Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

36970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

containing proposed information Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
collection requests prior to submission Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, 800–877–8339.
of these requests to OMB. Each DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be Individuals with disabilities may
proposed information collection, electronically mailed to obtain this document in an alternative
grouped by office, contains the ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. or faxed to 202– format (e.g., Braille, large print,
following: (1) Type of review requested, 245–6623. Please specify the complete audiotape, or computer diskette) on
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or title of the information collection when request to the contact person listed
reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of making your request. under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
the collection; (4) description of the Comments regarding burden and/or CONTACT.
need for, and proposed use of, the the collection activity requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
information; (5) respondents and should be electronically mailed to published a notice of proposed
frequency of collection; and (6) ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who requirements and selection criteria for
reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. use a telecommunications device for the the Paperwork Waiver Program in the
OMB invites public comment. deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Federal Register on December 19, 2005
The Department of Education is Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– (70 FR 75161) (December 2005 Notice).
especially interested in public comment 800–877–8339. On December 3, 2004, President Bush
addressing the following issues: (1) Is [FR Doc. E7–13075 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am] signed into law Public Law 108–446,
this collection necessary to the proper BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with
functions of the Department; (2) will Disabilities Education Improvement Act
this information be processed and used of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Individuals with Disabilities Education
of burden accurate; (4) how might the Act (Act). This new law reflects the
RIN 1820–ZA42
Department enhance the quality, utility, importance of strengthening our
and clarity of the information to be The Individuals With Disabilities Nation’s efforts to ensure every child
collected; and (5) how might the Education Act Paperwork Waiver with a disability has available a free
Department minimize the burden of this Demonstration Program appropriate public education (FAPE)
collection on the respondents, including that is (1) of high quality and (2)
through the use of information AGENCY: Office of Special Education and designed to achieve the high standards
technology. Rehabilitative Services, Department of established in the No Child Left Behind
Dated: June 29, 2007.
Education. Act of 2001 (NCLB).
Angela C. Arrington, ACTION: Notice of final additional The Paperwork Waiver Program is one
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information
requirements and selection criteria. of two demonstration programs
Management Services, Office of Management. authorized under the new law that is
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
designed to address parents’, special
Office of Communications and Special Education and Rehabilitative educators’ and States’ desire to reduce
Outreach Services announces additional excessive and repetitious paperwork,
requirements and selection criteria for a administrative burden, and non-
Type of Review: Extension.
competition in which the Department instructional teacher time and, at the
Title: Outreach Sign-on Form.
will select up to 15 States to participate same time, to increase the resources and
Frequency: Other: one time.
in a pilot program, the Paperwork time available for classroom instruction
Affected Public: Individuals or
household; Not-for-profit institutions; Waiver Demonstration Program and other activities focused on
Businesses or other for-profit; Federal (Paperwork Waiver Program). State improving educational and functional
Government State, Local, or Tribal proposals approved under this program results of children with disabilities.
Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. will create opportunities for Paperwork burden in special
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour participating States to reduce paperwork education affects (1) the time school
Burden: burdens and other administrative duties staff can devote to instruction or service
Responses: 800. in order to increase time for instruction provision and (2) retention of staff,
Burden Hours: 67. and other activities to improve particularly special education teachers.
Abstract: The database was started in educational and functional results for In 2002, the Office of Special Education
1994 to provide organizations and children with disabilities, while Programs (OSEP) funded a nationally
others with information about preserving students’ civil rights and representative study of teachers’
educational issues, programs, and promoting academic achievement. The perceptions of sources of paperwork
products and is a convenient way to Assistant Secretary will use these burden, the hours devoted to these
formalize a ‘‘listserv’’ by which to additional requirements and selection activities, and possible explanations for
contact those who are interested. criteria for a single, one-time-only variations among teachers in the hours
Information about the organizations and competition for this program. devoted to these tasks. Among the
individuals is collected only through DATES: Effective Date: These additional findings related to the Individualized
the sign-on form. requirements and selection criteria are Education Program (IEP), student
Requests for copies of the proposed effective August 6, 2007. evaluations, progress reporting, and case
information collection request may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: management was that teachers whose
accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov., Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of administrative duties and paperwork
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., exceeded four hours per week were
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Collections’’ link and by clicking on room 4078, Potomac Center Plaza, more likely to perceive these
link number 3403. When you access the Washington, DC 20202–2700. responsibilities as interfering with their
information collection, click on Telephone: (202) 245–7355 or by e-mail: job of teaching. Moreover, the study
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov found that the mean number of hours
Written requests for information should If you use a telecommunications reported by teachers to be devoted to
be addressed to U.S. Department of device for the deaf (TDD), you may call these tasks was 6.3 hours per week.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36971

However, data from the study also Waivers may be granted for a period of satisfaction, (f) the promotion of
suggested that there was considerable up to four years. collaboration of IEP team members, and
variation in the amount of time special 3. The Secretary is prohibited from (g) enhanced long-term educational
education teachers devoted to waiving any statutory requirements of, planning for students. These outcomes
paperwork. For example, the average or regulatory requirements relating to will be compared between students who
hours spent on administrative duties procedural requirements under section participate in the Paperwork Waiver
and paperwork varied significantly by 615 of the Act or applicable civil rights Program, and students who are matched
geographic region, with the Northeast requirements. A waiver may not affect on disability, age, socioeconomic status,
having the lowest paperwork burden. the right of a child with a disability to race/ethnicity, language spoken in the
Through the Paperwork Waiver receive FAPE (as defined in section home, prior educational outcomes, and
Program, established under section 602(9) of the Act).
to the extent feasible, the nature of
609(a) of the Act, the Secretary may 4. The Secretary will not grant any
waiver to a State if the Secretary has special education, who do not
grant waivers of certain statutory and participate in the paperwork waiver
regulatory requirements under part B of determined that the State currently
meets the conditions under section program. Specifics of the design will be
the Act to not more than 15 States, confirmed during discussion with the
including Puerto Rico, the District of 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act
relative to its implementation of part B evaluator, a technical workgroup, and
Columbia, and the outlying areas the participating States during the first
(States) based on State proposals to of the Act.
5. The Secretary will terminate a several months of the study.
reduce excessive paperwork and non-
State’s waiver granted as part of this Participating States will play a crucial
instructional time burdens that do not
program if the Secretary determines that supportive role in this evaluation. They
assist in improving educational and
the State (a) needs assistance under will, at a minimum, assist in developing
functional results for children with
section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and the evaluation plan, assure that districts
disabilities. The Secretary is authorized
that the waiver has contributed to or participating in the Paperwork Waiver
to grant these waivers for a period of up
caused the need for assistance; (b) needs Program will collaborate with the
to four years.
intervention under section
Although the purpose of the evaluation, provide background
616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs
Paperwork Waiver Program is to reduce information on relevant State policies
substantial intervention under section
the paperwork burden associated with 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or (c) fails to and practices, supply data relevant to
the Act, not all statutory and regulatory appropriately implement its waiver. the outcomes from State data sources
requirements under part B of the Act (e.g., student achievement and
may be waived. Specifically, the Background for Additional functional performance data, complaint
Secretary may not waive any statutory Requirements and Selection Criteria numbers), provide access to current
or regulatory provisions relating to While the Act establishes the student IEPs (if appropriate and
applicable civil rights requirements or foregoing requirements, it does not paperwork waiver affects an IEP) during
procedural safeguards. Furthermore, provide for other requirements that are Year 1 of the evaluation (consistent with
waivers may not affect the right of a necessary for the implementation of this the Family Educational Rights and
child with a disability to receive FAPE. program. Accordingly, in the December Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA)
In short, State proposals must preserve 2005 Notice, we proposed additional and the privacy requirements under the
the basic rights of students with Paperwork Waiver Program Act), complete questionnaires and
disabilities. requirements to address program surveys, and participate in interviews.
Statutory Requirements for Paperwork implementation issues as well as Data collection and analysis will be the
Waiver Program selection criteria that we will use to responsibility of IES through its
evaluate State proposals for this contractor. States can expect to allocate
As outlined in the December 2005 program. resources for this purpose at a minimum
Notice, the Act establishes the following In this notice, we also establish during Year 1 to assist with planning
requirements to govern the Paperwork requirements with which States must the details of the evaluation, ensuring
Waiver Program proposals: comply that will allow the Department participation of involved districts,
1. States applying for approval under to evaluate the effectiveness of the providing access to relevant State
this program must submit a proposal to Paperwork Waiver Program. Under records, and completing questionnaires
reduce excessive paperwork and non- section 609(b) of the Act, the or participating in interviews. Over the
instructional time burdens that do not Department is required to report to course of the evaluation, participating
assist in improving educational and Congress on the effectiveness of this States will receive an annual incentive
functional results for children with program. To accomplish this, the payment (described in the Additional
disabilities. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Requirements section of this notice) that
2. A State submitting a proposal for will conduct an evaluation using a
will offset the cost of participating in
the Paperwork Waiver Program must quasi-experimental design that collects
the evaluation.
include in its proposal a list of any data on the following outcomes: (a)
statutory requirements of, or regulatory Educational and functional results The December 2005 Notice included a
requirements relating to, part B of the (including academic achievement) for background statement that described the
Act that the State desires the Secretary students with disabilities, (b) allocation rationale for the additional requirements
to waive, in whole or in part (not and engagement of instructional time for and selection criteria we were
including civil rights requirements and students with disabilities, (c) time and proposing. This notice of final
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

procedural safeguards as noted resources spent on administrative duties requirements and selection criteria
elsewhere in this notice); and a list of and paperwork requirements by contains several changes from the
any State requirements that the State teaching and related services personnel, December 2005 Notice. We fully explain
proposes to waive or change, in whole (d) quality of special education services these changes in the Analysis of
or in part, to carry out the waiver and plans incorporated in IEPs, (e) Comments and Changes section that
granted to the State by the Secretary. teacher, parent, and administrator follows.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

