68698 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services—Proposed 

Comprehensive Plan for National 

Activities under Subparts 2 and 3, Part 

D of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, as amended by the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of request for comment 

and recommendations on the Proposed 

Comprehensive Plan for IDEA Part D 

National Activities. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) solicits comments and 

recommendations from the public prior 

to finalizing the comprehensive plan for 

national activities authorized under 

subparts 2 and 3, part D of IDEA 

(Comprehensive Plan or Plan). Pursuant 

to section 681(a) of IDEA, the Secretary 

is responsible for developing and 

implementing the Comprehensive Plan 

in order to enhance the provision of 

early intervention services, educational 

services, related services, and 

transitional services to children with 

disabilities under parts B and C of IDEA. 

DATES: In order to be assured of 

consideration as we develop the final 

Comprehensive Plan, we must receive 

your comments on or before January 11, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 4102, 

Washington, DC 20202–2641. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

through the Internet, use the following 

address: comments@ed.gov. 

You must use the term ‘‘Comments on 

IDEA Part D National Activities 

Comprehensive Plan’’ in the subject line 

of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Kuiken. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7371. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We invite 

you to submit comments regarding any 

areas of the proposed Comprehensive 

Plan in which you believe changes are 

needed, either to clarify a provision or 

to facilitate its implementation. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the final 

Comprehensive Plan, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific area of the 

Plan that each comment addresses and 

to arrange your comments in the same 

order as the proposed Plan. 

We encourage you to make your 

comments as specific as possible 

regarding the nature and scope of the 

action necessary to provide the 

clarifications you are seeking. Please 

specify how your your change will 

clarify or help to improve the 

Comprehensive Plan. 

Please also include the following with 

your comments and recommendations: 

A description of the area of your 

involvement in special education, 

regular education or early intervention, 

as well as your role, if any, in that area 

(e.g., parent, teacher, student, service 

provider, administrator, or researcher). 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about the Comprehensive Plan at 

Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between the 

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the Comments 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

print magnifier, to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

aid, please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Comprehensive Plan 

The proposed Comprehensive Plan is 

published as an attachment to this 

notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may review 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 the following site: http:// 

www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

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

888–293–6498; 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.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: November 15, 2006. 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

IDEA Part D National Activities 

Comprehensive Plan 

Planning Requirements 

The national activities authorized 

under subparts 2 and 3, part D of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, as amended by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act 

of 2004 (IDEA) support States, school 

systems, and families in improving 

results for infants, toddlers, and 

children with disabilities. These 

improvements are achieved through a 

series of strategic investments in 

knowledge production and 

development, knowledge transfer and 

utilization, and knowledge 

implementation evaluation. 

In section 681(a) of IDEA, Congress 

directed the Secretary to develop and 

implement a comprehensive plan 

(Comprehensive Plan or Plan) for the 

national activities authorized under 

subparts 2 and 3, part D of IDEA (IDEA 

Part D National Activities) in order to 

enhance the provision of early 

intervention services, educational 

services, related services, and 

transitional services to children with 

disabilities under parts B and C of IDEA. 

To the extent practicable, the Plan must 

be coordinated with the plan developed 

pursuant to section 178(c) of the 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. 

The Plan will be used by the 

Department of Education (Department) 

to ensure that the activities funded 

under subparts 2 and 3, part D of IDEA 

(Subparts 2 and 3) further the long-term 

program goals of Subparts 2 and 3 and 

benefit children of all ages with the full 

range of disabilities. To the extent 

possible, the Plan must include 

mechanisms to address early 

intervention, educational, related 

service, and transitional needs 

identified by State educational agencies 

(SEAs) in applications submitted for 

State personnel development grants 

under subpart 1, part D of IDEA as well 

as grants under Subparts 2 and 3. 

As the principal Federal agency 

administering IDEA, the Department’s 

Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP) has been charged by the 

Secretary with coordinating the Plan’s 

development and implementation. A 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 68699 

1Section 665 of IDEA, a new provision in the law, 

authorizes a program for Interim Alternative 

Educational Settings, Behavioral Supports, and 

Systemic School Interventions. Planning for this 

program, should Congress appropriate funds for it, 

is addressed under planning for the program 

outcomes and areas described in this 

Comprehensive Plan. 

summary of OSEP’s comprehensive 

planning process follows. 

Planning Process 

Building on the implementation of 

earlier plans developed by the 

Department in accordance with part D 

of IDEA and the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA), OSEP designed the IDEA part D 

Comprehensive Planning Process 

(Planning Process) to identify key issues 

that must be addressed to meet the 

critical needs of infants, toddlers, and 

children with disabilities and their 

families. 

In 2005, OSEP solicited assistance 

from an outside contractor, The Study 

Group Inc., to facilitate the Planning 

Process. The Study Group began work 

with OSEP on the Planning Process by 

engaging the expertise of a national 

workgroup comprised of individuals 

within and outside the Department. The 

workgroup included 20 members who 

represented IDEA Part D stakeholder 

groups and a broad range of expertise 

including: experts in designing, 

implementing, and evaluating the types 

of national activities called for in 

Subparts 2 and 3; experts 

knowledgeable about the operation of 

SEAs, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), and IDEA Part C lead agencies 

(LAs); and experts familiar with the 

needs and priorities of teachers, parents, 

administrators, early intervention 

personnel, related services personnel, 

and transition personnel. In addition 

staff from both OSEP and the National 

Center for Special Education Research 

participated in the process. 

The workgroup convened in 

Washington, DC, on October 3–4, 2005, 

to examine current and future efforts to 

improve results for children with 

disabilities across seven cross-cutting 

program outcomes that had been 

generated through prior IDEA and 

Department planning processes. 

This proposed Comprehensive Plan 

was informed by the work of the 

workgroup, the Department’s internal 

long range planning process, and a 

review of the following information 

sources: 

• State Annual Performance Reports 

(APRs) for parts B and C of IDEA. 

• Personnel development activities 

conducted by States through State 

Personnel Development Grants (subpart 

1, part D of IDEA). 

• Transitional needs identified by 

SEAs in applications submitted for State 

personnel development grants under 

subpart 1, part D of IDEA as well as 

grants under Subparts 2 and 3. 

