Today the State Board of Education will consider some proposed amendments to special education regulations as part of its regular meeting. (Agenda here.)  While many of these proposed changes are housekeeping (grammar corrections, standardizing acronyms, deleting anachronistic deadlines), others derive from the recent Education Transformation Task Force Report and would alter the complicated dance performed by parents and district personnel as they wend their way through years of paperwork entailed in creating Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s) for students with disabilities.

The proposed amendments are long so, as a public service, here’s a few highlights.  My sense is that these changes are intended to rejigger the balance between reasonable and appropriate provision of special education services by school districts and the rights of parents and their children. The Task Force implied that this delicate balance had perhaps shifted a little bit towards the parents and against the districts. I’d guess that these amendments are meant to provide a bit of course correction, in addition to streamlining some of the more onerous and gratuitous paperwork.

I’d also note that the tone of the proposed amendments is just a tad defensive. In the one case (I found) where the DOE didn’t echo the suggestions of the Task Force, the proposal says, “The Department did not accept the task force recommendation…” See? We are independent thinkers!

Anyway, here are some of the proposed changes, set to be vetted by the State Board this morning:

• On independent evaluations: “The Department proposes an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.5(c) to alter the requirements for obtaining an independent evaluation. The regulation is proposed for amendment to incorporate the Federal requirement that a parent may obtain only one independent evaluation after each initial evaluation or reevaluation conducted by a school district, and that the parent must specify what assessment(s) is sought as part of the request for an independent evaluation. The Department proposes to repeal N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.5(c)1 and 1i through iv, which allow a school district to conduct assessments prior to an independent evaluator’s assessment. The current rules conflict with Federal regulations and cause additional expense for school districts without improving the process.” I.e., no more multiple independent evaluations at a school district’s expense.

• On out-sourcing child study team members (who, with the parents, form the Child Study Team, which collaboratively makes decisions about appropriate services and placements): “Based on a task force recommendation, the Department proposes an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.1(b) to increase flexibility by clarifying that school districts are allowed to contract for additional child study team members when needed to supplement existing child study teams. This flexibility will give school districts greater control over personnel decisions without affecting services for children with special needs.”

• On increased flexibility for case managers (who lead Child Study Teams):” Based on a task force recommendation, the Department proposes an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.2(a) to increase flexibility by allowing school districts to assign personnel other than child study team members to serve as case managers for students with disabilities.”

• On physical presence of parents at meetings: “An amendment is also proposed to allow parents to participate in the meeting by telephone upon request, which will provide flexibility and ease the burden on school districts with respect to scheduling and holding meetings. The amendments will reduce the burden of over-prescriptive regulations on school districts.”

• On shortening the time that parents have to review IEP’s: “Based on a task force recommendation, the Department proposes an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.5(a) to require school districts to provide parents with copies of evaluation reports five days prior to a meeting instead of 10 days prior. The amendment will provide the school district more time to complete the evaluation process while maintaining a reasonable timeframe for parents to receive and review reports.”

Another amendment allows changes in IEP’s without formal meetings. Another proposes “to delete the requirement of identifying a specific liaison to postsecondary resources as it is not a Federal requirement.” (Hmm. Seems short-sighted.)

The DOE also proposes to “to provide school districts the flexibility of determining when sub-parts of an assessment, rather than the entire assessment, are appropriate to complete a reevaluation. The amendment will reduce unnecessary testing of students with disabilities and allow child study teams to conduct only the necessary assessment components to determine continued eligibility.” Makes sense, although one could argue that evaluations – those not necessary to prove eligibility – help to determine the child’s present level of functioning.

Other proposals give districts more flexibility to group students by extending the gamut of years from 3 to 4. Another allows more latitude on class sizes.

There’s more flexibility for private special ed schools too: “The Department proposes an amendment to remove the requirement that all personnel serving students with disabilities in approved private schools for students with disabilities be highly qualified in accordance with Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations.”

And remember the promise to cut red tape? Here’s an example:

Based on a task force recommendation, N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.6(h) is proposed for amendment to remove “with prior written approval of the Department of Education” to allow approved private schools for students with disabilities to operate extended academic year programs without prior approval of the Department. The proposed amendment will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens for the Department, as the student’s IEP provides sufficient requirements for extended academic year programs. Thus, a more rigorous and targeted form ofoversight already exists.