Analysis of Comments and Changes We do not believe that States should describe how they will collect, report on
In response to our invitation in the be required to explain why they are and respond to evidence of adverse
December 2005 Notice, 22 parties requesting that certain Federal and State consequences. The State is obligated to
submitted comments on the proposed requirements be waived. The purpose of ensure that children with disabilities
additional requirements and selection the Paperwork Waiver Program is to who participate in the program continue
criteria. In addition, we received provide an opportunity for States to to receive services in accordance with
approximately 1,200 comments that identify ways to reduce paperwork the Act and implementing regulations,
burdens and other administrative duties modified only to the extent consistent
were identical in form and substance
that are directly associated with the with the State’s approved application.
and that summarized major
requirements of the Act in order to States therefore should take into
recommendations submitted by one of
increase the time and resources consideration the compliance history of
the 22 commenters referenced in the
available for instruction and other LEAs within the State as part of their
preceding sentence; we do not respond
activities aimed at improving process for selecting LEAs to participate
to these 1,200 comments separately. An
educational and functional results for in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and
analysis of the comments and of any
children with disabilities. The national monitor implementation of the program
changes in the additional requirements
evaluation will assess the extent to and take corrective action, if needed.
and selection criteria since publication Changes: Paragraph 1(c) of the
which the waivers were successful in
of the December 2005 Notice follows. reaching these goals. additional requirements has been
We group issues according to subject. Changes: We have revised paragraph revised to require the State to provide
We do not address technical or other 1 of the additional requirements by an assurance that the State will collect
minor changes, and suggested changes revising paragraph 1(f) and adding a and report to the Department and the
that the law does not authorize us to new paragraph 1(g) (paragraph 1(f) and evaluator all State complaints related to
make under the applicable statutory 1(g) now contain language from the denial of FAPE to any student with
authority, or comments that express paragraph 1(e) of the proposed a disability, and how the State
concerns of a general nature about the additional requirements) to require that responded to this information,
Department or other matters that are not local education agencies (LEAs) obtain including the outcome of that response
directly relevant to the Paperwork voluntary informed written consent such as providing technical assistance
Waiver Program. from parents to waive any paperwork to the LEA to improve implementation,
FAPE requirements related to the provision of or suspending or terminating the
FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs, authority of an LEA to implement the
Comment: A few commenters and requiring that the LEA must inform Paperwork Waiver Program due to
recommended that the final additional the parent in writing of any differences unresolved compliance problems. In
requirements and selection criteria between the requirements of the Act addition, paragraph 1(h)(ii) of the
identify all of the Federal requirements related to the provision of FAPE additional requirements (paragraph
that a State applying for approval under (including changes related to IEPs), the 1(f)(ii) of the proposed additional
this program can propose to waive parent’s right to revoke consent, and the requirements) has been revised to
while ensuring that students with LEA’s responsibility to meet all require the State to describe to the
disabilities continue to receive FAPE. paperwork requirements related to the evaluator the circumstances under
One commenter recommended that provision of FAPE when the parent does which district participation may be
States be required to explain why they not provide informed written consent, terminated.
are requesting that certain Federal and or revokes that consent. Additionally, Comment: One commenter
State requirements be waived and why the LEA must inform the parents that if recommended that the final additional
they feel that such waivers can be the parents revoke consent to a waiver requirements specify that the authority
accomplished without denying FAPE of paperwork requirements regarding to implement the Paperwork Waiver
Discussion: The commenters IEPs that the LEA must conduct, within Program will be terminated for any State
misunderstand the statutory obligation, 30 calendar days of such revocation, an that is found to be in noncompliance
which is to ensure that the Paperwork IEP meeting to develop an IEP that with the Act.
Waiver Program does not affect the right meets all requirements of section 614(d) Discussion: We believe that the
of a child to receive a FAPE, not to of the Act. commenter’s concern is addressed by
ensure that children continue to receive Comment: Many commenters the language in section 609(a)(4) of the
a FAPE. In general, States are in a better recommended revising the final Act. As explained in paragraph 5 of the
position to identify Federal and State additional requirements and selection Statutory Requirements for Paperwork
requirements that, in practice, do not criteria to require States to identify Waiver Program section in this notice,
assist in improving educational and effective mechanisms for reporting and the Secretary will terminate a State’s
functional results for children with resolving adverse events, such as the waiver granted as part of this program
disabilities residing in their State. States denial of FAPE. These commenters also if the Secretary determines that the State
can make these determinations by urged the Department to add a (a) needs assistance under section
taking into consideration the requirement that would prevent districts 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the
uniqueness of their State practices and or schools from participating in the waiver has contributed to or caused the
policies, and the compliance history of program if they have a demonstrated need for assistance; (b) needs
local school districts within their State. history of not complying with the Act or intervention under section
We believe that the right to receive have experienced a disproportionate 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs
FAPE can be sufficiently protected by number of complaints to the State substantial intervention under section
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

requiring that parents provide voluntary educational agency (SEA) or 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or (c) fails to
informed written consent for any change participated in a disproportionate appropriately implement its waiver.
in policies or procedures under the number of dispute resolution processes. Changes: None.
Paperwork Waiver Program that affects Discussion: We generally agree with Comment: Several commenters agreed
the provision of FAPE to their child, the commenters and will add a new that a State should not be permitted to
such as changes to the IEP. requirement that State applicants participate in the Paperwork Waiver

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36973

Program if the State meets the functional results for children with requirements of part B of the Act and
conditions under section disabilities. would be inconsistent with the explicit
616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act, and purposes of section 609 of the Act. We
Civil Rights/Procedural Safeguards
recommended that the additional do not include the U.S. Constitution in
requirements and selection criteria also Comment: Many commenters the list of applicable civil rights statutes
limit participation in the Paperwork recommended clarifying that States are because, as a matter of law, the Act
Waiver Program to States in which the prohibited from proposing any waiver of could not be interpreted to allow for the
majority of the State’s schools meet procedural safeguards under section 615 waiver of any of the protections
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under of the Act, and that the civil rights provided under the U.S. Constitution.
the Elementary and Secondary requirements that may not be waived Changes: None.
Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 are not limited to provisions set forth in Comment: One commenter expressed
U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (ESEA). section 615 of the Act. concern that the results of the national
One commenter recommended that Discussion: The Secretary agrees that
evaluation on the Paperwork Waiver
the Department contact the Chief State additional clarification is needed
Program could form the basis for
School Officers and Special Education because the civil rights requirements
waiving requirements of the Act in
Directors of States that are eligible to that may not be waived under this
subsequent reauthorizations, which
submit a proposal for the Paperwork program are not limited to the civil
would erode civil rights protections and
Waiver Program to inform them of their rights requirements in section 615 of the
FAPE for children with disabilities.
Act. Accordingly, we have revised the
eligibility. Discussion: The Act provides for the
wording of paragraph 3 in the Statutory
Discussion: Section 609 of the Act Paperwork Waiver Program and directs
Requirements for Paperwork Waiver
does not limit participation in the the Secretary to report to Congress on
Program section of this notice to clarify
Paperwork Waiver Program to States the effectiveness of waivers granted
that States may not propose to waive
that have met the requirements of the under the program. The national
any procedural safeguards under section
ESEA. Given that Congress did not limit evaluation will yield the information
615 of the Act, and may not propose to
eligibility in this manner, the waive any applicable civil rights necessary for the Department to carry
Department does not believe it is requirements. No changes are necessary out this responsibility. We cannot
appropriate to limit eligibility to States to the final additional requirements or address what future reauthorizations of
in which the majority of their schools selection criteria in response to these the Act will require or provide.
meet AYP under the ESEA. comments. Changes: None.
The Secretary believes that the Changes: None.
additional requirements and selection Public Input/Parental Notification and
Comment: Many commenters Consent
criteria provide clear guidance as to recommended including the Act in the
eligibility criteria for this program, and list of statutes in the definition of Comment: Many commenters
that separate notification of eligibility to applicable civil rights requirements in recommended requiring that any State
States is not necessary. paragraph 2 of the proposed additional that submits a proposal for the
Changes: None. requirements. In addition, one Paperwork Waiver Program must
Comment: None. commenter recommended that the list establish a committee comprised of
Discussion: As part of our internal include the U.S. Constitution, and that school district personnel, and at least
review of the proposed additional States should be required to add a three parents (each representing a
requirements and selection criteria, we detailed explanation of what steps they different disability group) to provide
determined that it was appropriate to will take to ensure that children’s civil input on the State’s proposal, including
revise paragraph 1 of the additional rights are not violated or waived. defining the terms ‘‘excessive
requirements to better align it with the Discussion: Consistent with section paperwork’’ and ‘‘non-instructional time
language of the Act as specified in 609 of the Act, the additional burdens.’’ In addition, many
paragraph 1 of the Statutory requirements and selection criteria commenters recommended requiring
Requirements for Paperwork Waiver prohibit waiving any statutory or that the State’s application: (a) Include
Program section of this notice. regulatory requirements related to a summary of the public input; (b)
Specifically, section 609(a)(1) of the Act applicable civil rights requirements. indicate what input the State
specifies that the purpose of the Paragraph 2 of the additional incorporated into its proposal and who
Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide requirements defines the term or what organization provided the
an opportunity for States to identify applicable civil rights as all civil rights suggestion; and (c) identify which
ways to reduce paperwork burdens and requirements in: Section 504 of the stakeholders agreed and which
other administrative duties that are Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; stakeholders disagreed with each
directly associated with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Federal and State requirement that the
requirements of the Act in order to Title IX of the Education Amendments State proposed to waive under its
increase the time and resources of 1972; Title II of the Americans with proposed paperwork waiver program.
available for instruction and other Disabilities Act of 1990; and the Age Many commenters recommended
activities aimed at improving Discrimination Act of 1975 and their requiring States to use a variety of
educational and functional results for implementing regulations. We have not mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder
children with disabilities. included the Act in the list of statutes input, including public meetings held at
Changes: We have revised the in this definition because section 609 of convenient times and places and
introductory language in paragraph 1 of the Act clearly allows States that are inviting written public comments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

the additional requirements to clarify participating in the Paperwork Waiver Similarly, two commenters observed
that a State applying for approval under Program to waive some requirements of that public input must be transparent,
this program must submit a proposal to the Act. Including the Act in this list and involve the greatest number of
reduce excessive paperwork and non- would preclude States from waiving any stakeholders, particularly teachers,
instructional time burdens that do not Federal requirements in order to reduce administrators, related services
assist in improving educational and the paperwork burden associated with providers, students, and parents.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