• Long-term program goals and 

performance measures developed by 

OSEP for programs authorized under 

part D of IDEA. 

• Topics and issues identified during 

OSEP’s prior part D Comprehensive 

Planning Process in 2002. 

• GPRA indicators and targets. 

• State-reported data under section 

618 of IDEA. 

• Studies and evaluations supported 

under IDEA on a wide range of issues 

related to IDEA and its impact on States, 

districts, schools, and children with 

disabilities and their families. 

The Scope of the Plan: Programs 

Authorized Under Subparts 2 and 3 

The purpose of the IDEA Part D 

National Activities is to improve early 

intervention, educational, related 

service, and transitional outcomes for 

children with disabilities. The 

Comprehensive Plan addresses the 

range of national programs authorized 

under Subparts 2 and 3, such as teacher 

training and personnel development, 

technology and media services, parent 

training and information, and technical 

assistance and dissemination. The 

program areas authorized under 

Subparts 2 and 3 are described in the 

following sections.1

• Personnel Development to Improve 

Services and Results for Children with 

Disabilities. (IDEA, section 662) The 

personnel development activities 

supported under section 662 of IDEA 

assist States in meeting their 

responsibility to ensure the availability 

of highly qualified personnel to serve 

infants, toddlers and children with 

disabilities. Part D of IDEA authorizes 

support for pre-service and in-service 

training targeting special educators, 

regular educators, administrators, and 

related services personnel. Personnel 

Development projects focus on 

supporting beginning special educators, 

training for the education of children 

with low-incidence disabilities, and 

leadership preparation. 

• Technical Assistance, 

Demonstration Projects, Dissemination 

of Information, and Implementation of 

Scientifically Based Research. (IDEA, 

section 663) Technical assistance, 

model demonstrations, and 

dissemination are the primary vehicles 

under IDEA for putting up-to-date, 

scientifically based information into the 

hands of individuals and organizations 

serving children with disabilities. IDEA 

Part D funds support national centers 

and projects designed to improve 

services in such areas as: Addressing 

behavioral needs of students with 

disabilities; improving the alignment 

and development of valid and reliable 

assessments and alternate assessments; 

training personnel on how to address 

diverse student learning and 

performance characteristics; ensuring 

effective transitions between school and 

post-school settings for students with 

disabilities; and applying scientifically 

based research to the implementation of 

policy, procedures, practices, and 

training. 

• Parent Training and Information 

Centers and Community Parent 

Resource Centers. (IDEA, sections 671 

through 673) Parent Training and 

Information Centers and Community 

Parent Resource Centers provide 

information, technical assistance, and 

training to families of children with 

disabilities on child and parent rights 

under IDEA, the nature and needs of a 

child’s disability, and effective 

communication with professionals 

serving children with disabilities. 

• Technology Development, 

Demonstration, and Utilization; Media 

Services; and Instructional Materials. 

(IDEA, section 674) The technology and 

media-related activities supported 

under section 674 of IDEA promote the 

development, demonstration, and 

utilization of technology along with 

research on using technology to improve 

learning and provide access to the 

classroom for children with disabilities. 

Media services include captioning and 

video description that are appropriate 

for use in the classroom setting, for 

individuals who are hearing impaired, 

blind, or print disabled. Also funded 

under this authority is the National 

Instructional Materials Access Center 

(NIMAC), a new national center 

required by IDEA. The purpose of the 

NIMAC is to function as a national 

repository for National Instructional 

Materials Accessibility Standard 

(NIMAS) files. 

• Studies and Evaluation. (IDEA, 

section 664) Part D of IDEA authorizes 

a comprehensive program of national 

studies and evaluations to provide 

information on a wide range of issues 

related to IDEA and its impact on States, 

districts, schools, and children with 

disabilities and their families. Section 

664 of IDEA requires a national 

assessment of special education to 

determine the effectiveness of IDEA; to 

provide timely information to the 

President, Congress, States, LEAs, and 

the public on how to implement IDEA 

more effectively; and to provide the 

President and Congress information that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
68700 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 

2 IDEA delegates to the Director of the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES) responsibility to carry out 

most of section 664 of IDEA (Studies and 

Evaluation), including two legally mandated 

research activities, the ‘‘Assessment of National 

Activities’’, and a ‘‘Study on Ensuring 

Accountability for Students Who Are Held to 

Alternate Assessment Standards.’’ Other activities 

supported under the Studies and Evaluations 

program include the National Longitudinal 

Transition Study-2, and the Pre-Elementary 

Education Longitudinal Study. This comprehensive 

plan includes those activities delegated to IES 

under section 664 of IDEA, and coordination 

between OSEP and IES is discussed in the following 

sections. 

will be useful in developing legislation 

to achieve the purposes of IDEA more 

effectively.2

Overview 

This proposed Comprehensive Plan is 

designed to ensure that the national 

activities funded under Subparts 2 

and 3: 

• Support the provisions of IDEA and 

benefit children of all ages with the full 

range of disabilities. 

• Align with and support the full and 

successful implementation of the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) 

and the Secretary’s initiatives. For 

further information on the Secretary’s 

initiatives, please refer to: http:// 

www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/index.html. 

• Address the Department 

requirements for long range program 

planning and accountability by 

furthering the long-term program goals 

of Subparts 2 and 3. 

The proposed Plan is organized 

around seven program outcomes that 

OSEP has identified as important for 

improving results for children with 

disabilities. These program outcomes 

also: connect to OSEP’s IDEA program 

performance and accountability 

measures; relate to the needs of children 

of all ages and with all types of 

disabilities and are applicable to all 

programs authorized under Subparts 2 

and 3; and relate to topics and issues 

that OSEP has supported through IDEA 

Part D National Activities in the past, 

but that require further investments. 

The seven program outcomes are: 

• To the maximum extent 

appropriate, children with disabilities 

will receive high quality educational 

and early intervention services in 

natural settings with typically 

developing peers. 

• Children with disabilities will be 

appropriately identified and served in a 

timely manner. 

• Children with disabilities will 

demonstrate improved literacy, 

including early language, 

communication and numeracy skills. 

• Children with disabilities will 

demonstrate improved social and 

behavioral skills. 

