The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. It provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. Originally enacted in 1975, the act responded to an increasing focus on the education of children with disabilities, including judicial decisions requiring that states provide an education for children with disabilities if they provide an education for children without disabilities. The 108 th Congress passed major IDEA legislation ( P.L. 108-446 ), which reauthorized and revised IDEA. Although much of the basic structure of IDEA has been retained, P.L. 108-446 does make a number of significant changes. Among these are the definition of "highly qualified" teachers, requirements for children's participation in state and local assessments, changes in the private school provisions, exceptions to certain financial requirements, changes in procedural safeguards, and changes in compliance monitoring to focus on student performance. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued proposed regulations for P.L. 108-446 and issued final regulations on August 14, 2006. ED issued additional regulations "to clarify and strengthen current regulations"on December 1, 2008. Although many of the regulatory provisions simply track the statutory language, reflect comments in the conference report, or include provisions in prior IDEA regulations, there are places where the regulations provide more guidance. This report will analyze the regulations with an emphasis on those areas where additional guidance is provided. The report also discusses provisions in P.L. 108-446 related to multi-year individualized education program (IEP) demonstration programs and the infants and toddlers with disabilities provisions under Part C of IDEA, for which ED has provided separate final notice or proposed regulations. In its discussion of the proposed regulations, which presumably applies to the final rule, the Department of Education stated that we have elected to construct one comprehensive, freestanding document that incorporates virtually all requirements from the new law along with the applicable regulations, rather than publishing a regulation that does not include statutory provisions. The rationale for doing this is to create a single reference document for parents, State personnel, school personnel, and others to use, rather than being forced to shift between one document for regulations and a separate document for the statute. The organization of the final regulations differs from the previous regulations, with the final regulations generally following the structure of P.L. 108-446 . Subpart A of 34 C.F.R. Part 300 discusses the purpose and applicability of the regulations and includes definitions; Subpart B contains provisions relating to state eligibility and includes requirements for FAPE, the least restrictive environment, private schools, state complaint procedures and Department of Education procedures; Subpart C contains provisions for local educational agency eligibility; Subpart D contains provisions on evaluations, eligibility determinations, individualized education programs (IEPs), and educational placements; Subpart E contains the applicable procedural safeguards, including discipline procedures; Subpart F contains provisions on monitoring and enforcement, confidentiality and program information; Subpart G contains provisions on the grants, allotment, use of funds and authorization of appropriations; and Subpart H contains provisions on preschool grants for children with disabilities. P.L. 108-446 includes a provision relating to regulations that was added to IDEA by P.L. 98-199 in 1983 in response to attempts at regulatory reform by the Reagan administration. This subsection prohibits certain changes in the IDEA regulations which would procedurally or substantively lessen the protections provided to children with disabilities under this Act, as embodied in regulations in effect on July 20, 1983 (particularly as such protections related to parental consent to initial evaluation or initial placement in special education, least restrictive environment, related services, timelines, attendance of evaluation personnel at individualized education program meetings, or qualifications of personnel) except to the extent that such regulation reflects the clear and unequivocal intent of Congress in legislation. This listing of areas in the statute is helpful in determining what changes Congress might have interpreted as lessening the protections available to children with disabilities but it is not determinative as the list is illustrative, not limiting. It is worth noting as the regulations are examined, that some of the provisions carried over from prior regulations are included due to the requirements of this section. In addition, in at least one situation, an argument by a commenter that a proposed section of the regulations would violate this statutory requirement led ED to remove the section. ED issued additional regulations "to clarify and strengthen current regulations"on December 1, 2008. The areas covered by this addition to the IDEA regulations include (1) parental revocation of consent after consenting to the initial provision of services; (2) a state's or local educational agency's (LEA's) obligation to make positive efforts to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; (3) representation of parents by non-attorneys in due process hearings; (4) state monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement of the Part B program; and (5) the allocation of funds, under Sections 611 and 619 of the Act, to LEAs that are not serving any children with disabilities. These regulations took effect on December 31, 2008. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), requires that each state educational agency (SEA) receiving ESEA Title I, Part A funding (compensatory education of disadvantaged students) must have a plan to ensure that all public-school teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the state will meet the definition of a "highly qualified" teacher, by no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. IDEA, as amended by P.L. 108-446 , cross-references the ESEA "highly qualified" definition but makes several additions to the definition as it applies to special education teachers. The IDEA definition requires that all special education teachers—not just those who teach core subjects—must meet certain requirements. In addition, P.L. 108-446 modifies the ESEA requirements with respect to two groups of special education teachers: those who teach only the most severely disabled children and those who teach more than one core subject. Both new and veteran special education teachers teaching core subjects exclusively to children with disabilities who are assessed against alternative achievement standards under ESEA (i.e., the most severely cognitively disabled) can, of course, meet the definition of highly qualified by meeting their applicable ESEA standards. Alternatively, new, as well as veteran, teachers of these students at the elementary level may meet the highly qualified definition by demonstrating "competence in all the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation" (HOUSSE). Teachers of these students at levels above elementary school can meet the definition by demonstrating "subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction ... as determined by the State, needed to effectively teach to those standards [i.e., alternative achievement standards]" (§602(10)(C)(ii)). New and veteran special education teachers who teach two or more core subjects exclusively to children with disabilities may qualify as highly qualified by meeting the requirements in each core subject taught under applicable ESEA provisions. Alternatively, veteran special education teachers teaching two or more core subjects may also qualify as highly qualified based on the ESEA HOUSSE option (§602(10)(D)(ii)), which may include a single evaluation covering multiple subjects. Finally, newly hired special education teachers teaching two or more core subjects who are already highly qualified in mathematics, language arts, or science are given two years from the date of employment to meet the highly qualified definition with respect to the other core subjects taught. This could occur through the HOUSSE option (§602(10)(D)(iii)). This two-year window is the only exception to the 2005-2006 deadline (ESEA, §1119(a)(2)), explicitly applied to special education teachers, for meeting the "highly qualified" definition under either IDEA or ESEA. The regulations regarding highly qualified teacher requirements repeat much of the statutory definition verbatim. They add language related to alternative routes to certification (which the statute includes as a permissible means for special education teachers to satisfy the requirement of full state certification) by including requirements that alternative certification programs must meet. For example, a teacher certified under this provision must demonstrate "satisfactory progress toward full certification as prescribed by the State." The regulations include specific language (following clarifying language in Note 21 of the conference report ) that special education teachers who do not provide instruction in core academic subjects need only meet the requirements of a baccalaureate degree and a full special education certification to meet the highly qualified definition. In addition, the regulations add explicit language that the highly qualified definition does not apply to teachers in private schools. The regulations permit states to develop separate HOUSSE procedures for special education teachers, including a single procedure assessing multiple core subject areas, "provided that any adaptations of the State's HOUSSE would not establish a lower standard for the content knowledge requirements for special education teachers and meets all the requirements for a HOUSSE for regular education teachers ..." (34 C.F.R. §300.18(e)). The statute declares that there is no right of action based on an employee not meeting the highly qualified requirements of the act. The regulations reiterate this provision. In addition, the regulation clarifies that parents still have the right to file a complaint related to staff qualifications under state complaint procedures under 34 C.F.R. §300.151 and §300.153. As noted above, the definition of a highly qualified teacher differs depending on whether the teacher is new to the profession or not. The regulations clarify a situation in which a regular teacher subsequently becomes certified as a special education teacher.