Several commenters urged the paperwork, and a description of how that diverse stakeholders understand the
Secretary to require that (in addition to they provided an opportunity for public proposed elements of the State’s
obtaining input from school and district comment in selecting the requirements submission for the Paperwork Waiver
personnel, and parents) States obtain proposed for the waiver consistent with Program. With the addition of this new
input from representatives of parent the requirements of section 612(a)(19) of paragraph 1(d), we have redesignated
training and information centers and the Act. Paragraph 1(b) of the additional paragraphs 1(d) through (f) of the
community parent resource centers and requirements requires the proposal to proposed additional requirements as
parents. In addition, one commenter include a summary of the public paragraphs 1(e) through (g). Paragraphs
recommended that the Secretary should comments received upon implementing 1(e) through (g) reflect additional
require States to (a) obtain input from paragraph 1(a) and a description of how changes as discussed in this preamble.
family members and advocates for those comments were addressed in the Comment: Many commenters
children with disabilities, (b) require the proposal. Accordingly, each State’s recommended clarifying that the parents
State to summarize the input that it application will be judged on the extent of children with disabilities should
received and the type of stakeholder to which the State involved multiple receive written notice, in addition to
who submitted the input, and (c) stakeholders and provided an verbal notice, of any waiver of Federal
describe how each specific proposal to opportunity for public comment in requirements permitted under the
waive a Federal statutory or regulatory selecting the requirements proposed for Paperwork Waiver Program. If the State
requirement, or State requirement, the waiver. proposes to waive IEP requirements, the
would improve educational and Changes: We have revised paragraph commenters recommended requiring
functional results for children by 1(a) of the additional requirements to that States receive informed written
reducing paperwork. clarify that a State must include in its consent from the parents before an IEP
One commenter recommended that proposal a description of how the State that does not meet the requirements of
the final additional requirements and (a) involved multiple stakeholders, section 614(d) of the Act is developed
selection criteria define the kinds of including parents, children with for a child with a disability. The
paperwork that may be waived that are disabilities, special education and commenters also recommended that
excessive and impose non-instructional regular education teachers, related parents should receive written notice of
time burdens on school personnel, and services providers, and school and any State requirements that will be
the Secretary should not allow any district administrators, in selecting the waived under the program, the
waiver of notices to families, reports of requirements proposed for the waiver anticipated effects of these waivers, and
evaluation results, IEPs, or performance and any specific proposals for changing the protections that have been put into
reports to parents. The commenter also those requirements to reduce place to ensure that no child with a
recommended that (a) the State ensure paperwork, and (b) provided an disability is denied FAPE. The
that the State Parent Training and opportunity for public comment in commenters stressed that sending
Information Center and Special selecting the requirements proposed for parents a list of references to Federal
Education Advisory Council support the the waiver. In addition, we have added and State requirements that will be
State’s application for each proposed a new paragraph 1(b) to the additional waived is insufficient to ensure that
waiver; (b) institutions of higher requirements to require the State to they are properly informed. The
education work in collaboration with provide a summary of public comments commenters recommended requiring
the State in developing its application; and how public comments were that notice to parents of any waived
and (c) the State have a plan for on- addressed in the proposal. requirements be fully explained, written
going implementation review that Comment: Many commenters in an easily understandable manner and
requires data collection and the recommended that States be required to in the parent’s native language, with an
submission of interim reports to the provide a detailed description of how explanation of the effect of such waivers
Secretary. they plan to provide training on the and the protections that have been put
One commenter recommended paperwork waivers for administrators, in place to ensure the provision of FAPE
clarifying that any proposed State plans teachers, related services providers, in the least restrictive environment, and
must comply with section 612(a)(19) of education support professionals, and the protection of the child’s civil rights
the Act requiring public participation. parents. The commenters expressed and procedural safeguards under section
One commenter recommended that concern that children with disabilities 615 of the Act.
the Department should clearly articulate would be denied FAPE absent sufficient Three commenters recommended
the impact that negative public input training of parents and education eliminating the parental notification
will have on the selection criteria of a personnel on Federal and State requirement altogether.
State’s application, if any. requirements that are waived by the One commenter recommended
Discussion: It is not appropriate or State. requiring that the Paperwork Waiver
possible for the Department to prejudge Discussion: The Secretary agrees with Program include effective mechanisms
the possible impact of stakeholder input the commenters that it is essential that for reporting to the Department adverse
on the peer reviewers’ parents, teachers, administrators, related effects of the program, such as denial of
recommendations. Likewise, we believe services providers, and education FAPE.
that States should have some flexibility support professionals understand what Discussion: Section 609(a)(3)(B)(i) of
in designing their process for obtaining Federal and State requirements are the Act requires the State to identify any
public input. We have revised waived by the State as part of the statutory or regulatory requirements
paragraph 1(a) of the additional Paperwork Waiver Program in order to related to part B of the Act that would
requirements to require States to ensure proper implementation. be waived, and section 609(a)(3)(B)(ii) of
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

include in their proposals a description Changes: We have revised the the Act requires the State to identify any
of how they involved multiple additional requirements by adding a State requirements that would be
stakeholders in selecting the new paragraph 1(d) to require applying waived. Although not specifically
requirements proposed for the waiver States to provide as part of their required under section 609 of the Act,
and any specific proposals for changing proposals a description of the paragraph 1(e) of the additional
those requirements to reduce procedures they will employ to ensure requirements (paragraph 1(d) of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36975

proposed additional requirements), to develop an IEP that meets all paperwork requirements related to the
which requires States to ensure that requirements of section 614(d) of the provision of FAPE if the parent does not
parents are given notice of any statutory, Act within 30 calendar days if the provide voluntary written informed
regulatory, or State requirements that parent revokes consent to waiving consent or revokes consent, and (iv) the
will be waived as part of the Paperwork paperwork requirements related to the LEA’s responsibility to conduct an IEP
Waiver Program, is consistent with the content, development, review, and meeting to develop an IEP that meets all
parental notice requirements in section revision of IEPs. We do not agree with requirements of section 614(d) of the
615 of the Act. commenters that the notice must Act within 30 calendar days if the
We agree with the commenters that include an explanation of the effects of parent revokes consent to waiving
the notice containing the requirements such waivers. Section 609 of the Act paperwork requirements related to the
that are being waived should be does not require the State to include in content, development, review and
presented to parents in writing and in such a notice specific anticipated effects revision of IEPs.
a manner that is understandable to of the waiver program. Moreover, we Comment: One commenter
parents consistent with section 615 of believe that the possible benefits of recommended deleting the additional
the Act. We have incorporated, in including this information in the notices requirement that States allow parents to
paragraphs 1(f) and 1(g) of the are outweighed by the burden. In short, revoke consent to an IEP that does not
additional requirements, parent consent we believe that children are sufficiently meet the requirements of section 614(d)
requirements to ensure that waivers will protected by the fact that States must of the Act as part of the Paperwork
not result in the denial of a child’s right ensure that the waiver program does not Waiver Program proposal.
to FAPE. We agree that States should affect the right of a child with a One commenter recommended
disseminate information about how they disability to receive FAPE. deleting all parental consent
will ensure a child’s right to FAPE, and Changes: We have re-designated requirements regarding the development
otherwise protect the child’s civil rights paragraph 1(d) of the proposed of an IEP that does not meet the
and procedural safeguards under section additional requirements as paragraph requirements of section 614(d) of the
615 of the Act to participating LEAs 1(e) and revised paragraph 1(e) of the Act as part of the Paperwork Waiver
that, in turn, should provide the final additional requirements to require Program.
information to parents. Accordingly, we States to provide assurances that each One commenter recommended that
have added language to paragraph 1(e) parent of a child with a disability in the final additional requirements clarify
of the additional requirements participating LEAs will be given written
that parental consent is voluntary to
(paragraph 1(d) in the proposed notice (in the native language of the
ensure that parents are not pressured or
additional requirements) to clarify that parent, unless it clearly is not feasible
coerced into agreeing to an IEP that does
the parental notice on what Federal and to do so) of any statutory, regulatory, or
not meet the requirements of section
State requirements are being waived State requirements that will be waived
614(d) of the Act.
include a description of the procedures and notice of the procedures that State
Discussion: We disagree with the
the State will employ to ensure that the will employ under paragraph 1(c)
child’s right to FAPE is preserved and (which requires that States ensure the commenter that LEAs should not be
that the child’s civil rights and right to FAPE and protection of due required to receive parental consent
procedural safeguards under section 615 process protections under section 615 of before an IEP that does not meet the
of the Act are protected, and that such the Act, and applicable civil rights requirements of section 614(d) of the
notice should be in writing in easily requirements). Act is developed. We also disagree with
understandable language and in the In addition, we have re-designated the commenter that parents should be
native language of the parent, unless it paragraph 1(e) of the proposed prohibited from withdrawing their
clearly is not feasible to do so. additional requirements as paragraph consent. We believe these provisions are
In addition, we agree with the 1(f) and revised paragraph 1(f) of the essential to ensuring that States
commenters that participating LEAs additional requirements to require that participating in the Paperwork Waiver
must obtain informed written consent in applying for a waiver of any Demonstration Program ensure the right
from parents before an IEP that does not paperwork requirements related to the to FAPE for all participating students.
meet the requirements of section 614(d) provision of FAPE, such as changes We intended the reference to
of the Act is developed for a child with related to IEPs, applicants must assure ‘‘informed consent’’ of parents in
a disability. Paragraph 1(g) of the that they will require any participating paragraph 1(e) of the proposed
additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) LEA to obtain voluntary informed additional requirements to mean
of the proposed additional written consent from the parents. We consent that is both informed and
requirements) requires States to ensure also have added language to paragraph provided by the parents voluntarily.
that, in requesting voluntary informed 1(g) of the additional requirements ‘‘Consent’’ in this context has the same
written consent from parents, the LEA (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed meaning as given the term in 34 CFR
must inform the parent in writing of (i) additional requirements) to clarify that 300.9. However, we agree with the
any differences between the paperwork States must ensure that in requesting commenter that additional clarification
requirements of the Act related to the voluntary informed written consent is needed to ensure that parental
provision of FAPE, such as changes from parents, the LEA must inform the consent is voluntary.
related to IEPs, (ii) the parent’s right to parent in writing (and in the parent’s Changes: As noted elsewhere in this
revoke consent to waive any paperwork native language, unless it clearly is not section, we have re-designated
requirements related to the provision of feasible to do so) of (i) any differences paragraph 1(e) of the proposed
FAPE at any time, (iii) the LEA’s between the paperwork requirements of additional requirements as paragraph
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

responsibility to meet all paperwork the Act related to the provision of FAPE, 1(f) of the additional requirements. We
requirements related to the provision of such as changes related to IEPs, (ii) the also have revised that paragraph by
FAPE if the parent does not provide parent’s right to revoke consent to waive inserting the term ‘‘voluntary’’ before
voluntary written informed consent or any paperwork requirements related to the word ‘‘informed’’ and inserting the
revokes consent, and (iv) the LEA’s the provision of FAPE at any time, (iii) term ‘‘written’’ before the word
responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting the LEA’s responsibility to meet all ‘‘consent.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36976 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