• Students with disabilities will 

complete high school prepared for 

independent living and postsecondary 

education and/or competitive 

employment. 

• All service providers, including 

special education teachers, 

paraprofessionals, related service 

personnel and early intervention 

personnel, will be qualified and possess 

the knowledge and skills to implement 

effective, research-based practices and 

interventions. 

• Family capacity will be enhanced. 

Program Outcomes 

This section more fully describes each 

program outcome and the Department’s 

proposed investment plans for the next 

5 to 10 years for supporting, through the 

IDEA Part D National Activities, projects 

and activities that are designed to 

achieve these outcomes. Decisions 

regarding specific investments 

addressing these outcome areas will be 

made on an annual basis in accordance 

with the guidance and priorities of the 

Secretary. In addition, several outcome 

areas identified below in the context of 

improving results for children with 

disabilities are also addressed for all 

children under NCLB. Where 

appropriate, the funding and 

implementation of specific activities 

and projects will be coordinated with 

ongoing work in other offices 

throughout the Department that are 

addressing similar substantive areas for 

all students. Under each program 

outcome, we have included brief 

descriptions of possible approaches to 

achieve these outcomes. 

Outcome 1: To the Maximum Extent 

Appropriate, Children With Disabilities 

Will Receive High Quality Educational 

and Early Intervention Services in 

Natural Settings With Typically 

Developing Peers 

This outcome relates to two key 

requirements of IDEA— (1) That 

children with disabilities are provided a 

free appropriate public education 

(FAPE) in the least restrictive 

environment (LRE), and (2) that infants 

and toddlers receiving early 

intervention services are provided those 

services in ‘‘natural environments’’, 

which for very young children could be 

a home or community setting. The LRE 

for a child varies with each child’s 

individual needs. Some children may 

make progress in a regular classroom 

setting while others may need 

alternatives to a regular classroom. High 

quality educational services are critical 

to providing access to the general 

education curriculum for children with 

disabilities such that they have 

opportunities similar to their nondisabled peers to participate and 

demonstrate progress in that 

curriculum. Also included in this 

outcome area is the interaction between 

children with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. The emphasis is not on 

placement but whether children are 

spending their day in activities with 

nondisabled children. 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Enhance the capacity of regular and 

special education to provide 

differentiated instruction across all age, 

academic, and functional levels of 

students. Differentiated instruction 

responds to the diversity present in 

today’s regular education classrooms. It 

promotes a teacher’s response to 

individual learner needs and is based on 

a student’s readiness, interests, and 

learning profile (Tomlinson, 2001). 

Differentiated instruction also motivates 

and engages students in the general 

education curriculum. 

• Describe characteristics of 

successful interventions to optimize 

children’s access to the general 

education curriculum or appropriate 

early childhood activities. Research that 

traces back more than two decades 

indicates that instructional strategies, 

such as presenting lessons in multiple 

formats and linking lessons to students’

prior knowledge, can promote students’

access to new knowledge (Gersten, 

Fuchs, Williams, and Baker, 2001; 

Deshler et al., 2001). Similarly, the use 

of other scientifically based practices, 

such as mnemonics and peer tutoring, 

has been shown to increase the amount 

of time students with disabilities spend 

engaged and learning. In the context of 

early childhood education, this outcome 

would focus on practices such as early 

literacy, motor skills, and social 

emotional development. 

• Assess the impact of participation 

in the general education curriculum on 

student academic performance and 

social and behavioral interactions. 

NCLB and IDEA work together to ensure 

that schools, districts, and States are 

held accountable for improving the 

achievement of all groups of students, 

including students with disabilities, 

each year. It is important to gather and 

analyze data on the ways in which we 

support participation of children with 

disabilities in the general education 

curriculum and how the different 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 68701 

approaches support improved outcomes 

for students with disabilities. 

• Align student data collection, 

analysis, and reporting systems to be 

consistent with State accountability 

systems. IDEA Part D stakeholders are 

using validated innovations in 

assessment to collect and analyze data 

on students with disabilities, such as 

curriculum-based measurement (CBM), 

which uses the frequent collection of 

data to help teachers make informed 

decisions about instruction. Aligning 

data that is collected at the classroom 

level with data collected for State 

accountability purposes will improve 

the quality of information that is 

available to assess the progress of 

students with disabilities at the 

individual, classroom, school, district 

and State levels. 

• Identify uses of technology to 

enhance and monitor student 

participation in the general education 

curriculum or appropriate early 

childhood practices. The use of 

specially designed CBM technology, for 

example, has virtually eliminated the 

need for teachers to be involved in the 

mechanical and technical aspects of 

CBM assessment (Fuchs, Fuchs, 

McMaster, and Otalba 2003; Spicuzza et 

al., 2001). In addition, the use of 

classroom instruction that employs 

computer-aided instruction allows 

students to receive immediate feedback, 

and provides multiple ways of 

interacting with content. 

Outcome 2: Children With Disabilities 

Will Be Appropriately Identified and 

Served in a Timely Manner 

This outcome focuses on the child 

find provisions in IDEA for all children 

across the age continuum, not only for 

very young children. The intent of this 

outcome is to improve early and 

appropriate identification of children 

with disabilities and the provision of 

timely and effective services to those 

children. The impact of inappropriate 

identification has resulted in 

disproportionate representation by race 

and ethnicity in some disability 

categories, and late and most likely 

under-identification of children in other 

categories (Klingner et al., 2005; 

Donovan and Cross, 2002; Losen and 

Reschly, 1998; Garcia and Ortiz, 1988). 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Ensure a flexible early intervention 

system that promotes timely referral, 

evaluation, identification, and service 

delivery from birth through age 21. 

There is strong empirical evidence to 

suggest that early and timely 

intervention for the kindergarten 

through grade 3 population, with 

continuous progress monitoring, will 

result in improved learning outcomes 

for at-risk students, and may ultimately 

reduce inappropriate referrals to, and 

enrollment in, special education 

(Foorman et al., 1998; Speece and Case 

2001; Torgesen et al., 2001; Vaughn, 

Linan-Thompson, and Hickman, 2003; 

Vellutino, Scanlon, and Lyon, 2000; 

Kozleski, Sobel, and Taylor, 2003). 

