authorities in

appropriately educating a disabled

student whose continued presence in a

classroom may pose a threat to school

safety.

• Letter dated February 4, 2000 to

U.S. Congressman Ronnie Shows,

regarding a perceived disparity in

procedures for disciplining disabled and

nondisabled students, and providing an

explanation of the requirements of the

IDEA Amendments of 1997 that govern

disciplining disabled students.

• Letter dated February 16, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), regarding options

available to school authorities in

disciplining students with disabilities.

• Letter dated March 15, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), regarding options

available to parents in resolving

disagreements with a school district

over the requirements of Part B of IDEA

even if criminal charges are pending

against a student, and explaining that

(1) Part B of IDEA does not prohibit a

State or local school district from

reporting a crime committed by a

student with a disability to appropriate

State law enforcement or judicial

authorities, and (2) a hearing officer is

not considered an employee of a local

school district merely because the

hearing officer is paid to conduct the

hearing.

• Letter dated March 15, 2000 to

Louisiana State Superintendent Cecil

Picard, clarifying that (1) the statutory

provision requiring a school district to

ask a hearing officer, in lieu of

permitting school officials unilaterally,

to order the removal of a child who is

potentially dangerous to an appropriate

interim alternative educational setting

for up to 45 days strikes an appropriate

balance between the need to provide

school officials increased flexibility in

dealing with school safety while

maintaining due process and procedural

protections for children with disabilities

and their parents, and (2) regardless of

available Federal special education

funding, States have flexibility in

accessing existing State and Federal

programs to fund special education

services.

Part C: Infants and Toddlers With

Disabilities

Sections 631–641

Topic Addressed: Natural Environments

• Letters dated March 21, 2000 to

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein,

responding to separate inquiries from

constituents, regarding the history and

changes to the natural environments

requirements of Part C of IDEA since the

law was originally enacted, and

clarifying that the need for parent

networking and parent training could be

addressed through the provision of

appropriate services in the child’s

individualized family services plan

(IFSP).

• Letter dated March 21, 2000 to U.S.

Congressman Mike Thompson,

regarding the history of and changes to

the natural environments provisions of

Part C of IDEA and the requirement that

decisions about the provision of

required early intervention services in

natural environments must be

individually determined by the child’s

IFSP team, and clarifying that

determinations regarding services,

including services for parents and the

location of services to a child, are made

by the child’s IFSP team.

• Letter dated March 21, 2000 to U.S.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey,

regarding the natural environments

provision of Part C of IDEA, and

clarifying, in general, that providing

services to an infant or toddler with a

disability in a setting such as a centerbased program that is limited

exclusively to infants and toddlers with

disabilities would not constitute a

36040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

natural environment, but that early

intervention services may be provided

in a center-based program serving only

children with disabilities, if the IFSP

team justifies in the IFSP that this

location is necessary to meet the

individual needs of a child for a

particular service.

Section 640—Payor of Last Resort

Topic Addressed: Use of Family’s

Public and Private Insurance for Early

Intervention Services

• Letter dated March 22, 2000 to

Illinois Department of Human Services

Director of Community Health and

Prevention James R. Nelson, explaining

that (1) with respect to the use of a

family’s private insurance for services

under Part C of IDEA, pending further

regulatory action, the Department will

accept a State’s reasonable

interpretation of Part C of IDEA,

including OSEP’s prior policy letters

and the position set out in the

Department’s Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on this issue; (2) with

respect to the use of public insurance,

Part C of IDEA funds are the payor of

last resort; and (3) if a family does not

permit access to its Medicaid payments,

Part C of IDEA requires that a State

ensure that the inability of a family to

pay for required services does not result

in the denial of services under Part C of

IDEA to the child or to the child’s

family.

Part D: National Activities To Improve

Education of Children With Disabilities

Subpart 1—State Program

Improvement Grants for Children With

Disabilities

Section 653—Applications

Topic Addressed: Information About

State Program Improvement Grants

• Letter dated March 24, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), clarifying that (1)

State Program Improvement Grants,

authorized by Part D of IDEA, are

discretionary grants that are not

intended to provide direct services to

children with disabilities, and (2) Part D

of IDEA does not require a State to

establish its own regulations to

administer this grant program.

Miscellaneous

Topic Addressed: Inapplicability of the

Least Restrictive Environment and

Discipline Requirements of Part B of

IDEA to College Students

• Letter dated February 10, 2000 to

individual, (personally identifiable

information redacted), clarifying that

the least restrictive environment (LRE)

and discipline provisions of Part B of

IDEA do not apply to college students

since the Part B of IDEA regulations

provide that a disabled student’s

graduation from high school with a

regular high school diploma ends the

student’s entitlement to FAPE, and

noting that some of the issues regarding

the provision of postsecondary services

to students with disabilities may be

within the jurisdiction of the

Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the PDF you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader MAS, which is

available free at either of the previous

sites. If you have questions about using

the PDF, call the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

800–293–6498; or in the Washington,

DC, area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.027, Assistance to States for

Education of Children with Disabilities)

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Curtis L. Richards,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 00–14074 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U