Comment: One commenter Discussion: Section 609 of the Act working under the direction of IES and
recommended that States be required to does not authorize the Secretary to in consultation with a technical
inform parents that refusing to consent allow States to propose waiving any workgroup and participating States, may
to an IEP that does not meet the requirements of IFSPs under part C of choose to convene Statewide public
requirements of section 614(d) of the the Act. Section 609 of the Act meetings as part of its research
Act will not affect the delivery of authorizes the Secretary only to grant methodology to collect data on parent
special education and related services to waivers of statutory requirements of, or satisfaction. However, we see no
their child. regulatory requirements relating to, part compelling reason to require the
Discussion: We agree with the B of the Act. In addition, sections 609 evaluation contractor to convene
commenter that additional clarification and 614(d)(5) of the Act do not preclude Statewide meetings at this time. The
is needed regarding situations where a a State from proposing to waive details of the national evaluation will be
parent refuses to provide consent for an requirements related to the content, confirmed during discussion with the
IEP that does not meet the requirements development, review and revision of evaluator, a technical workgroup, and
of section 614(d) of the Act. If a parent IEPs, nor does the Act preclude a State the participating States during the first
does not provide consent for an LEA to from proposing to incorporate elements several months of the study, including
develop an IEP that does not meet the of the Multi-Year IEP Program in its how parent satisfaction will be
requirements of section 614(d) of the application for the Paperwork Waiver evaluated.
Act, the LEA is responsible for Program. We decline to make the Changes: None.
implementing the child’s current IEP requested changes because we believe
National Evaluation
that meets all of the requirements of that there are sufficient protections in
section 614(d) of the Act. the requirements for the Paperwork Comment: None.
Waiver Program to protect a child’s right Discussion: Based on an internal
Changes: We have revised paragraph review of the description of the national
1(g) of the additional requirements to FAPE as well as to ensure that civil
rights and procedural safeguard evaluation in the Background for
(paragraph 1(e) of the proposed Additional Requirements and Selection
additional requirements) to make clear requirements are not waived.
The Act allows States to apply for the Criteria section of this notice, we have
that the information provided to parents determined that it is appropriate to
must explain that if the parent does not Multi-Year IEP Program and the
Paperwork Waiver Program. However, clarify for applicants and other
provide consent, or revokes consent, the stakeholders that academic measures are
LEA is responsible for meeting all we agree with the commenters that a
State that receives awards for the among those student outcomes to be
paperwork requirements related to the assessed as part of the national
Paperwork Waiver Program and the
provision of FAPE. evaluation.
Multi-Year IEP Program should not be
Comment: Many commenters Changes: In the Background for
permitted to execute both programs in
recommended prohibiting States from Additional Requirements and Selection
the same school district. We believe that
proposing to waive any requirements Criteria section of this notice, we have
this type of prohibition would allow for
related to IEPs, Individualized Family added the phrase ‘‘including academic
a more precise evaluation of each
Services Plans (IFSPs), Procedural achievement’’ to the outcomes to be
program.
Safeguards Notices or Prior Written Changes: A note has been added at measured by the national evaluation.
Notices as part of their applications for the end of the Additional Requirements Paragraph (a) of the outcomes to be
the Paperwork Waiver Program. The and Selection Criteria section to clarify measured now reads: ‘‘Educational and
commenters also recommended that the that receipt of an award for the functional results (including academic
Secretary terminate a State’s waiver Paperwork Waiver Program does not achievement) for students with
granted as part of this program if the preclude an applicant from applying for disabilities.’’
Secretary determines that the State has and receiving an award for the Comment: Many commenters
violated any requirements related to Department’s Multi-Year IEP Program. requested a definition of ‘‘quasi-
IEPs, IFSPs, Procedural Safeguards However, a State that receives an award experimental design’’ and an
Notices or Prior Written Notices. for both programs may not execute both explanation of how it compares with a
Many commenters recommended that programs within the same LEA. ‘‘rigorous research design.’’ One
the proposed additional requirements Comment: Many commenters commenter recommended that the
for this program be revised to prohibit recommended requiring States to work evaluation include a variety of
applicants from using the Paperwork with the national evaluator to convene qualitative and quantitative evaluation
Waiver Program as a vehicle for Statewide meetings at a time and place methods (e.g., case studies, observation,
implementing multi-year IEPs that do convenient for parents and family cost-benefit analyses).
not comply with the terms of the members so that they can publicly One commenter noted the absence of
Department’s Multi-Year IEP express whether there is family a research question within the proposed
Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP satisfaction with the Paperwork Waiver additional requirements for the national
Program). Program. evaluation conducted by IES and asked
Many commenters recommended that Discussion: We strongly support for clarification as to why a research
the Department prohibit States from parental involvement in the education question was not specified.
participating in both the Paperwork of children, and believe that the Discussion: A quasi-experimental
Waiver Program and the Multi-Year IEP involvement of parents and other research design is similar to
Program. stakeholders in the development and experimental research design but it
Many commenters recommended evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver lacks one key ingredient—random
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

adding a requirement that any State Program is ensured through assignment. In conducting the national
permitted to participate in both the requirements established in this notice. evaluation, it may not be possible for
Multi-Year IEP Program and the In addition, parent satisfaction will be IES to match LEAs within States
Paperwork Waiver Program may not evaluated under the outcomes that are according to demographic
implement both programs in the same measured as part of the national characteristics, programmatic features,
district or school. evaluation. The evaluation contractor, and other factors in order to apply an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36977

empirical research design that randomly questions commonly associated with requirements) makes clear that
assigns LEAs to experimental and experimental research design cannot be participating States must cooperate fully
control groups. For example, some generated a priori because independent in this national evaluation. Section 609
States may have only one large urban and dependent variables associated with of the Act does not require a State
school district, and a comparable experimental research design cannot evaluation under the Paperwork Waiver
control group within the State cannot be readily be established due to the Program and we do not think it is
established. variability of demographic appropriate to require States to conduct
Similarly, it may not be possible to characteristics between and within a State evaluation. However, nothing in
match participating States according to States that preclude random assignment the Act or the final additional
demographic characteristics in order to of States and LEAs to experimental and requirements and selection criteria
establish experimental and control control groups. The specifics of the prevents States from including a
groups. For example, because this is a national evaluation design will be proposal to conduct a Statewide
competitive program, only eligible confirmed during discussion with the assessment of their project as part of
States that apply for and are awarded evaluator, a technical workgroup, and their application, if determined
authority to waive Federal and State the participating States during the first appropriate by the State.
requirements will participate in the several months of the study and might Changes: None.
Paperwork Waiver Program. As such, it include a variety of qualitative and Comment: Two commenters
is not possible to randomly assign States quantitative evaluation methods (e.g., recommended deleting all requirements
to experimental and control groups. For case studies, observation, cost benefit related to a State’s participation in the
this reason, IES will conduct an analyses). national evaluation. The commenters
evaluation using a rigorous quasi- Changes: None. expressed concern that such
experimental design (i.e., a research Comment: Several commenters participation would add unnecessary
design that does not include random recommended requiring States to costs and paperwork for States and local
assignment of participating States and prohibit participation of some LEAs school districts and could discourage
LEAs to experimental and control within the State in order to create many States from applying for the
groups). The design will, however, separate experimental and control Paperwork Waiver Program.
allow for the collection of data on the groups. One commenter stated that it was
following outcomes: (a) Educational and Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in unreasonable to expect States to allocate
functional results (including academic this section, it may not be possible to resources for the project to assist with
achievement) for students with match LEAs within States according to planning the details of the evaluation
disabilities, (b) allocation and demographic characteristics in order to and ensuring the participation of the
engagement of instructional time for establish experimental and control involved school districts, and that it was
students with disabilities, (c) time and groups. The specifics of the national unlikely that the research would yield
resources spent on administrative duties evaluation design will be confirmed reliable and valid experimental
and paperwork requirements by during discussion with the evaluator, a outcomes.
teaching and related services personnel, technical workgroup, and the One commenter noted that the State
(d) quality of special education services participating States during the first lacked the authority to enforce the
and plans incorporated in IEPs, (e) several months of the study, and cooperation of school districts to
teacher, parent, and administrator decisions regarding the extent to which participate in the national evaluation.
satisfaction, (f) the promotion of experimental research design can be Discussion: IES will ensure that the
collaboration of IEP team members, and employed will be decided at that time. national evaluation yields results that
(g) enhanced long-term educational Changes: None. are reliable and valid. Under section 609
planning for students. These outcomes Comment: Many commenters of the Act, the Department is
will be compared between students who recommended clarifying that all States responsible for reporting to Congress on
participate in the Paperwork Waiver that participate in the Paperwork the effectiveness of the waiver program.
Program, and students who are matched Waiver Program must participate in the In order to accurately evaluate program
on disability, age, socioeconomic status, national evaluation conducted by IES. effectiveness, the national evaluation is
race/ethnicity, language spoken in the The commenters also recommended necessary, and it is appropriate for
home, prior educational outcomes, and adding a new requirement that States that are granted waivers under
to the extent feasible, the nature of participating States conduct a State the program, and participating LEAs, to
special education, and who do not evaluation of the project to ensure participate in that evaluation. A State
participate in the Paperwork Waiver accountability to participating children that does not provide an assurance that
Program. and families and that the State must it will fully cooperate with the national
Given that limitations may preclude provide more detailed State specific evaluator will be deemed ineligible to
random assignment of States and LEAs data than would be required for the participate in the Paperwork Waiver
to experimental and control groups, the national evaluation. In addition, the Program. Moreover, the State is
findings from the national evaluation commenters recommended that the responsible for ensuring that
may largely be ‘‘descriptive’’ in nature Secretary consider the extent to which participating LEAs cooperate in the
rather than drawing ‘‘causal’’ inferences the applicant has devoted sufficient national evaluation conducted by IES. If
that can be reached from experimental resources to conduct a State evaluation a State is unable to provide an assurance
research design, which we believe is of its project and the training of that its participating LEAs will
what the commenters were referring to administrators, educators, and parents cooperate in the national evaluation,
as ‘‘rigorous research design.’’ That is, to ensure proper implementation of the then the State will be deemed ineligible
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

descriptive research has the goal of proposed project. to participate in the Paperwork Waiver
describing what, how, or why Discussion: IES will conduct the Program. Similarly, an LEA that does
something is happening, whereas national evaluation of the Paperwork not provide an assurance to the
experimental research has the goal of Waiver Program. Paragraph 1(h) of the applying State that it will fully
determining whether something causes additional requirements (paragraph 1(f) cooperate with the national evaluator is
an effect. Therefore, specific research of the proposed additional ineligible to participate in the program.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36978 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