While emphasis has been placed on 

identification of at-risk students at the 

elementary level, the current 

identification, evaluation, and service 

delivery system must respond to the 

needs of all learners from birth through 

age 21. In particular, the system must 

provide flexibility to enter and exit 

special education and collaborating 

agency services across disability and age 

spectrums. 

• Disseminate evidence-based models 

of early identification and early 

intervening programs, including 

programs based on ‘‘Response to 

Intervention’’ (RTI). Both IDEA and 

NCLB support the use of multi-tier 

systems of intervention options to 

provide high quality instruction and 

intervention that match children’s 

needs. Dissemination of models of early 

intervention that are based on RTI, as 

well as other evidence-based models of 

intervention, is important because such 

dissemination will require researchers 

and technical assistance providers to 

identify core principles of the 

interventions and policy considerations, 

as well as the professional development 

needs across all systems of education 

(e.g., SEA, LEA) and institutions of 

higher education. 

• Enhance the ability of regular 

education, special education, and early 

childhood programs to collect, analyze, 

and report progress data for continuous, 

data-based decision-making. NCLB has 

focused attention on the importance of 

tracking student academic progress to 

assist in early identification of children 

with disabilities, inform instructional 

practice, and to demonstrate student 

progress. The delivery of technical 

assistance and dissemination of 

information is needed to assist regular 

educators, special educators, and early 

childhood personnel in differentiating 

the collection of and the analysis of data 

to inform instruction and improve early 

identification. Instructional and 

behavioral data need to be easily 

accessible to field practitioners. In order 

for data-driven decision-making to 

occur, data collection and reporting 

systems across agencies need to be 

compatible and comprehensible to both 

users and receivers of the information. 

• Implement personnel preparation 

programs for regular education, special 

education, and early childhood 

personnel with an emphasis on early 

intervention. Pre-service and in-service 

professional development opportunities 

and programs that provide the 

philosophical foundation for early 

interventions, including RTI and other 

evidence-based systems of 

identification, evaluation, and service 

delivery, are needed. Field practitioners, 

both veteran and novice, require 

knowledge, skills, and technology to 

implement effective, research-based 

practices and interventions. 

• Address issues of inappropriate 

disproportionate representation of 

minority students in special education. 

While many States have documented 

disproportionate representation of 

minorities in special education, to date, 

there are few models or strategies that 

have proven effective in reducing 

inappropriate identification (Artiles, 

Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda, 2002; 

Donovan and Cross, 2002; Klingner et 

al., 2005; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, and 

Singh, 1999). Further exploration is 

needed to assist regular educators in 

differentiating instruction for all 

learners based on student need. Both 

regular and special educators need to 

become better skilled at using culturally 

free identification practices and 

interventions for students who are atrisk for school failure and, potentially, 

for being identified as needing special 

education. 

Outcome 3: Children With Disabilities 

Will Demonstrate Improved Literacy, 

Including Early Language, 

Communication and Numeracy Skills 

This outcome focuses on the 

development of literacy and numeracy 

skills by children with disabilities 

across all age groups. In both literacy 

and numeracy, the skill range should 

cover pre- and early learning skills to 

more advanced skills. The goal for 

students with disabilities, age 6 through 

21, is to meet challenging standards as 

determined by State assessments, using 

accommodations, as appropriate. For 

young children, the goal is for 

functional outcomes to improve. The 

use of technology, media and 

instructional materials will be 

considered in each of the projects and 

activities described below. 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
68702 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 

• Focus on improving middle and 

high school literacy. At higher grade 

levels, literacy skills become 

increasingly important for accessing the 

general education curriculum. Students 

with disabilities who do not receive 

sufficient literacy instruction at younger 

ages risk falling even further behind as 

they grow older, both in their literacy 

skills and in their ability to master other 

academic content areas. Accordingly, 

there is a need for evidence-based 

literacy instruction, for students with 

disabilities, to be widely used across 

middle and high school grades. 

• Improve the quality and usefulness 

of student performance data 

measurement systems for students with 

disabilities. Student performance data 

can help teachers, administrators, and 

parents appropriately monitor a 

student’s progress in developing literacy 

skills. For example, these data can help 

pinpoint a student’s strengths and 

weaknesses. High quality performance 

measurement data systems also can 

facilitate teachers’ ability to modify 

instruction as needed to meet the needs 

of students with disabilities. 

• Disseminate and implement 

promising practices that promote 

literacy and numeracy across the school 

curriculum and across environments 

(e.g., early childhood settings, home, 

and community). Literacy and 

numeracy are important basic skills that 

affect the ability of students to succeed 

in all content areas and all 

environments. Whether a child is 

learning history, mathematics, or other 

subjects, the child’s literacy and 

numeracy are essential to ensuring the 

child’s success in the classroom, in 

early childhood settings, at home, or in 

the community. 

• Encourage implementation of RTI 

as an instructional practice in regular 

education environments. The most 

recent reauthorization of IDEA allows 

the use of RTI strategies to identify 

children with learning disabilities. The 

RTI model is based upon evidence that 

many of the problems that lead to 

special education referral (e.g., lack of 

progress in literacy development) can 

best be addressed in regular education 

environments, prior to, and perhaps in 

lieu of, a special education referral. The 

RTI approach is intended to encourage 

practitioners to intervene early for all 

children who are considered 

academically at-risk. 

Outcome 4: Children With Disabilities 

Will Demonstrate Improved Social and 

Behavioral Skills 

Documentation of the nature of the 

relationship between improved social 

and behavioral skills and improved 

academic outcomes is emerging (Warren 

et al., 2004; Brooks, Todd, Tofflemoyer, 

and Horner, 2003). All children require 

some level of social and behavioral 

support. While most children will 

respond to a systematic school-wide 

model that provides social and 

behavioral support, others will require 

more intensive levels of support and 

intervention to achieve improved 

educational outcomes. 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Develop positive measures to assess 

social and emotional growth and 

development. Positive behavioral 

interventions and supports have 

contributed to improvements in student 

behavior (Sugai et al., 2000). While 

existing measures have emphasized 

behavioral difficulties, office discipline 

referral, suspensions, and expulsions, 

future measures should include 

assessments of pro-social behaviors, 

including students’ social and 

emotional growth and development, 

social inclusion, and self-determination. 