In addition, we believe that cooperate fully in a national evaluation report’’ to the Congress by the end of
participation in the national evaluation of this program, if selected to participate 2006.
will not add unnecessary costs and in the Paperwork Waiver Program.’’ Discussion: We believe that the
paperwork or be overly burdensome for Changes: As noted elsewhere, we commenters’ concerns are addressed
States and local school districts. have re-designated paragraph 1(f) of the because the evaluation design will be
Moreover, over the course of the proposed additional requirements as determined prior to implementation of
evaluation, participating States will paragraph 1(h). We also have revised the Paperwork Waiver Program.
receive an annual incentive payment that paragraph to clarify that assurances Accordingly, LEAs may not begin
(described in the Additional are required from States selected to implementing waivers until after the
Requirements section of this notice) that participate in the Paperwork Waiver specifics of the study design for the
will offset the cost of participating in Program. national evaluation and the State’s
the evaluation. Comment: Many commenters evaluation have been determined and
Changes: None. recommended including representatives all the background information for the
Comment: One commenter noted that of national parent organizations in the national evaluation has been provided
the privacy rights of individuals under design of the national evaluation. The to IES. We believe that States should
the privacy requirements of FERPA and commenters stated that it is essential have some flexibility in the timing of
the Act must be protected in making that stakeholders have confidence that their implementation and, while a State
individual student’s IEPs accessible as the evaluation procedures will yield may propose to delay implementation of
part of the national evaluation. valid, reliable, and comprehensive data. the Paperwork Waiver Program as part
Discussion: We agree with the Discussion: IES will identify and of its application, it must fully
commenter and have revised paragraph select individuals with the necessary cooperate with the national evaluator in
1(h)(i) of the additional requirements to technical expertise to serve as members developing the specifics of the national
clarify that States must ensure, of the technical workgroup, which will study design.
consistent with the privacy advise IES on the development of a Changes: None.
requirements of FERPA and the Act, rigorous research design for conducting Comment: Many commenters
that the evaluator will have access to the national evaluation. These recommended that the Department
original and all subsequent new individuals may include representatives commence the national evaluation
versions of the associated documents for of national parent organizations. We process as soon as the final evaluation
each child involved in the evaluation, decline at this time to add any other design has been completed, and that the
including IEPs (if applicable). We also specific parties to those involved in evaluator begin collecting background
have revised the description of the role determining the specifics of the information from the States at this time.
that States will play in the national evaluation design. Discussion: We do not agree with the
evaluation in the SUPPLEMENTARY Changes: None. commenters that it is necessary at this
INFORMATION section of this notice to Comment: Two commenters time to require the national evaluation
ensure that the privacy requirements of recommended eliminating the process to commence as soon as the
FERPA and the Act are protected. requirement for a State to designate a final study design has been completed,
Changes: We have revised paragraph coordinator for the Paperwork Waiver nor do we believe that the evaluator
1(h)(i) of the additional requirements Program. should be required to begin collecting
(paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed Discussion: We believe that it is background information from the States
additional requirements) by adding the necessary and reasonable to ensure at this time. Rather, specifics of the
words ‘‘consistent with the privacy effective implementation and evaluation design (including matters of when data
requirements of the Act and The Family of the Paperwork Waiver Program to collection will commence) will be
Educational Rights and Privacy Act’’ to require States to designate a coordinator confirmed during discussion with the
the sentence requiring States to ensure who will monitor the State’s evaluator, a technical workgroup, and
that the evaluator will have access to the implementation of the program and the participating States during the first
original and all subsequent new work with the national evaluator. several months of the study.
versions of the associated documents for Changes: None. Changes: None.
each child involved in the evaluation. Comment: Many commenters Comment: One commenter
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding a new recommended that the Department
recommended revising paragraph 1(f) of requirement that would preclude a State contract with an independent agency to
the proposed additional requirements from authorizing school districts to develop a research design that would
by deleting the phrase ‘‘if selected.’’ begin implementing waivers until the produce reliable information about the
Discussion: Paragraph 1(f) of the beginning of the first school year after effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver
proposed additional requirements the specifics of the study design for the Program and meet the requirements of
(which has been re-designated as national evaluation and the State’s the Department’s ‘‘What Works
paragraph 1(h) of the additional evaluation have been determined. The Clearinghouse.’’
requirements) requires States to provide commenters noted that more time was Discussion: Data collection and
assurances that they will cooperate needed to work with the national analysis will be the responsibility of IES
fully, if selected, in a national evaluator on the specifics of the national through its independent contractor. The
evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver study design before LEAs begin Department’s ‘‘What Works
Program. The phrase ‘‘if selected’’ was implementing the program. Clearinghouse’’ (WWC) collects,
intended to clarify that the requirement One commenter recommended screens, and identifies existing studies
only applies to States that are selected allowing States to establish their own of effectiveness of educational
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

to participate in the Paperwork Waiver implementation schedule in their interventions (programs, products,
Program; however, we agree with the proposals, and that the Department practices, and policies). The evaluation
commenters that the phrase is should encourage States to do so in an will be based on a strong quasi-
confusing. Accordingly, we have re- expeditious manner to meet the experimental design that will yield
worded this paragraph to read, congressional expectation that the valid and reliable results consistent
‘‘Assurances that the State will Department issue an ‘‘effectiveness with the WWC evidence standards for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36979

quasi-experimental studies and will development and implementation of the Comment: One commenter
meet the needs of the Secretary for Paperwork Waiver Program, the recommended re-ordering the
reporting to Congress under section 426 Secretary believes that the national requirements with which States must
of the Department of Education evaluation should include collection of comply that will allow the Department
Organization Act and section 609(b) of data on teacher and administrator to evaluate the effectiveness of the
the Act. satisfaction. program to parallel the requirements of
Changes: None. Changes: None. section 609(b) of the Act. The same
Comment: Many commenters Comment: Many commenters commenter also recommended limiting
recommended that the national recommended that IES collect data on data collection on the effectiveness of
evaluation include collection of data on whether the Paperwork Waiver Program the program related to student outcomes
‘‘family member’’ satisfaction. will promote collaboration of IEP team to educational and functional results
Discussion: We generally agree with members and how long-term that are ‘‘in accordance with each
the commenters that the national educational planning will be enhanced student’s IEP.’’
evaluation should collect data on the for students through the program. Discussion: Section 609(a)(1) of the
satisfaction of family members of Discussion: We agree with the Act specifies that the purpose of the
children participating in the Paperwork commenters. Section 609(b) of the Act Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide
Waiver Program. Section 609(b) of the an opportunity for States to identify
requires the Department to report on the
Act requires the Department to report to ways to reduce paperwork burdens and
effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver
Congress on the effectiveness of the other administrative duties that are
Program and provide specific
waiver program and to provide specific directly associated with the
recommendations for broader
recommendations for broader
implementation of such waivers related requirements of the Act in order to
implementation of such waivers related
to five outcomes, including (but not increase the time and resources
to five outcomes, including ensuring
limited to) promoting collaboration available for instruction and other
satisfaction of family members. In this
between IEP team members, and activities aimed at improving
context, the Department interprets the
enhancing longer-term educational educational and functional results for
term ‘‘family members’’ to mean
planning, in its annual report to children with disabilities. We believe
‘‘parents’’ and intends to collect data on
Congress. Accordingly, we have that the ordering of evaluation outcomes
parent satisfaction with the program.
included language in the background is sufficiently clear, and re-ordering is
While the perspectives of family
statement for the additional not necessary. In addition, we believe
members, including siblings,
requirements and selection criteria in that potential improvements in the
grandparents, and other relatives can be
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section educational and functional results for
important in making educational
of this notice to clarify that, as part of children with disabilities as a result of
decisions for a child with a disability,
the national evaluation, IES will collect this program should not be limited to
we believe that the parents of a child
data on the extent to which program IEP goals. For example, the national
with a disability are in the best position
activities promote collaboration among evaluation could include examination of
to represent the interests of their child.
IEP team members and enhance long- student assessment data or other indices
Moreover, while the Act provides a
range educational planning. We have of student progress beyond what is
definition of ‘‘parent,’’ it does not
not made any changes to the additional included in students’ IEPs.
provide a definition of ‘‘family
member.’’ Parents may, at their requirements or selection criteria in Changes: None.
discretion, convey the interests and response to these comments. Comment: Several commenters
perspectives of other family members in Changes: None. recommended eliminating some or all
the operation of the project on behalf of Comment: One commenter requested data collection requirements as part of
their children. that we clarify the language in the national evaluation to reduce
Accordingly, we have included paragraph 1(h)(i) of the additional burden and costs on States participating
language in the background statement requirements (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
for the additional requirements and proposed additional requirements) Discussion: Section 609(b) of the Act
selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY regarding an evaluator having access to requires the Department to report on the
INFORMATION section of this notice to the most recent IEP created before effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver
clarify that, as part of the national participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program and provide specific
evaluation, IES will collect data on the Program because this language implies recommendations for broader
extent to which program activities result that no initially identified child could implementation of such waivers related
in parent satisfaction. We have not participate in the pilot project if to five outcomes. However, data
made any changes to the additional elements of the IEP are waived. collection and analysis will not be the
requirements or selection criteria in Discussion: Initially identified responsibility of States. Rather, data
response to these comments. children are eligible to participate in collection and analysis will be the
Changes: None. this program. We agree that additional responsibility of IES through its
Comment: One commenter clarification is needed because an contractor. States can expect to allocate
recommended that the national initially identified child would not have resources, at a minimum during Year 1,
evaluation not include collection of data a previous IEP, and therefore having to assist with planning the details of the
on ‘‘teacher’’ and ‘‘administrator’’ access to the most recent IEP would not evaluation, ensuring participation of
satisfaction. be applicable. involved districts, providing access to
Discussion: Section 609 of the Act Changes: Paragraph 1(h)(i) (paragraph relevant State records, and completing
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

does not require the collection of data 1(f)(i) of the proposed additional questionnaires or participating in
on teacher and administrator requirements) has been revised to clarify interviews. Over the course of the
satisfaction as part of the national that the evaluator will have access to the evaluation, participating States will
evaluation. However, because multiple most recent IEP created (if a previous receive an annual incentive payment
stakeholders, including teachers and IEP was created) before participating in (described in the Additional
administrators, will be involved in the the Paperwork Waiver Program. Requirements section of this notice) that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36980 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

will offset the cost of participating in evaluation will be available and how Comment: Many commenters
the evaluation. they will be disseminated. recommended requiring the Secretary to
Changes: None. Discussion: We believe that it is not evaluate, separately, the significance of
Comment: Many commenters appropriate to set a timeline for the proposed project in terms of how
recommended increasing the annual disseminating the results of the national likely it would lead to reduced
incentive payment provided to States to evaluation until the specifics of the paperwork burden, increase
support program-related activities, and national evaluation are confirmed instructional time, and improve
recommended requiring that the during discussion with the evaluator, a academic achievement. The commenters
national evaluator provide funds to technical workgroup, and the also recommended that the Secretary
participating school districts based on participating States during the first consider the likelihood that the
the number of participating students in several months of the study. Consistent proposed project will ensure parent
the evaluation. with section 609(b) of the Act, the satisfaction.
Discussion: Paragraph 3 of the Secretary will include in the annual One commenter stated that section
proposed additional requirements report to Congress pursuant to section 609(b) of the Act anticipates ‘‘positive
provided that each State receiving 426 of the Department of Education outcomes’’ for students and that the
approval to participate in the Paperwork Organization Act information related to expected outcomes for the program
Waiver Program would be awarded an the effectiveness of waivers including should relate directly to the individual’s
annual incentive payment of $10,000 to any specific recommendations for broad annual IEP goals (educational and
be used exclusively to support program- implementation. It is the expectation of functional outcomes) as opposed to
related evaluation activities, including the Department that the annual report being limited to academic achievement.
will be based, at least in part, on the Discussion: We believe that the
one trip to Washington, DC, annually to
results of the national evaluation. commenters’ concerns about the
meet with the project officer and the
Changes: None. likelihood that the project will lead to
evaluator. In addition, paragraph 3 of
reduced paperwork, increased
the proposed additional requirements Selection Criteria instructional time, improved academic
indicated that each participating State
Comment: None. achievement, and will ensure parents’
would receive an additional incentive Discussion: Upon further satisfaction are sufficiently addressed by
payment of $15,000 annually from the consideration of the proposed selection the national evaluation. Similarly, we
evaluation contractor to support criteria, the Department has made the believe that the comment on measuring
evaluation activities in the State, and decision to use selection criteria already outcomes related to the IEP is already
that incentive payments may also be established in the Education addressed by the national evaluation.
provided to participating districts to Department General Administrative Readers are referred to the Background
offset the cost of their participation in Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210 for Additional Requirements and
the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver for the review of this program. The Selection Criteria section, which lists
Program. Because the total available proposed selection criteria included the measures on which IES will collect
funds for each award will depend on the many of the measures that would be data for purposes of the national
number of awards made, we are unable evaluated as part of the national evaluation. These measures include data
to specify an exact amount over the evaluation of this program. Upon further on the educational and functional
initially proposed incentive payment consideration, we determined that it results of students with disabilities, the
amounts. However, the Secretary agrees would be inappropriate to include these quality of the services and plans within
with the commenters that more funds measures in the selection criteria. We the IEP, allocation and engagement of
should be made available if possible believe that use of the EDGAR selection instructional time for students with
and, therefore, the final additional criteria will enable the Department to disabilities, time and resources spent on
requirements have been revised to sufficiently evaluate State applications administrative duties and paperwork
clarify that participating States will for this program. requirements by teaching and related
receive at least $10,000 to support Changes: Throughout the selection services personnel, and parent
program-related evaluation activities, criteria, we have replaced or modified satisfaction, among other things.
and at least $15,000 annually from the proposed selection criteria to better We strongly support parental
evaluation contractor to support align with selection criteria from 34 CFR involvement in all aspects of education,
evaluation activities in the State. 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have but believe that parental involvement in
Changes: We have revised paragraph deleted or modified proposed selection the development and evaluation of the
3 of the final additional requirements to criteria 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3(b) and 3(c) and Paperwork Waiver Program is more
clarify that each State receiving added language from 34 CFR 75.210 of appropriately ensured through other
approval to participate in the Paperwork EDGAR. additional requirements included in this
Waiver Program will be awarded an Comment: One commenter notice (e.g., paragraphs 1(a) and (d) of
annual incentive payment of not less recommended eliminating proposed the additional requirements) and will be
than $10,000 to support program-related selection criterion 1(a) (i.e., that the addressed by the outcomes measured as
evaluation activities, and not less than proposed project demonstrate the extent part of the national evaluation
$15,000 annually from the evaluation to which it will develop or demonstrate conducted by IES (e.g., parent
contractor to support evaluation promising new strategies that build on, satisfaction) and selection criterion 3(c).
activities in the State, to offset the cost or are alternatives to, existing Changes: None.
of participating districts, or to do both. strategies). Comment: None.
We also have added language to this Discussion: We decline to make the Discussion: Since publishing the
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

paragraph to clarify that the total requested change because we believe December 2005 notice, we have decided
available funds for each award will that selection criterion 1(a) is an to use certain selection criteria from
depend on the number of awards made. important criterion for evaluating the those found in EDGAR in 34 CFR 75.210
Comment: Many commenters innovativeness of each State application for the review of this program. Proposed
recommended that the Department for the Paperwork Waiver Program. selection criterion 1(b), ‘‘The likelihood
indicate when the results of the national Changes: None. that the proposed project will result in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36981

improvements in the IEP process, especially improvements in teaching Comment: Many commenters
especially long-term planning for and student achievement. recommended that the Secretary
children with disabilities, without Comment: Many commenters consider the extent to which the
compromising the provision of FAPE, recommended amending the selection proposed project was designed to
satisfaction of parents, and educational criteria to ensure that the emphasis on involve broad parental input.
outcomes for children with disabilities’’ paperwork reduction in a State’s Discussion: We believe that the
has been deleted. Upon internal review proposal includes a focus on improved commenters’ concerns are addressed by
of the proposed selection criteria, we student outcomes and does not come at selection criterion 3(c), which ensures
have determined that this criterion is the expense of FAPE for children with that States involve multiple
inappropriate because it would require disabilities. stakeholders, including parents, in the
panel reviewers to speculate on the Discussion: We agree with the implementation of their projects.
impact proposals would have on the commenters that the program’s Moreover, we believe that paragraphs
variables to be measured by the national emphasis on paperwork reduction 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) of the
evaluation (i.e., long-term planning for should include a focus on improved additional requirements ensure
children with disabilities, satisfaction of student outcomes and should not come involvement by parents in this program.
parents and educational outcomes for at the expense of a student’s right to a Changes: None.
children with disabilities). If the FAPE. Accordingly, we have added Comment: Many commenters
relationship between certain paperwork selection criterion 1(c) and replaced recommended that the Secretary
waivers and outcome variables were proposed selection criterion 2(b) with consider the extent to which the design
known, then there would be no need for an EDGAR selection criterion to enable of the proposed project is appropriate
the evaluation. the Secretary to focus on student to, and will successfully address, the
We have replaced proposed selection outcomes or needs. The changes made needs of children with disabilities.
criterion 1(b) with the following EDGAR in the additional requirements Discussion: We agree that it is
criterion, which is from 34 CFR (discussed elsewhere in this notice) important to consider the extent to
75.210(b)(2)(iii): ‘‘The potential provide adequate protection to students’ which the design of a project is
contribution of the proposed project to right to a FAPE. appropriate to, and will successfully
increased knowledge or understanding Changes: We have added selection address, the needs of children with
of educational problems, issues or criterion 1(c) to enable the Secretary to disabilities. As discussed elsewhere, we
effective strategies.’’ This criterion will evaluate the importance or magnitude of have replaced proposed selection
allow panel reviewers to evaluate the the outcomes likely to be attained by the criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection
proposal’s significance relative to how project. We also have replaced proposed criterion to emphasize how well the
articulately or persuasively the State can project will address the needs of the
selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR
connect current problems or issues with target population as a basis for
selection criterion to enable the
the paperwork requested for waiver. application review.
Secretary to assess the extent to which
This type of evaluation and subsequent Changes: We have replaced proposed
the proposed project will address the
scoring of an application is commonly selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR
needs of the target population or other
done in proposal review by standing selection criterion to enable the
identified needs.
panel members. Secretary to consider the extent to
Changes: Proposed selection criterion Comment: One commenter
which the design of the proposed
1(b) has been deleted and replaced with recommended striking selection
project is appropriate to, and will
the selection criterion from section criterion 2(c) as it seemed vague and
successfully address, the needs of the
75.210(b)(2)(iii) of EDGAR. duplicative of selection criterion 3(c).
target population or other identified
Comment: Many commenters Discussion: We agree that proposed
needs.
recommended that the Secretary selection criterion 2(c) is duplicative of Comment: Many commenters
consider the importance or magnitude selection criterion 3(c). recommended including the selection
of the results or outcomes likely to be Changes: We have deleted proposed criterion found in section 75.210(c)(2)(v)
attained by the project, especially selection criterion 2(c) (i.e., the extent to of EDGAR, which requires the Secretary
improvements in teaching and student which the proposed project encourages to consider the extent to which the
achievement. consumer involvement, including proposed activities constitute a
Discussion: We agree with the parental involvement). coherent, sustained program of training
commenter that the importance or Comment: Many commenters in the field.
magnitude of the results or outcomes recommended that we consider the Discussion: We decline to include the
likely to be attained by the project, quality of the proposed project design selection criterion from section
particularly improvements in teaching and procedures for documenting project 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR in the
and student achievement, is an activities and results. selection criteria for this program
important criterion in assessing the Discussion: We agree with the because that selection criterion applies
significance of a proposed project. We commenters. The design and procedures to professional development grants and
also agree that it is important to evaluate for documenting proposed activities and is not appropriate for the Paperwork
the effects a proposed project will have results of the Paperwork Waiver Waiver Program.
on instructional time that could lead to Program must be of high quality for Changes: None.
improvements in educational and evaluation purposes. Comment: Many commenters
functional outcomes for children with Changes: We have added a new recommended that the Secretary
disabilities. selection criterion 2(c) (as noted consider the extent to which
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Changes: Selection criteria 1 has been elsewhere, we have deleted proposed performance feedback and continuous
amended by adding new selection selection criterion 2(c)) to enable the improvement are integral to the design
criterion 1(c), which allows the Secretary to consider the quality of the of the proposed project.
Secretary to evaluate the importance or proposed project design and procedures Discussion: We believe that the
magnitude of the results or outcomes for documenting project activities and commenters’ concerns are addressed
likely to be attained by the project, results. under the management plan selection