• Implement early identification and 

intervention systems to promote positive 

social and emotional behaviors. 

Research, training, technical assistance 

and technology projects and activities 

supported under the IDEA Part D 

National Activities have demonstrated 

the effectiveness of early intervention 

systems that promote school-wide use of 

positive behavioral interventions and 

supports (Stormont, Lewis, and 

Beckner, 2005). There is a need for 

continued work in these areas in order 

to support further implementation of 

proven practices for early intervention. 

In particular, there is a need to 

emphasize the implementation of early 

identification systems that focus on 

children ages birth through nine. 

• Design protocols to measure 

increased academic engagement 

resulting from improved social and 

behavioral skills. Recent studies are 

demonstrating a positive relationship 

between improved behavior and 

improved academic achievement. 

Protocols must be designed to assess the 

relationship between student behavior, 

academic relevance and rigor, and 

increased academic engagement. 

• Increase the collaboration and 

interaction among schools, families, and 

social service agencies in the design and 

implementation of behavioral support 

systems. Parent training and information 

centers funded under subpart 3 of part 

D of IDEA have facilitated the delivery 

of information on behavioral supports to 

parents. In order to maximize improved 

behavioral outcomes for children, 

additional work is needed for the design 

and implementation of behavioral 

support systems that benefit from 

effective collaboration and shared 

decision-making among schools, 

families, and social service agencies. 

• Support enhanced school 

leadership in the design and delivery of 

school-wide student behavioral support 

systems. School leadership is a key 

factor in school-wide change and the 

effective implementation of school-wide 

behavioral supports (OSEP Center on 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and 

Supports, University of Oregon, 2002). 

While nearly half of the States currently 

require elementary principals to have 

knowledge in behavioral supports in 

order to be certified, there is a need for 

projects that support leadership 

development and provide school leaders 

with the necessary knowledge and skills 

to design and deliver school-wide 

behavioral supports. 

Outcome 5: Students With Disabilities 

Will Complete High School Prepared for 

Independent Living and Postsecondary 

Education and/or Competitive 

Employment 

For some years, OSEP has attempted 

to ensure that secondary school students 

with disabilities complete high school 

prepared for independent living and 

postsecondary education and/or 

competitive employment. OSEP has 

monitored this outcome by reviewing 

changes in the graduation rate and the 

dropout rate of students with 

disabilities. While trends for both of 

these indicators have demonstrated 

movement in the right direction, there is 

a need for more work in this area (Lehr 

et al., 2004; Thurlow, Sinclair, and 

Johnson, 2002; Wagner, Newman, 

Cameto, and Levine, 2005). 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Develop a broad range of 

performance measures to assess student 

transition outcomes. The measures 

typically used to assess outcomes for 

transition-aged students are graduation 

and dropout rates. These data alone do 

not provide a complete picture of 

successful transition outcomes. It is 

important to continue to identify and 

collect longitudinal information that 

describes the status of individuals with 

disabilities after they exit school. 

Expanded performance measures 

include participation in postsecondary 

education, employment, wages and 

benefits, and independent living status. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 68703 

• Support and disseminate model 

programs of evidence-based success in 

meeting the needs of transition-aged 

students and their families. The 

knowledge base about successful 

transition of students with disabilities 

from secondary school to postsecondary 

environments has grown considerably 

over the past two decades. Research 

confirms the value of well-designed, 

well-coordinated transition activities 

involving schools, students, families, 

and community and adult service 

agencies while also documenting the 

constant need for further improvement 

in transition services and supports (Lehr 

et al., 2004; National Center on 

Secondary Education and Transition, 

2005). Improved transition services and 

student outcomes are dependent upon 

the identification and dissemination of 

effective strategies, models, and 

information that will assist parents and 

professionals in the transition decisionmaking process. 

• Promote programs that include both 

academic achievement skills attainment 

(graduation/school completion) and, as 

needed, the skills necessary to 

participate in employment and 

community living. With an emphasis on 

academic achievement and high stakes 

testing, schools are finding it difficult to 

provide students with disabilities with 

programs and services that support 

employment and career development as 

well as other skills that enhance 

independence and community living 

and participation (National 

Longitudinal Study, 1993; Bremer, 

Kachgal, and Schoeller, 2003; Johnson, 

Thurlow, Cosio, and Bremer, 2005; 

National Center on Secondary 

Education and Transition, February, 

2004). Programs that support academic 

and community and employment skills 

are especially important for students 

with more significant cognitive 

disabilities because these students 

typically need formal training and skill 

development at the secondary level in 

order to attain employment and live 

more independently. 

• Increase collaboration among 

stakeholder agencies for long-term 

postsecondary success, including 

continuing education, employment, 

independent living, and community 

participation. Research on evidencebased practices confirms that effective 

transition planning and services for 

students with disabilities exiting high 

school depend on cooperative linkages 

between schools and other human 

service and community agencies 

(Johnson et al., 2002; Crane and 

Mooney, 2005). Successful interagency 

agreements for transition planning and 

services require clear descriptions of the 

responsibilities of, and strategies and 

methods used by, schools and other 

agencies that support transition 

activities and promote success in 

postsecondary environments. 

• Promote early student and family 

involvement in transition planning with 

an emphasis on self-determination. Too 

many students and families report that 

a ‘‘lack of information’’ about 

postsecondary opportunities, including 

continuing education and community 

and adult services, restricts meaningful 

involvement in the transition planning 

for post-school opportunities, as 

required by IDEA (National Center on 

Secondary Education and Transition, 

January, 2004; Hasazi et al., 2005). 

Providing students and families with 

vital information early in the transition 

planning process supports informed 

decision-making and promotes selfdetermination and self-advocacy. 