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

criterion in paragraph 3(a) (i.e., that the their educational programming. We Discussion: We believe that the
Secretary consider the adequacy of therefore agree with the commenter that concerns of the commenters are
procedures for ensuring feedback and it is appropriate to ensure that the addressed in selection criteria 2(a) and
continuous improvement in the perspectives of children with 3(a). Selection criterion 2(a) provides
operation of the proposed project). disabilities are brought to bear in the that the Secretary will consider the
Changes: None. operation of the project. We believe that extent to which the goals, objectives and
Comment: One commenter the commenters’ concerns are addressed outcomes to be achieved by the
recommended amending the selection by selection criterion 3(c), which proposed project are clearly specified
criteria to allow States to modify and authorizes the Secretary to consider and measurable. Selection criterion 3(a)
revise their original statutory, how an applicant will ensure that a provides that we will consider the
regulatory, and administrative waiver diversity of perspectives, including adequacy of procedures for ensuring
requests during the course of the pilot those of ‘‘recipients or beneficiaries of feedback and continuous improvement
project. services,’’ are brought to bear in the in the operation of the proposed project.
Discussion: We are committed to operation of the proposed project. Changes: None.
ensuring the objectivity and integrity of Children with disabilities are Comment: Many commenters
IES’s national evaluation of the ‘‘recipients or beneficiaries of services’’ recommended that the Secretary
Paperwork Waiver Program. For this provided under this program. consider the extent to which the
reason, we do not support allowing We do not agree with the commenter methods of evaluation proposed by the
States to pursue changes to waiver regarding the need to involve family State include multiple methods for
activities proposed in their initial members and child advocates, other collecting data on parent satisfaction
applications as this would significantly than the child’s parents or legal from a broad representative sample
interfere with the reliability of the guardian. While the perspectives of throughout the State with respect to the
outcome data gathered as part of the siblings, grandparents, other relatives, waivers and the usefulness of the
evaluation component for this program. and outside advocates can be important information and training they receive.
Changes: None. Discussion: We believe that the
in making educational decisions for a
Comment: One commenter evaluation of these projects is the
child with a disability, we believe that
recommended amending the selection responsibility of the national evaluation
the parents of a child with a disability
criteria to require States to address their to be designed and conducted by IES in
are in the best position to represent the
commitment to cooperate in the collaboration with the States. There is
interests of their child. Parents may, at
national evaluation in their no requirement for the States to
their discretion, convey the interests
applications, but to clarify that they are complete an impact evaluation of their
and perspectives of other family
not required to document the extent to projects independent of the national
members and outside advocates in the
which they devoted sufficient resources evaluation.
operation of the project on behalf of Changes: None.
to conduct data collection and analysis their children.
as part of the evaluation of the waiver Other Issues
Changes: None.
program.
Discussion: We agree with the Comment: Many commenters Comment: One commenter
commenters that documentation of the recommended that the Secretary recommended requiring that the design
extent to which applicants have devoted consider the extent to which the and development activities of the
sufficient resources to the data methods of evaluation proposed by the proposed project be completed during
collection and analysis of the evaluation State provide for examining the the course of the project period. The
is not necessary. The applicant’s effectiveness of the project commenter noted that the proposed
commitment to the evaluation is implementation strategies and provide requirements for the program require
assessed through additional requirement guidance for quality assurance. States to begin to develop their model
1(h). However, the specific change Discussion: We believe that the prior to the submission of the
requested by the commenter is concerns of the commenters are application, and that the period of the
unnecessary since, following further addressed in the Quality of the project project performance would be devoted
internal review of the selection criteria, design selection criterion (selection to implementation and evaluation of the
we have deleted proposed selection criterion 2). Selection criterion 2 states program.
criterion 3(b) in favor of including only that we will consider (a) the extent to Discussion: Prior to submitting its
EDGAR selection criteria. which the goals, objectives, and application, a State must involve
Changes: Selection criterion 3(b) (i.e., outcomes to be achieved by the multiple stakeholders and convene
the extent to which the applicant has proposed project are clearly specified public meetings to gather input on the
devoted sufficient resources to the and measurable; (b) the extent to which Federal and State requirements that the
evaluation of the proposed project) has the design of the proposed project is State proposes to waive to reduce
been deleted. appropriate to, and will successfully excessive paperwork and non-
Comment: One commenter address, the needs of the target instructional time burdens that do not
recommended that the Secretary population or other identified needs; assist in improving educational and
consider how the applicant will ensure and (c) the quality of the proposed functional results for children with
that the perspectives of children with project’s procedures for documenting disabilities. The State also must provide
disabilities are brought to bear in the project activities and results. a summary of public comments and
operation of the proposed project. Changes: None. how the public comments were
One commenter recommended Comment: Many commenters addressed in its application. Because a
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

revising the selection criteria to ensure recommended that the Secretary State must meet these minimum
that the perspectives of family members consider the extent to which the requirements for its application to be
and advocates for children with methods of evaluation proposed by the deemed eligible for review, it follows
disabilities are considered. State will provide performance feedback that the focus of the project period must
Discussion: We believe it is important and permit periodic assessment toward be on the implementation and
to involve children with disabilities in achieving intended outcomes. evaluation of the program, rather than

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36983

program design and development term as defined in section 602(23) of the number of national technical assistance
activities. Act. centers and regional resource centers
Changes: None. Discussion: We intend the term that can provide technical assistance to
Comment: Many commenters ‘‘parent’’ to have the meaning given the States in the operation of the Paperwork
recommended that the background for term in section 300.30 of the final Waiver Program.
the additional requirements and regulations implementing part B of the Changes: None.
selection criteria include information Act (34 CFR 300.30). However, we agree Note: This notice does not solicit
from the ‘‘Project Forum Proceedings on that additional clarification is needed applications. We will invite applications
Special Education Paperwork’’,1 and the and will add a note reflecting this through a separate notice in the Federal
‘‘Study of Personnel Needs in Special change. Register.
Education (SPeNSE)’’,2 particularly Changes: We have revised the final
related to information regarding the additional requirements and selection Additional Requirements and Selection
geographical variation in the amount of criteria to include a note defining the Criteria
time special education teachers devote term ‘‘parent’’ consistent with the
Additional Requirements
to paperwork. definition of that term under section
Discussion: The background for the 300.30 of the final regulations The Secretary establishes the
proposed additional requirements and implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR following additional requirements for
selection criteria included information 300.30). the Paperwork Waiver Program.
from the SPeNSE study, although the Comment: One commenter (1) A State applying for approval
study was not directly cited. That said, recommended that States be required to under this program must submit a
the Secretary agrees with the use the model IEP, procedural proposal to reduce excessive paperwork
commenters that it is important to safeguards notice, and prior written and non-instructional time burdens that
include in the background statement for notice forms developed by the do not assist in improving educational
the additional requirements and Department. and functional results for children with
selection criteria information from the Discussion: As part of the 2004 disabilities. A State submitting a
SPeNSE study that shows the amendments to the Act, the Congress proposal under the Paperwork Waiver
geographical variation in the amount of required the Department to publish and Program must include the following
time special education teachers devote widely disseminate model forms that material in its proposal:
are consistent with the requirements of (a) A description of how the State met
to paperwork. The Secretary does not
part B of the Act and are ‘‘sufficient to the public participation requirements of
believe it is appropriate to include
meet those requirements.’’ Specifically, section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including
information from the Project Forum
the Act requires the Department to how the State (1) involved multiple
Proceedings on Special Education
develop forms for the IEP; the notice of stakeholders, including parents,
Paperwork because it was not intended
procedural safeguards; and the prior children with disabilities, special
to be a scientific study of the time that
written notice. Consistent with the Act, education and regular education
educators spend completing special
the Department developed the three teachers, related services providers, and
education paperwork. Accordingly, we
forms to assist SEAs and LEAs in school and district administrators, in
have included information from the
understanding the content that part B of selecting the requirements proposed for
SPeNSE study in the background
the Act requires for each of these three the waiver and any specific proposals
statement for the additional
types of forms. The content of each of for changing those requirements to
requirements and selection criteria in
these forms is based upon the reduce paperwork, and (2) provided an
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
requirements set forth in the final opportunity for public comment in
of this notice. We have not made any
regulations implementing part B of the selecting the requirements proposed for
changes to the additional requirements
Act. Although States must ensure that the waiver.
or selection criteria in response to these
school districts include all of the (b) A summary of public comments
comments.
content that part B of the Act requires received in accordance with paragraph
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters for each of the documents that they 1(a) of these additional requirements
recommended clarifying that the provide to parents, States are not and how the public comments were
Department will not allow any State that required to use the format or specific addressed in the proposal.
language reflected in these forms. States (c) A description of the procedures
fails to sufficiently address all
may choose to include additional the State will employ to ensure that, if
requirements under section 609 of the
content in their forms, so long as the the waiver is granted, it will not result
Act in its application to participate in
additional content is consistent with all in a denial of the right to FAPE to any
the Paperwork Waiver Program.
requirements under part B of the Act. child with a disability, a waiver of any
Discussion: We will ensure that only
Changes: None. applicable civil rights requirements, or
applications that meet the requirements
Comment: One commenter a waiver of any procedural safeguards
of section 609 of the Act are deemed
recommended that States should under section 615 of the Act. This
eligible for approval under the program.
Changes: None. indicate in their applications whether description also must include an
Comment: One commenter they will need technical assistance from assurance that the State will collect and
recommended defining the term the Office of Special Education report to the Department, as part of the
‘‘parent’’ to have the meaning of the Programs (OSEP) or some other entity. State’s annual performance report
Discussion: States may choose to submission to the Secretary in
1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special indicate in their applications whether accordance with section
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Education Programs, Project Forum, Project Forum they will need technical assistance from 616(b)(2)(c)(ii)(II) of the Act, and to the
Proceedings Document, ‘‘Policy Forum: Special OSEP in the implementation of the national evaluator, all State complaints
Education Paperwork.’’ 2002. program. States that are awarded related to the denial of FAPE to any
2 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special

Education Programs, Study of Personnel Needs in


authority to participate in the student with a disability and how the
Special Education (SPeNSE), Final Report of the Paperwork Waiver Program may contact State responded to this information,
Paperwork Substudy. 2003. OSEP for assistance. OSEP funds a including the outcome of that response

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
36984 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices

such as providing technical assistance (i) Ensuring that, for each item in the also will serve as the primary point of
to the LEA to improve implementation, list of statutory, regulatory, or State contact for the OSEP project officer.
or suspending or terminating the requirements submitted pursuant to (2) For purposes of the statutory
authority of an LEA to waive paperwork paragraph 2 in the Statutory requirement prohibiting the Secretary
requirements due to unresolved Requirements for Paperwork Waiver from waiving any statutory
compliance problems. Program section of this notice, and requirements of, or regulatory
(d) A description of the procedures consistent with the privacy requirements relating to, but not limited
the State will employ to ensure that requirements of the Act and The Family to, applicable civil rights, the term
diverse stakeholders (including parents, Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the ‘‘applicable civil rights requirements,’’
teachers, administrators, related services evaluator will have access to the as used in this notice, includes all civil
providers, and other stakeholders, as original and all subsequent new rights requirements in: (a) Section 504
appropriate) understand the proposed versions of the associated documents for of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
elements of the State’s submission for each child involved in the evaluation, amended; (b) Title VI of the Civil Rights
the Paperwork Waiver Program. together with a general description of Act of 1964; (c) Title IX of the Education
(e) Assurances that each parent of a the process for completing each of the Amendments of 1972; (d) Title II of the
child with a disability in participating documents. For example, if elements of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
LEAs will be given written notice (in the the IEP process are waived, the and (e) Age Discrimination Act of 1975
native language of the parent, unless it evaluator shall have access to the most and their implementing regulations. The
clearly is not feasible to do so) of any recent IEP created under previous term does not include other
statutory, regulatory, or State guidelines for each participating child requirements under the Act.
requirements that will be waived and (if a previous IEP was created), as well (3) Each State receiving approval to
notice of the procedures that State will as all of the new IEPs created under the participate in the Paperwork Waiver
employ under paragraph 1(c) in easily waiver, along with a description of the Program will be awarded an annual
understandable language. process for completing both types of incentive payment of not less than
(f) Assurances that the State will IEPs. $10,000 to be used exclusively to
require any participating LEA to obtain (ii) Recruiting districts or schools to support program-related evaluation
participate in the evaluation (as activities, including one trip to
voluntary informed written consent
established in the evaluation design) Washington, DC, annually to meet with
from parents for a waiver of any
and ensuring their continued the project officer and the evaluator.
paperwork requirements related to the
cooperation with the evaluation. Each participating State will receive an
provision of FAPE, such as changes
Providing a list of districts and schools additional incentive payment of not less
related to IEPs.
that have been recruited and have than $15,000 annually from the
(g) Assurances that the State will agreed to implement the proposed
require any participating LEA to inform evaluation contractor to support
Paperwork Waiver Program, along with evaluation activities in the State.
parents in writing (and in the native a description of the circumstances
language of the parents, unless it clearly Incentive payments may also be
under which district participation may provided to participating districts to
is not feasible to do so) of (i) any be terminated, allow data collection to
differences between the paperwork offset the cost of their participation in
occur, and cooperate fully with the the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver
requirements of the Act related to the evaluation. For each participating
provision of FAPE, such as changes Program. Total available funds will
school or district, providing basic
related to IEPs, (ii) the parent’s right to depend on the number of awards made.
demographic information such as
revoke consent to waive any paperwork student enrollment, district wealth and Note: Receipt of an award for the
requirements related to the provision of ethnicity breakdowns, the number of Paperwork Waiver Program does not
FAPE at any time, (iii) the LEA’s children with disabilities by category, preclude an applicant from applying for and
responsibility to meet all paperwork receiving an award for the Department’s
and the number or type of personnel, as Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State
requirements related to the provision of requested by the evaluator.
FAPE if the parent does not provide that receives an award for both programs may
(iii) Serving in an advisory capacity to not execute both programs within the same
voluntary written informed consent or assist the evaluator in identifying valid local school district.
revokes consent, and (iv) the LEA’s and reliable data sources and improving
responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting the design of data collection Note: The term ‘‘parent’’ as used in these
to develop an IEP that meets all instruments and methods. requirements and selection criteria for the
requirements of section 614(d) of the (iv) Providing to the evaluator an Paperwork Waiver Program has the same
Act within 30 calendar days if the inventory of existing State-level data meaning given the term in section 300.30 of
parent revokes consent to waiving the final regulations implementing part B of
relevant to the evaluation questions or the Act.
paperwork requirements related to the consistent with the identified data
content, development, review and sources. Supplying requested State-level Selection Criteria
revision of IEPs. data in accordance with the timeline
(h) Assurances that the State will specified in the evaluation design. The following selection criteria will
cooperate fully in a national evaluation (v) Providing assistance to the be used to evaluate State proposals
of this program, if selected to participate evaluator with the collection of data submitted under this program. These
in the Paperwork Waiver Program. from parents, including obtaining particular criteria were selected because
Cooperation includes devoting a informed consent, for parent interviews they address the statutory requirements
minimum of 4 months between the and responses to surveys and and program requirements and permit
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

award and the implementation of the questionnaires, if necessary to the final applicants to propose a distinctive
State’s waiver to conduct joint planning design of the evaluation. approach to addressing these
with the evaluator. It also includes (vi) Designating a coordinator for the requirements.
participation by the State educational project who will monitor the Note: We will inform applicants of the
agency (SEA) in the following implementation of the project and work points or weights assigned to each criterion
evaluation activities: with the evaluator. This coordinator and sub-criterion in a notice published in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices 36985

Federal Register inviting States to submit The potential costs associated with DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
applications for this program. this regulatory action are those resulting
1. Significance. The Secretary from statutory requirements and those RIN 1820–ZA41
considers the significance of the we have determined as necessary for
proposed project. In determining the administering this program effectively The Individuals With Disabilities
significance of the proposed project, the and efficiently. Although there may be Education Act Multi-Year
Secretary considers the following costs associated with participating in Individualized Education Program
factors: this pilot, the Department will provide Demonstration Program
(a) The extent to which the proposed incentive payments to States to help AGENCY: Office of Special Education and
project involves the development or offset these costs. In addition, we expect Rehabilitative Services, Department of
demonstration of promising new that States will weigh these costs against Education.
strategies that build on, or are the benefits of being able to participate
alternatives to, existing strategies. ACTION: Notice of final additional
in the pilot and will only opt to requirements and selection criteria.
(b) The potential contribution of the
proposed project to increased participate in this pilot if the potential
benefits exceed the costs. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
knowledge or understanding of Special Education and Rehabilitative
educational problems, issues or effective We have also determined that this
Services announces additional
strategies. regulatory action does not unduly
requirements and selection criteria for a
(c) The importance or magnitude of interfere with State, local, and tribal competition in which the Department
the results or outcomes likely to be governments in the exercise of their will select up to 15 States to participate
attained by the project, especially governmental functions. in a pilot program, the Multi-Year
improvements in teaching and student
Intergovernmental Review Individualized Education Program (IEP)
achievement.
2. Quality of the project design. The Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP
This program is not subject to Program). State proposals approved
Secretary considers the quality of the
design of the proposed project. In Executive Order 12372 and the under this program will create
determining the quality of the design of regulations in 34 CFR part 79. opportunities for participating local
the proposed project, the Secretary educational agencies (LEAs) to improve
Electronic Access to This Document long-term planning for children with
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the goals, You may view this document, as well disabilities through the development
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved as all other Department of Education and use of comprehensive multi-year
by the proposed project are clearly documents published in the Federal IEPs. Additionally, the additional
specified and measurable. Register, in text or Adobe Portable requirements and selection criteria
(b) The extent to which the design of focus on an identified national need to
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
the proposed project is appropriate to, reduce the paperwork burden associated
at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/
and will successfully address, the needs with IEPs while preserving students’
news/fedregister. civil rights and promoting academic
of the target population or other
identified needs. To use PDF you must have Adobe achievement. The Assistant Secretary
(c) The quality of the proposed Acrobat Reader, which is available free will use these additional requirements
project’s procedures for documenting at this site. If you have questions about and selection criteria for a single one-
project activities and results. using PDF, call the U.S. Government time only competition.
3. Quality of the management plan. Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– DATES: Effective Date: These additional
The Secretary considers the quality of 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, requirements and selection criteria are
the management plan for the proposed DC, area at (202) 512–1530. effective August 6, 2007.
project. In determining the quality of the Note: The official version of this document FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
management plan for the proposed is the document published in the Federal Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of
project, the Secretary considers the Register. Free Internet access to the official Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
following factors: edition of the Federal Register and the Code Room 4088, Potomac Center Plaza,
(a) The adequacy of procedures for of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Washington, DC 20202–2700.
ensuring feedback and continuous Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ Telephone: (202) 245–7355 or by e-mail:
improvement in the operation of the index.html. Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov.
proposed project. If you use a telecommunications
(b) How the applicant will ensure that (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
a diversity of perspectives are brought to Numbers 84.326P Individuals with
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
bear in the operation of the proposed Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver
800–877–8339.
project, including those of parents, Demonstration Program)
Individuals with disabilities may
teachers, the business community, a Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1408. obtain this document in an alternative
variety of disciplinary and professional format (e.g., Braille, large print,
fields, recipients or beneficiaries of Dated: June 29, 2007.
Jennifer Sheehy,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
services, or others, as appropriate. request to the contact person listed
Director of Policy and Planning for Special under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Executive Order 12866
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
CONTACT.
This notice of final additional [FR Doc. E7–13145 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

requirements and selection criteria has BILLING CODE 4000–01–P


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
been reviewed in accordance with published a notice of proposed
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms requirements and selection criteria for
of the order, we have assessed the the Multi-Year IEP Program in the
potential costs and benefits of this Federal Register on December 19, 2005
regulatory action. (70 FR 75158) (December 2005 Notice).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1