Outcome 6: All Service Providers 

Including Special Education Teachers, 

Paraprofessionals, Related Service 

Personnel and Early Intervention 

Personnel Will Be Qualified, and 

Possess the Knowledge and Skills to 

Implement Effective, Research-Based 

Practices and Interventions 

This outcome is intended to focus on 

ensuring that the individuals who are 

responsible for serving children with 

disabilities and implementing IDEA are 

appropriately and adequately trained 

and have the necessary content 

knowledge and skills. Under the highly 

qualified requirements contained in 

IDEA, all special education teachers 

must be fully certified as special 

education teachers. Additionally, 

special education teachers who teach 

core academic subjects are required to 

meet the requirements for highly 

qualified teachers under NCLB, except 

as provided under IDEA. These 

requirements do not apply to IDEA Part 

C providers. OSEP has a long history of 

supporting evidence-based training 

programs for special education, early 

intervention, and related service 

personnel. Historically, Federal 

investments in training programs have 

been targeted in two key areas: (1) 

Addressing critical, on-going shortages 

in the supply of qualified personnel; 

and (2) addressing the need for high 

quality training programs that are 

capable of training personnel who are 

knowledgeable and skilled in evidencebased practices to improve results for 

children with disabilities. 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Develop and disseminate model 

programs that enhance the knowledge 

and skills of special education, related 

service and early intervention providers 

across disabilities and age, grade, and 

content areas. Model strategies, such as 

programs involving nationally 

disseminated evidence-based training 

modules and beginning teacher mentor 

and induction models, have been linked 

to improvements in the preparation of 

special education teachers. Institutions 

of higher education responsible for 

preparing teachers need resources and 

information on the best available 

evidence and strategies that are linked 

to improved outcomes for children with 

disabilities. These types of model 

programs and strategies would also be 

beneficial to regular education training 

programs in assisting those teachers in 

meeting their instructional 

responsibility for children with 

disabilities. 

• Identify the characteristics of 

quality pre-service programs that 

prepare special and regular education 

teachers and early childhood providers 

to best serve students with disabilities. 

Pre-service programs must recognize 

that special and regular education 

teachers and early childhood providers 

are responsible for the instruction of 

individuals with diverse needs, 

backgrounds, and learning styles. 

Continued improvement in the preservice preparation of teachers requires 

identification of program characteristics 

that promote instructional and 

behavioral skills consistent with the 

requirements for highly qualified 

teachers. 

• Investigate and validate alternative 

routes to teacher certification. The 

increased demand for teachers, and 

particularly special education teachers, 

has renewed interest in alternative 

certification mechanisms. On-line 

instruction and other innovative 

approaches are providing opportunities 

for students from non-traditional 

backgrounds to seek teacher 

certification. While alternative 

certification programs may be necessary 

to help States address existing shortages 

in the supply of qualified personnel, it 

is essential to establish and maintain 

rigorous outcome standards for the 

graduates of these programs. 

• Develop an effective infrastructure 

that responds to the changing needs of 

teachers and school leaders, including 

the provision of technical assistance, 

innovative pre-service programs, and 

the use of technology to address 

professional development needs. The 

professional preparation and 

development of instructional and 

leadership personnel serving students 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
68704 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 

with disabilities must be considered 

ongoing rather than terminal. 

Continuing high quality, evidence-based 

technical assistance and professional 

development programs and supports 

enable instructional and leadership 

personnel to meet the changing needs of 

students and families and to take full 

advantage of new technologies that may 

enable them to serve students with 

disabilities more effectively. 

• Enhance recruitment and retention 

practices to ensure a qualified work 

force. School districts list a shortage of 

qualified applicants as the greatest 

barrier to obtaining qualified special 

education teachers (Billingsley and 

McLeskey, 2004; Billingsley, 2004; 

McLeskey, Tyler, and Flippin, 2004; 

Carlson et al., 2002). Effective 

recruitment and retention practices are 

critical to securing and maintaining a 

qualified workforce. More than onethird of special education teachers are 

either undecided about how long they 

are likely to remain in teaching, or do 

not plan to continue teaching in special 

education until they retire (Carlson et 

al., 2002). Accordingly, more work must 

be done to identify the factors that 

attract individuals to the field of special 

education as well as the rewards and 

incentives that will enable school 

districts to retain skilled teachers, 

related service personnel, and school 

leaders. 

Outcome 7: Family Capacity will be 

Enhanced 

This outcome focuses on enhancing 

family capacity in areas such as: 

Knowing their rights under IDEA and 

how to advocate for their children; 

understanding their children’s 

strengths, abilities, and special needs; 

helping their children develop and 

learn; having access to support systems; 

and having access to desired services, 

programs, and activities in their 

communities. 

The Department intends to support 

IDEA Part D National Activities that 

address this outcome by supporting 

projects and activities that are designed 

to: 

• Ensure that parents and families 

across the socio-economic and cultural 

spectrum have access to and 

understand information that will 

support their involvement in all 

decisions about their child. Outreach is 

necessary to ensure that all families are 

aware of and have access to usable and 

timely resources to inform and empower 

decision-making about their child. 

Targeted outreach is needed to ensure 

the inclusion of underserved families as 

defined in IDEA, including low income 

parents, parents of limited English 

proficient children, and parents with 

disabilities. 

• Assist parents and families in 

becoming better consumers of supports 

and services. Families play a critical 

role in the education of their children. 

Children benefit when their parents and 

other family members are informed and 

actively engaged consumers of the 

educational supports and services 

provided to children with disabilities. 

With additional information and 

training, more parents can more fully 

participate in the education of their 

children. 

• Enhance the capacity of 

underserved parents and families to 

become decision-makers in their child’s 

current and future educational, home 

and community environments. There is 

a need to enhance the capacity of 

underserved families to become active 

decision-makers regarding their child’s 

education. For example, underserved 

families need support in readily 

accessing information about proven 

practices relating to their child’s 

education. These families also need 

support in determining which evidencebased educational and early 

intervention practices are most 

appropriate for their child. 

• Promote the development of school 

leadership that emphasizes the creation 

and maintenance of positive school 

environments that welcome and support 

diversity. School leadership is a key 

factor in school-wide change. 

Leadership development should, 

therefore, emphasize the creation of 

positive school environments that 

welcome diversity. 

• Promote partnerships between 

parent organizations and OSEP’s 

Research-to-Practice initiatives. OSEP 

has facilitated partnerships between 

parent organizations and projects 

supported under part D of IDEA. Such 

partnerships should continue to be 

facilitated, including by providing 

support for products and programs 

developed for parents, enabling them to 

more fully participate in improving 

their child’s early intervention and 

educational experiences. Ongoing 

efforts will ensure scientifically based 

practices and other resources are timely 

and available to families in a usable 

format. 

Comprehensive Plan Implementation 

OSEP, as the principal Federal agency 

administering IDEA, will implement the 

Comprehensive Plan by pursuing longterm research-to-practice efforts for each 

program authorized under Subparts 2 

and 3. Funded projects and activities 

will take full advantage of the more than 

25 years of Federal support for research 

and innovation, demonstrations, 

personnel preparation, technology and 

media, and technical assistance and 

dissemination that has built an 

important knowledge base for 

improving results for children with 

disabilities. 

OSEP will capitalize and extend the 

accomplishments of the projects it has 

supported in the past by supporting new 

projects that organize and transfer 

knowledge to practice using one or a 

combination of the programs authorized 

under part D of IDEA. Given resource 

limitations and the current state of 

knowledge relevant to any investment 

direction, OSEP will identify specific 

projects and activities that: 

• Take advantage of the Department’s 

current activities targeted toward 

specific outcomes. 

• Optimally combine activities 

authorized under several types of IDEA 

Part D programs, including technical 

assistance, dissemination, personnel 

preparation, technology and media, and 

parent training and information. 

• Reflect the Department’s internal 

planning efforts and immediate needs of 

States and other IDEA stakeholders. 

• Leverage OSEP’s ability to draw 

attention to the substantive area 

addressed by the project or activity from 

other Federal, State, local, and private 

agencies and organizations. 

• Have the greatest potential to 

contribute to improved results for 

children with disabilities in the next 

decade. 

Coordination With the National Center 

for Special Education Research 

OSEP has coordinated during the 

planning and preparation of this Plan 

and will continue to coordinate, as 

directed by section 681(a)(1) of IDEA, 

the implementation of this Plan with the 

National Center for Special Education 

Research (NCSER) in the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES). 

In addition, with the award of a 

design contract, NCSER has launched an 

independent assessment to ascertain 

what progress has been made in the 

implementation of IDEA. This review 

will permit the NCSER to take inventory 

of the national studies conducted 

previously, the data sources, and the 

research questions addressed, and 

prepare an informed set of research 

questions and proposed study designs 

for further studies and evaluations 

authorized by section 664 of IDEA. 

IES also will continue to support 

existing studies, including child-based 

longitudinal research, and initiate new 

studies designed to evaluate and 

support the implementation of IDEA. As 

such, IES will continue to fund rigorous 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 68705 

evaluations of policy and practice under 

IDEA, including an examination of the 

quality of States’ monitoring practices, a 

study of States’ implementation of 

alternate assessments and their use and 

effectiveness in appropriately measuring 

student progress, an impact evaluation 

of the State Pilot Projects for Multi-Year 

IEPs and Paperwork Reduction 

authorized under IDEA, and an 

evaluation of the IDEA Personnel 

Development program. 

Commitment to Quality Implementation 

OSEP will continue to seek the 

opinions of consumers and research, 

training, technology, and technical 

assistance experts on the Department’s 

progress in implementing the 

Comprehensive Plan. Also, as part of its 

annual GPRA responsibilities, OSEP 

will evaluate the quality of activities 

supported under the Comprehensive 

Plan. OSEP has developed a set of longrange goals and annual objectives and 

indicators that it will use to monitor and 

ensure quality implementation of the 

Plan. These goals, objectives and 

indicators are available can be viewed 

at: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/ 

annual/index.html?src=pn. 

Next Steps 

After OSEP completes its review of 

the comments received in response to 

the notice in the Federal Register 

requesting comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

Comprehensive Plan, OSEP will finalize 

the Comprehensive Plan and provide 

outreach to inform IDEA Part D 

stakeholders about the final Plan. 

References 

Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. & Higareda, 

I. (2002). Within-group diversity in 

minority disproportionate 

representation: English language learners 

in urban school districts. Exceptional 

Children, 71, 283–300. 

Billingsley, B.S. (2004). Special education 

teacher retention and attrition: A critical 

analysis of the research literature. 

Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 

39–55. 

Billingsley, B.S., & McLeskey, J. (2004). 

Critical issues in special education 

teacher supply and demand: Overview. 

Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 2–5. 

Bremer, C.D., Kachgal, M., & Schoeller, K. 

(2003). Self-determination: Supporting 

successful transition. (NCSET Research 

to Practice Brief. Vol. 2 No. 1.) 

Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, National Center on 

Secondary Education and Transition. 

Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http:// 

www.ncset.org/publications/ 

viewdesc.asp?id=962. 

Brooks, A., Todd, A.W., Tofflemoyer, S., & 

Horner, R.H. (2003). Use of functional 

assessment and a self-management 

system to increase academic engagement 

and work completion. Journal of Positive 

Behavior Intervention, 5, 144–152. 

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., 

& Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel 

needs in special education (SPeNCE): 

Recruiting and Retaining High Quality 

Teachers. Rockville, MD: Westat. 

Crane, K., & Mooney, M. (2005). Essential 

tools: Community resource mapping. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, National Center on 

Secondary Education and Transition. 

Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http:// 

www.ncset.org/publications/ 

essentialtools/mapping/default.asp. 

Deshler, D.D., Shumaker, J.B., Bulgren, J.A., 

Lenz, B.K., Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & 

Jantzen, J.E. (2001). Teaching students 

with LD how to master difficult content 

by anchoring it to what they know. 

Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 

82–86. 

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority 

students in special and gifted education. 

Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press. 

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., 

Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). 

The role of instruction in learning to 

read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk 

children. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 90, 37–55. 

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., McMaster, K.N., & Al 

Otalba, S. (2003). Identifying children at 

risk for reading failure: Curriculumbased measurement and the dualdiscrepancy approach. In H.L. Swanson, 

K.R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), 

Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 

431–449). New York. 

Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988, June). 

Preventing inappropriate referrals of 

language minority students to special 

education. FOCUS/NCBE, 5, 1–17. 

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & 

Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading 

comprehension strategies to students 

with learning disabilities: A review of 

research. Review of Educational 

Research, 71(2), 279–320. 

Hasazi, S., Johnson, D., Thurlow, M., Cobb, 

B., Trach, J., Stodden, B., Leuchovius, D., 

Hart, D., Benz, M., DeStefano, L., & 

Grossi, T. (2005). Transitions from home 

and school to roles and supports of 

adulthood. In K.C. Lakin, & A. Turnbull 

(Eds.), National goals and research for 

persons with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities (pp. 65–92). 

Washington, DC: American Association 

on Mental Retardation and The Arc of 

the United States. 

Johnson, D.R., Stodden, R.A., Emanuel, E.J., 

Luecking, R. & Mack, M. (2002). Current 

challenges facing secondary education 

and transition services: What research 

tells us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 

519–531. 

Johnson, D.R., Thurlow, M., Cosio, A., & 

Bremer, C.D. (2005). Diploma options for 

students with disabilities. Minneapolis, 

MN: University of Minnesota, National 

Center on Secondary Education and 

Transition. Retrieved March 1, 2006, 

from http://www.ncset.org/publications/ 

viewdesc.asp?id=1928. 

Klingner, J.K., Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E., 

Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Dura ́n, G.Z., 

& Riley, D. (2005, September 8). 

Addressing the disproportionate 

representation of culturally and 

linguistically diverse students in special 

education through culturally responsive 

educational systems. Education Policy 

Analysis Archives, 13(38). 

Kozleski, E.B., Sobel, D., & Taylor, S. (2003). 

Addressing issues of disproportionality: 

Embracing and building culturally 

responsive practices. Multiple Voices for 

Diverse Exceptional Learners, 6, 73–87. 

Lehr, C.A., Johnson, D.R., Bremer, C.D., 

Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). 

Essential tools: Increasing rates of school 

completion: Moving from policy and 

research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center 

on Secondary Education and Transition. 

Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http:// 

www.ncset.org/publications/ 

essentialtools/ dropout/default.asp. 

Losen, D.J., & Reschly, D.L. (1998). Racial 

inequality in special education. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 

McLeskey, J., Tyler, N.C., & Flippin, S.S. 

(2004). The supply of and demand for 

special education teachers: A review of 

research regarding the chronic shortage 

of special education teachers. Journal of 

Special Education, 38(1), 5–21). 

National Center on Secondary Education and 

Transition (January 2004). Current 

challenges facing the future of secondary 

education and transition services for 

youth with disabilities in the United 

States (NCSET Discussion Paper). 

Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota. Retrieved March 1, 2006, 

from http://www.ncset.org/publications/ 

discussionpaper/default.asp. 

National Center on Secondary Education and 

Transition (February 2004). Personcentered planning: a tool for transition 

(NCSET Parent Brief). Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota. Retrieved 

March 1, 2006, from http:// 

www.ncset.org/publications/ 

viewdesc.asp?id=1431. 

National Center on Secondary Education and 

Transition (2005). National standards for 

secondary education and transition for 

all youth. Minneapolis, MN: University 

of Minnesota. Retrieved March 1, 2006, 

from http://www.ncset.org/ 

teleconferences/docs/ 

NASETFramework.doc. 

The National Longitudinal Study (NLTS) 

(1993). The National Longitudinal Study: 

A summary of findings. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Special Education Programs. 

OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports, University 

of Oregon (2002). School-wide Positive 

Behavior Support: Implementer’s 

Blueprint and Self-Assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Special Education 

Programs. 

Oswald, D.P., Coutinho, M.J., Best, A.M., & 

Singh, N.N. (1999). Ethnic representation 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2
68706 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 227 / Monday, November 27, 2006 / Notices 

in special education: The influence of 

school-related economic and 

demographic variables. Journal of 

Special Education, 32, 194–206. 

Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). 

Classification in context: An alternative 

approach to identifying early reading 

disability. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 93, 735–749. 

Spicuzza, R., Ysseldyke, J., Lemkuil, A., 

Koscioleck, S., Boys, C., & Teelucksingh, 

E. (2001). Effects of using a curriculumbased monitoring system on the 

classroom instructional environment and 

math achievement. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 39(6), 521–542. 

Stormont, M., Lewis, T.J., & Beckner, R. 

(2005). Positive behavioral support 

systems: Applying key features in 

preschool settings. Teaching Exceptional 

Children, 37(6), 42–49. 

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., 

Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson, C.M., 

Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., 

Turnbull, A.P., Turnbull, H.R., III, 

Wickham, D., Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. 

(2000). Applying positive behavioral 

support and functional behavioral 

assessment in schools. Journal of Positive 

Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131–143. 

Thurlow, M.L., Sinclair, M.F., & Johnson, 

D.R. (2002). Students with disabilities 

who drop out of school: Implications for 

policy and practice (NCSET Issue Brief 

Vol. 1 No. 2). Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center 

on Secondary Education and Transition. 

Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http:// 

www.ncset.org/publications/ 

viewdesc.asp?id=425. 

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate 

instruction in mixed-ability classrooms 

(2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association of 

Supervision and Curriculum 

Development. 

Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, 

R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & 

Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial 

instruction for children with severe 

reading disabilities: Immediate and longterm outcomes from two instructional 

approaches. Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58, 78. 

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, 

P. (2003). Response to instruction as a 

means of identifying students with 

reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional 

Children, 69(4), 391–409. 

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. 

(2000). Differentiating between difficultto-remediate and readily remediated 

poor readers. Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 33, 223–238. 

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & 

Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in 

the early postschool outcomes of youth 

with disabilities. A report of findings 

from the National Longitudinal 

Transition Study (NLTS) and the 

National Longitudinal Transition Study2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: S RI 

International. Retrieved March 1, 2006, 

from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/ 

str6_completereport.pdf. 

Warren, J.S., Edmonsen, H.M., Griggs, P., 

Lassen, S.R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A.P., 

& Sailor, W. (2004). Urban applications 

of schoolwide positive behavior support: 

Critical issues and lessons learned. In 

Bambara, L., Dunlap, G. & Wchwartz, E. 

(Eds.), Positive behavior support: Critical 

Articles on improving practice for 

individuals with severe disabilities (pp. 

376–387). Pro-Ed and TASH. 

[FR Doc. 06–9404 Filed 11–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES2