[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 129 (Friday, July 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36970-36985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13145]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1820-ZA42


The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver 
Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services announces additional requirements and selection 
criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15 
States to participate in a pilot program, the Paperwork Waiver 
Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program). State proposals 
approved under this program will create opportunities for participating 
States to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties in 
order to increase time for instruction and other activities to improve 
educational and functional results for children with disabilities, 
while preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic 
achievement. The Assistant Secretary will use these additional 
requirements and selection criteria for a single, one-time-only 
competition for this program.

DATES: Effective Date: These additional requirements and selection 
criteria are effective August 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4078, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7355 or by e-mail: 
[email protected]
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed 
requirements and selection criteria for the Paperwork Waiver Program in 
the Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75161) (December 2005 
Notice).
    On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law Public Law 108-
446, 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Improvement Act of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (Act). This new law reflects the 
importance of strengthening our Nation's efforts to ensure every child 
with a disability has available a free appropriate public education 
(FAPE) that is (1) of high quality and (2) designed to achieve the high 
standards established in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
    The Paperwork Waiver Program is one of two demonstration programs 
authorized under the new law that is designed to address parents', 
special educators' and States' desire to reduce excessive and 
repetitious paperwork, administrative burden, and non-instructional 
teacher time and, at the same time, to increase the resources and time 
available for classroom instruction and other activities focused on 
improving educational and functional results of children with 
disabilities.
    Paperwork burden in special education affects (1) the time school 
staff can devote to instruction or service provision and (2) retention 
of staff, particularly special education teachers. In 2002, the Office 
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded a nationally representative 
study of teachers' perceptions of sources of paperwork burden, the 
hours devoted to these activities, and possible explanations for 
variations among teachers in the hours devoted to these tasks. Among 
the findings related to the Individualized Education Program (IEP), 
student evaluations, progress reporting, and case management was that 
teachers whose administrative duties and paperwork exceeded four hours 
per week were more likely to perceive these responsibilities as 
interfering with their job of teaching. Moreover, the study found that 
the mean number of hours reported by teachers to be devoted to these 
tasks was 6.3 hours per week.

[[Page 36971]]

However, data from the study also suggested that there was considerable 
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devoted to 
paperwork. For example, the average hours spent on administrative 
duties and paperwork varied significantly by geographic region, with 
the Northeast having the lowest paperwork burden.
    Through the Paperwork Waiver Program, established under section 
609(a) of the Act, the Secretary may grant waivers of certain statutory 
and regulatory requirements under part B of the Act to not more than 15 
States, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the 
outlying areas (States) based on State proposals to reduce excessive 
paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in 
improving educational and functional results for children with 
disabilities. The Secretary is authorized to grant these waivers for a 
period of up to four years.
    Although the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to reduce 
the paperwork burden associated with the Act, not all statutory and 
regulatory requirements under part B of the Act may be waived. 
Specifically, the Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory 
provisions relating to applicable civil rights requirements or 
procedural safeguards. Furthermore, waivers may not affect the right of 
a child with a disability to receive FAPE. In short, State proposals 
must preserve the basic rights of students with disabilities.

Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program

    As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the 
following requirements to govern the Paperwork Waiver Program 
proposals:
    1. States applying for approval under this program must submit a 
proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time 
burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional 
results for children with disabilities.
    2. A State submitting a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program 
must include in its proposal a list of any statutory requirements of, 
or regulatory requirements relating to, part B of the Act that the 
State desires the Secretary to waive, in whole or in part (not 
including civil rights requirements and procedural safeguards as noted 
elsewhere in this notice); and a list of any State requirements that 
the State proposes to waive or change, in whole or in part, to carry 
out the waiver granted to the State by the Secretary. Waivers may be 
granted for a period of up to four years.
    3. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving any statutory 
requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to procedural 
requirements under section 615 of the Act or applicable civil rights 
requirements. A waiver may not affect the right of a child with a 
disability to receive FAPE (as defined in section 602(9) of the Act).
    4. The Secretary will not grant any waiver to a State if the 
Secretary has determined that the State currently meets the conditions 
under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act relative to its 
implementation of part B of the Act.
    5. The Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as part of 
this program if the Secretary determines that the State (a) needs 
assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the 
waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance; (b) needs 
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs 
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or 
(c) fails to appropriately implement its waiver.

Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria

    While the Act establishes the foregoing requirements, it does not 
provide for other requirements that are necessary for the 
implementation of this program. Accordingly, in the December 2005 
Notice, we proposed additional Paperwork Waiver Program requirements to 
address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria 
that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program.
    In this notice, we also establish requirements with which States 
must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Under section 609(b) of 
the Act, the Department is required to report to Congress on the 
effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the Institute of 
Education Sciences (IES) will conduct an evaluation using a quasi-
experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes: (a) 
Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for 
students with disabilities, (b) allocation and engagement of 
instructional time for students with disabilities, (c) time and 
resources spent on administrative duties and paperwork requirements by 
teaching and related services personnel, (d) quality of special 
education services and plans incorporated in IEPs, (e) teacher, parent, 
and administrator satisfaction, (f) the promotion of collaboration of 
IEP team members, and (g) enhanced long-term educational planning for 
students. These outcomes will be compared between students who 
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and students who are 
matched on disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, 
language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and to the 
extent feasible, the nature of special education, who do not 
participate in the paperwork waiver program. Specifics of the design 
will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical 
workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months 
of the study.
    Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this 
evaluation. They will, at a minimum, assist in developing the 
evaluation plan, assure that districts participating in the Paperwork 
Waiver Program will collaborate with the evaluation, provide background 
information on relevant State policies and practices, supply data 
relevant to the outcomes from State data sources (e.g., student 
achievement and functional performance data, complaint numbers), 
provide access to current student IEPs (if appropriate and paperwork 
waiver affects an IEP) during Year 1 of the evaluation (consistent with 
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec.  1232g 
(FERPA) and the privacy requirements under the Act), complete 
questionnaires and surveys, and participate in interviews. Data 
collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its 
contractor. States can expect to allocate resources for this purpose at 
a minimum during Year 1 to assist with planning the details of the 
evaluation, ensuring participation of involved districts, providing 
access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or 
participating in interviews. Over the course of the evaluation, 
participating States will receive an annual incentive payment 
(described in the Additional Requirements section of this notice) that 
will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation.
    The December 2005 Notice included a background statement that 
described the rationale for the additional requirements and selection 
criteria we were proposing. This notice of final requirements and 
selection criteria contains several changes from the December 2005 
Notice. We fully explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and 
Changes section that follows.

[[Page 36972]]

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the December 2005 Notice, 22 
parties submitted comments on the proposed additional requirements and 
selection criteria. In addition, we received approximately 1,200 
comments that were identical in form and substance and that summarized 
major recommendations submitted by one of the 22 commenters referenced 
in the preceding sentence; we do not respond to these 1,200 comments 
separately. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the 
additional requirements and selection criteria since publication of the 
December 2005 Notice follows.
    We group issues according to subject. We do not address technical 
or other minor changes, and suggested changes that the law does not 
authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority, or 
comments that express concerns of a general nature about the Department 
or other matters that are not directly relevant to the Paperwork Waiver 
Program.

FAPE

    Comment: A few commenters recommended that the final additional 
requirements and selection criteria identify all of the Federal 
requirements that a State applying for approval under this program can 
propose to waive while ensuring that students with disabilities 
continue to receive FAPE.
    One commenter recommended that States be required to explain why 
they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be 
waived and why they feel that such waivers can be accomplished without 
denying FAPE
    Discussion: The commenters misunderstand the statutory obligation, 
which is to ensure that the Paperwork Waiver Program does not affect 
the right of a child to receive a FAPE, not to ensure that children 
continue to receive a FAPE. In general, States are in a better position 
to identify Federal and State requirements that, in practice, do not 
assist in improving educational and functional results for children 
with disabilities residing in their State. States can make these 
determinations by taking into consideration the uniqueness of their 
State practices and policies, and the compliance history of local 
school districts within their State. We believe that the right to 
receive FAPE can be sufficiently protected by requiring that parents 
provide voluntary informed written consent for any change in policies 
or procedures under the Paperwork Waiver Program that affects the 
provision of FAPE to their child, such as changes to the IEP.
    We do not believe that States should be required to explain why 
they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be 
waived. The purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an 
opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and 
other administrative duties that are directly associated with the 
requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources 
available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving 
educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The 
national evaluation will assess the extent to which the waivers were 
successful in reaching these goals.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph 1 of the additional requirements 
by revising paragraph 1(f) and adding a new paragraph 1(g) (paragraph 
1(f) and 1(g) now contain language from paragraph 1(e) of the proposed 
additional requirements) to require that local education agencies 
(LEAs) obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents to waive 
any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as 
changes related to IEPs, and requiring that the LEA must inform the 
parent in writing of any differences between the requirements of the 
Act related to the provision of FAPE (including changes related to 
IEPs), the parent's right to revoke consent, and the LEA's 
responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the 
provision of FAPE when the parent does not provide informed written 
consent, or revokes that consent. Additionally, the LEA must inform the 
parents that if the parents revoke consent to a waiver of paperwork 
requirements regarding IEPs that the LEA must conduct, within 30 
calendar days of such revocation, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that 
meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended revising the final additional 
requirements and selection criteria to require States to identify 
effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving adverse events, such 
as the denial of FAPE. These commenters also urged the Department to 
add a requirement that would prevent districts or schools from 
participating in the program if they have a demonstrated history of not 
complying with the Act or have experienced a disproportionate number of 
complaints to the State educational agency (SEA) or participated in a 
disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes.
    Discussion: We generally agree with the commenters and will add a 
new requirement that State applicants describe how they will collect, 
report on and respond to evidence of adverse consequences. The State is 
obligated to ensure that children with disabilities who participate in 
the program continue to receive services in accordance with the Act and 
implementing regulations, modified only to the extent consistent with 
the State's approved application. States therefore should take into 
consideration the compliance history of LEAs within the State as part 
of their process for selecting LEAs to participate in the Paperwork 
Waiver Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take 
corrective action, if needed.
    Changes: Paragraph 1(c) of the additional requirements has been 
revised to require the State to provide an assurance that the State 
will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator all State 
complaints related to the denial of FAPE to any student with a 
disability, and how the State responded to this information, including 
the outcome of that response such as providing technical assistance to 
the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or terminating the 
authority of an LEA to implement the Paperwork Waiver Program due to 
unresolved compliance problems. In addition, paragraph 1(h)(ii) of the 
additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(ii) of the proposed additional 
requirements) has been revised to require the State to describe to the 
evaluator the circumstances under which district participation may be 
terminated.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the final additional 
requirements specify that the authority to implement the Paperwork 
Waiver Program will be terminated for any State that is found to be in 
noncompliance with the Act.
    Discussion: We believe that the commenter's concern is addressed by 
the language in section 609(a)(4) of the Act. As explained in paragraph 
5 of the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program section in 
this notice, the Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as 
part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State (a) 
needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the 
waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance; (b) needs 
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs 
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or 
(c) fails to appropriately implement its waiver.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters agreed that a State should not be 
permitted to participate in the Paperwork Waiver

[[Page 36973]]

Program if the State meets the conditions under section 
616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) of the Act, and recommended that the 
additional requirements and selection criteria also limit participation 
in the Paperwork Waiver Program to States in which the majority of the 
State's schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 
6301 et seq. (ESEA).
    One commenter recommended that the Department contact the Chief 
State School Officers and Special Education Directors of States that 
are eligible to submit a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program to 
inform them of their eligibility.
    Discussion: Section 609 of the Act does not limit participation in 
the Paperwork Waiver Program to States that have met the requirements 
of the ESEA. Given that Congress did not limit eligibility in this 
manner, the Department does not believe it is appropriate to limit 
eligibility to States in which the majority of their schools meet AYP 
under the ESEA.
    The Secretary believes that the additional requirements and 
selection criteria provide clear guidance as to eligibility criteria 
for this program, and that separate notification of eligibility to 
States is not necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed 
additional requirements and selection criteria, we determined that it 
was appropriate to revise paragraph 1 of the additional requirements to 
better align it with the language of the Act as specified in paragraph 
1 of the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program section of 
this notice. Specifically, section 609(a)(1) of the Act specifies that 
the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an 
opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and 
other administrative duties that are directly associated with the 
requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources 
available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving 
educational and functional results for children with disabilities.
    Changes: We have revised the introductory language in paragraph 1 
of the additional requirements to clarify that a State applying for 
approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive 
paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in 
improving educational and functional results for children with 
disabilities.

Civil Rights/Procedural Safeguards

    Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that States are 
prohibited from proposing any waiver of procedural safeguards under 
section 615 of the Act, and that the civil rights requirements that may 
not be waived are not limited to provisions set forth in section 615 of 
the Act.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that additional clarification is 
needed because the civil rights requirements that may not be waived 
under this program are not limited to the civil rights requirements in 
section 615 of the Act. Accordingly, we have revised the wording of 
paragraph 3 in the Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program 
section of this notice to clarify that States may not propose to waive 
any procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act, and may not 
propose to waive any applicable civil rights requirements. No changes 
are necessary to the final additional requirements or selection 
criteria in response to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended including the Act in the list 
of statutes in the definition of applicable civil rights requirements 
in paragraph 2 of the proposed additional requirements. In addition, 
one commenter recommended that the list include the U.S. Constitution, 
and that States should be required to add a detailed explanation of 
what steps they will take to ensure that children's civil rights are 
not violated or waived.
    Discussion: Consistent with section 609 of the Act, the additional 
requirements and selection criteria prohibit waiving any statutory or 
regulatory requirements related to applicable civil rights 
requirements. Paragraph 2 of the additional requirements defines the 
term applicable civil rights as all civil rights requirements in: 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and the 
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. We 
have not included the Act in the list of statutes in this definition 
because section 609 of the Act clearly allows States that are 
participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program to waive some 
requirements of the Act. Including the Act in this list would preclude 
States from waiving any Federal requirements in order to reduce the 
paperwork burden associated with requirements of part B of the Act and 
would be inconsistent with the explicit purposes of section 609 of the 
Act. We do not include the U.S. Constitution in the list of applicable 
civil rights statutes because, as a matter of law, the Act could not be 
interpreted to allow for the waiver of any of the protections provided 
under the U.S. Constitution.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the results of the 
national evaluation on the Paperwork Waiver Program could form the 
basis for waiving requirements of the Act in subsequent 
reauthorizations, which would erode civil rights protections and FAPE 
for children with disabilities.
    Discussion: The Act provides for the Paperwork Waiver Program and 
directs the Secretary to report to Congress on the effectiveness of 
waivers granted under the program. The national evaluation will yield 
the information necessary for the Department to carry out this 
responsibility. We cannot address what future reauthorizations of the 
Act will require or provide.
    Changes: None.

Public Input/Parental Notification and Consent

    Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that 
submits a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program must establish a 
committee comprised of school district personnel, and at least three 
parents (each representing a different disability group) to provide 
input on the State's proposal, including defining the terms ``excessive 
paperwork'' and ``non-instructional time burdens.'' In addition, many 
commenters recommended requiring that the State's application: (a) 
Include a summary of the public input; (b) indicate what input the 
State incorporated into its proposal and who or what organization 
provided the suggestion; and (c) identify which stakeholders agreed and 
which stakeholders disagreed with each Federal and State requirement 
that the State proposed to waive under its proposed paperwork waiver 
program.
    Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of 
mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including public meetings 
held at convenient times and places and inviting written public 
comments. Similarly, two commenters observed that public input must be 
transparent, and involve the greatest number of stakeholders, 
particularly teachers, administrators, related services providers, 
students, and parents.

[[Page 36974]]

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

[[Page 36975]]

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

[[Page 36976]]

    Comment: One commenter recommended that States be required to 
inform parents that refusing to consent to an IEP that does not meet 
the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act will not affect the 
delivery of special education and related services to their child.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that additional 
clarification is needed regarding situations where a parent refuses to 
provide consent for an IEP that does not meet the requirements of 
section 614(d) of the Act. If a parent does not provide consent for an 
LEA to develop an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 
614(d) of the Act, the LEA is responsible for implementing the child's 
current IEP that meets all of the requirements of section 614(d) of the 
Act.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph 1(g) of the additional 
requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements) 
to make clear that the information provided to parents must explain 
that if the parent does not provide consent, or revokes consent, the 
LEA is responsible for meeting all paperwork requirements related to 
the provision of FAPE.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended prohibiting States from 
proposing to waive any requirements related to IEPs, Individualized 
Family Services Plans (IFSPs), Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior 
Written Notices as part of their applications for the Paperwork Waiver 
Program. The commenters also recommended that the Secretary terminate a 
State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary 
determines that the State has violated any requirements related to 
IEPs, IFSPs, Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior Written Notices.
    Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional 
requirements for this program be revised to prohibit applicants from 
using the Paperwork Waiver Program as a vehicle for implementing multi-
year IEPs that do not comply with the terms of the Department's Multi-
Year IEP Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program).
    Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit States 
from participating in both the Paperwork Waiver Program and the Multi-
Year IEP Program.
    Many commenters recommended adding a requirement that any State 
permitted to participate in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the 
Paperwork Waiver Program may not implement both programs in the same 
district or school.
    Discussion: Section 609 of the Act does not authorize the Secretary 
to allow States to propose waiving any requirements of IFSPs under part 
C of the Act. Section 609 of the Act authorizes the Secretary only to 
grant waivers of statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements 
relating to, part B of the Act. In addition, sections 609 and 614(d)(5) 
of the Act do not preclude a State from proposing to waive requirements 
related to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs, nor 
does the Act preclude a State from proposing to incorporate elements of 
the Multi-Year IEP Program in its application for the Paperwork Waiver 
Program. We decline to make the requested changes because we believe 
that there are sufficient protections in the requirements for the 
Paperwork Waiver Program to protect a child's right to FAPE as well as 
to ensure that civil rights and procedural safeguard requirements are 
not waived.
    The Act allows States to apply for the Multi-Year IEP Program and 
the Paperwork Waiver Program. However, we agree with the commenters 
that a State that receives awards for the Paperwork Waiver Program and 
the Multi-Year IEP Program should not be permitted to execute both 
programs in the same school district. We believe that this type of 
prohibition would allow for a more precise evaluation of each program.
    Changes: A note has been added at the end of the Additional 
Requirements and Selection Criteria section to clarify that receipt of 
an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does not preclude an 
applicant from applying for and receiving an award for the Department's 
Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that receives an award for 
both programs may not execute both programs within the same LEA.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring States to work with 
the national evaluator to convene Statewide meetings at a time and 
place convenient for parents and family members so that they can 
publicly express whether there is family satisfaction with the 
Paperwork Waiver Program.
    Discussion: We strongly support parental involvement in the 
education of children, and believe that the involvement of parents and 
other stakeholders in the development and evaluation of the Paperwork 
Waiver Program is ensured through requirements established in this 
notice. In addition, parent satisfaction will be evaluated under the 
outcomes that are measured as part of the national evaluation. The 
evaluation contractor, working under the direction of IES and in 
consultation with a technical workgroup and participating States, may 
choose to convene Statewide public meetings as part of its research 
methodology to collect data on parent satisfaction. However, we see no 
compelling reason to require the evaluation contractor to convene 
Statewide meetings at this time. The details of the national evaluation 
will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical 
workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months 
of the study, including how parent satisfaction will be evaluated.
    Changes: None.

National Evaluation

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Based on an internal review of the description of the 
national evaluation in the Background for Additional Requirements and 
Selection Criteria section of this notice, we have determined that it 
is appropriate to clarify for applicants and other stakeholders that 
academic measures are among those student outcomes to be assessed as 
part of the national evaluation.
    Changes: In the Background for Additional Requirements and 
Selection Criteria section of this notice, we have added the phrase 
``including academic achievement'' to the outcomes to be measured by 
the national evaluation. Paragraph (a) of the outcomes to be measured 
now reads: ``Educational and functional results (including academic 
achievement) for students with disabilities.''
    Comment: Many commenters requested a definition of ``quasi-
experimental design'' and an explanation of how it compares with a 
``rigorous research design.'' One commenter recommended that the 
evaluation include a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation 
methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-benefit analyses).
    One commenter noted the absence of a research question within the 
proposed additional requirements for the national evaluation conducted 
by IES and asked for clarification as to why a research question was 
not specified.
    Discussion: A quasi-experimental research design is similar to 
experimental research design but it lacks one key ingredient--random 
assignment. In conducting the national evaluation, it may not be 
possible for IES to match LEAs within States according to demographic 
characteristics, programmatic features, and other factors in order to 
apply an

[[Page 36977]]

empirical research design that randomly assigns LEAs to experimental 
and control groups. For example, some States may have only one large 
urban school district, and a comparable control group within the State 
cannot be established.
    Similarly, it may not be possible to match participating States 
according to demographic characteristics in order to establish 
experimental and control groups. For example, because this is a 
competitive program, only eligible States that apply for and are 
awarded authority to waive Federal and State requirements will 
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. As such, it is not 
possible to randomly assign States to experimental and control groups. 
For this reason, IES will conduct an evaluation using a rigorous quasi-
experimental design (i.e., a research design that does not include 
random assignment of participating States and LEAs to experimental and 
control groups). The design will, however, allow for the collection of 
data on the following outcomes: (a) Educational and functional results 
(including academic achievement) for students with disabilities, (b) 
allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with 
disabilities, (c) time and resources spent on administrative duties and 
paperwork requirements by teaching and related services personnel, (d) 
quality of special education services and plans incorporated in IEPs, 
(e) teacher, parent, and administrator satisfaction, (f) the promotion 
of collaboration of IEP team members, and (g) enhanced long-term 
educational planning for students. These outcomes will be compared 
between students who participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and 
students who are matched on disability, age, socioeconomic status, 
race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational 
outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, 
and who do not participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
    Given that limitations may preclude random assignment of States and 
LEAs to experimental and control groups, the findings from the national 
evaluation may largely be ``descriptive'' in nature rather than drawing 
``causal'' inferences that can be reached from experimental research 
design, which we believe is what the commenters were referring to as 
``rigorous research design.'' That is, descriptive research has the 
goal of describing what, how, or why something is happening, whereas 
experimental research has the goal of determining whether something 
causes an effect. Therefore, specific research questions commonly 
associated with experimental research design cannot be generated a 
priori because independent and dependent variables associated with 
experimental research design cannot readily be established due to the 
variability of demographic characteristics between and within States 
that preclude random assignment of States and LEAs to experimental and 
control groups. The specifics of the national evaluation design will be 
confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, 
and the participating States during the first several months of the 
study and might include a variety of qualitative and quantitative 
evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost benefit 
analyses).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring States to 
prohibit participation of some LEAs within the State in order to create 
separate experimental and control groups.
    Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this section, it may not be 
possible to match LEAs within States according to demographic 
characteristics in order to establish experimental and control groups. 
The specifics of the national evaluation design will be confirmed 
during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the 
participating States during the first several months of the study, and 
decisions regarding the extent to which experimental research design 
can be employed will be decided at that time.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States 
that participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program must participate in 
the national evaluation conducted by IES. The commenters also 
recommended adding a new requirement that participating States conduct 
a State evaluation of the project to ensure accountability to 
participating children and families and that the State must provide 
more detailed State specific data than would be required for the 
national evaluation. In addition, the commenters recommended that the 
Secretary consider the extent to which the applicant has devoted 
sufficient resources to conduct a State evaluation of its project and 
the training of administrators, educators, and parents to ensure proper 
implementation of the proposed project.
    Discussion: IES will conduct the national evaluation of the 
Paperwork Waiver Program. Paragraph 1(h) of the additional requirements 
(paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements) makes clear 
that participating States must cooperate fully in this national 
evaluation. Section 609 of the Act does not require a State evaluation 
under the Paperwork Waiver Program and we do not think it is 
appropriate to require States to conduct a State evaluation. However, 
nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and selection 
criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct a 
Statewide assessment of their project as part of their application, if 
determined appropriate by the State.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting all requirements 
related to a State's participation in the national evaluation. The 
commenters expressed concern that such participation would add 
unnecessary costs and paperwork for States and local school districts 
and could discourage many States from applying for the Paperwork Waiver 
Program.
    One commenter stated that it was unreasonable to expect States to 
allocate resources for the project to assist with planning the details 
of the evaluation and ensuring the participation of the involved school 
districts, and that it was unlikely that the research would yield 
reliable and valid experimental outcomes.
    One commenter noted that the State lacked the authority to enforce 
the cooperation of school districts to participate in the national 
evaluation.
    Discussion: IES will ensure that the national evaluation yields 
results that are reliable and valid. Under section 609 of the Act, the 
Department is responsible for reporting to Congress on the 
effectiveness of the waiver program. In order to accurately evaluate 
program effectiveness, the national evaluation is necessary, and it is 
appropriate for States that are granted waivers under the program, and 
participating LEAs, to participate in that evaluation. A State that 
does not provide an assurance that it will fully cooperate with the 
national evaluator will be deemed ineligible to participate in the 
Paperwork Waiver Program. Moreover, the State is responsible for 
ensuring that participating LEAs cooperate in the national evaluation 
conducted by IES. If a State is unable to provide an assurance that its 
participating LEAs will cooperate in the national evaluation, then the 
State will be deemed ineligible to participate in the Paperwork Waiver 
Program. Similarly, an LEA that does not provide an assurance to the 
applying State that it will fully cooperate with the national evaluator 
is ineligible to participate in the program.

[[Page 36978]]

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

[[Page 36979]]

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

[[Page 36980]]

will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended increasing the annual 
incentive payment provided to States to support program-related 
activities, and recommended requiring that the national evaluator 
provide funds to participating school districts based on the number of 
participating students in the evaluation.
    Discussion: Paragraph 3 of the proposed additional requirements 
provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the 
Paperwork Waiver Program would be awarded an annual incentive payment 
of $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation 
activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with 
the project officer and the evaluator. In addition, paragraph 3 of the 
proposed additional requirements indicated that each participating 
State would receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually 
from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the 
State, and that incentive payments may also be provided to 
participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in 
the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Because the total 
available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards 
made, we are unable to specify an exact amount over the initially 
proposed incentive payment amounts. However, the Secretary agrees with 
the commenters that more funds should be made available if possible 
and, therefore, the final additional requirements have been revised to 
clarify that participating States will receive at least $10,000 to 
support program-related evaluation activities, and at least $15,000 
annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation 
activities in the State.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph 3 of the final additional 
requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to 
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program will be awarded an annual 
incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related 
evaluation activities, and not less than $15,000 annually from the 
evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State, to 
offset the cost of participating districts, or to do both. We also have 
added language to this paragraph to clarify that the total available 
funds for each award will depend on the number of awards made.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department indicate 
when the results of the national evaluation will be available and how 
they will be disseminated.
    Discussion: We believe that it is not appropriate to set a timeline 
for disseminating the results of the national evaluation until the 
specifics of the national evaluation are confirmed during discussion 
with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States 
during the first several months of the study. Consistent with section 
609(b) of the Act, the Secretary will include in the annual report to 
Congress pursuant to section 426 of the Department of Education 
Organization Act information related to the effectiveness of waivers 
including any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is 
the expectation of the Department that the annual report will be based, 
at least in part, on the results of the national evaluation.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further consideration of the proposed selection 
criteria, the Department has made the decision to use selection 
criteria already established in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of 
this program. The proposed selection criteria included many of the 
measures that would be evaluated as part of the national evaluation of 
this program. Upon further consideration, we determined that it would 
be inappropriate to include these measures in the selection criteria. 
We believe that use of the EDGAR selection criteria will enable the 
Department to sufficiently evaluate State applications for this 
program.
    Changes: Throughout the selection criteria, we have replaced or 
modified proposed selection criteria to better align with selection 
criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have deleted or 
modified proposed selection criteria 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3(b) and 3(c) 
and added language from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR.
    Comment: One commenter recommended eliminating proposed selection 
criterion 1(a) (i.e., that the proposed project demonstrate the extent 
to which it will develop or demonstrate promising new strategies that 
build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies).
    Discussion: We decline to make the requested change because we 
believe that selection criterion 1(a) is an important criterion for 
evaluating the innovativeness of each State application for the 
Paperwork Waiver Program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring the Secretary to 
evaluate, separately, the significance of the proposed project in terms 
of how likely it would lead to reduced paperwork burden, increase 
instructional time, and improve academic achievement. The commenters 
also recommended that the Secretary consider the likelihood that the 
proposed project will ensure parent satisfaction.
    One commenter stated that section 609(b) of the Act anticipates 
``positive outcomes'' for students and that the expected outcomes for 
the program should relate directly to the individual's annual IEP goals 
(educational and functional outcomes) as opposed to being limited to 
academic achievement.
    Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns about the 
likelihood that the project will lead to reduced paperwork, increased 
instructional time, improved academic achievement, and will ensure 
parents' satisfaction are sufficiently addressed by the national 
evaluation. Similarly, we believe that the comment on measuring 
outcomes related to the IEP is already addressed by the national 
evaluation. Readers are referred to the Background for Additional 
Requirements and Selection Criteria section, which lists the measures 
on which IES will collect data for purposes of the national evaluation. 
These measures include data on the educational and functional results 
of students with disabilities, the quality of the services and plans 
within the IEP, allocation and engagement of instructional time for 
students with disabilities, time and resources spent on administrative 
duties and paperwork requirements by teaching and related services 
personnel, and parent satisfaction, among other things.
    We strongly support parental involvement in all aspects of 
education, but believe that parental involvement in the development and 
evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program is more appropriately 
ensured through other additional requirements included in this notice 
(e.g., paragraphs 1(a) and (d) of the additional requirements) and will 
be addressed by the outcomes measured as part of the national 
evaluation conducted by IES (e.g., parent satisfaction) and selection 
criterion 3(c).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Since publishing the December 2005 notice, we have 
decided to use certain selection criteria from those found in EDGAR in 
34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. Proposed selection 
criterion 1(b), ``The likelihood that the proposed project will result 
in

[[Page 36981]]

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

[[Page 36982]]

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

Other Issues

    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that the design and 
development activities of the proposed project be completed during the 
course of the project period. The commenter noted that the proposed 
requirements for the program require States to begin to develop their 
model prior to the submission of the application, and that the period 
of the project performance would be devoted to implementation and 
evaluation of the program.
    Discussion: Prior to submitting its application, a State must 
involve multiple stakeholders and convene public meetings to gather 
input on the Federal and State requirements that the State proposes to 
waive to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens 
that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for 
children with disabilities. The State also must provide a summary of 
public comments and how the public comments were addressed in its 
application. Because a State must meet these minimum requirements for 
its application to be deemed eligible for review, it follows that the 
focus of the project period must be on the implementation and 
evaluation of the program, rather than

[[Page 36983]]

program design and development activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that the background for the 
additional requirements and selection criteria include information from 
the ``Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education Paperwork'',\1\ 
and the ``Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE)'',\2\ 
particularly related to information regarding the geographical 
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to 
paperwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education 
Programs, Project Forum, Project Forum Proceedings Document, 
``Policy Forum: Special Education Paperwork.'' 2002.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education 
Programs, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), 
Final Report of the Paperwork Substudy. 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The background for the proposed additional requirements 
and selection criteria included information from the SPeNSE study, 
although the study was not directly cited. That said, the Secretary 
agrees with the commenters that it is important to include in the 
background statement for the additional requirements and selection 
criteria information from the SPeNSE study that shows the geographical 
variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to 
paperwork. The Secretary does not believe it is appropriate to include 
information from the Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education 
Paperwork because it was not intended to be a scientific study of the 
time that educators spend completing special education paperwork. 
Accordingly, we have included information from the SPeNSE study in the 
background statement for the additional requirements and selection 
criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. We 
have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection 
criteria in response to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that the Department 
will not allow any State that fails to sufficiently address all 
requirements under section 609 of the Act in its application to 
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.
    Discussion: We will ensure that only applications that meet the 
requirements of section 609 of the Act are deemed eligible for approval 
under the program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended defining the term ``parent'' to 
have the meaning of the term as defined in section 602(23) of the Act.
    Discussion: We intend the term ``parent'' to have the meaning given 
the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B 
of the Act (34 CFR 300.30). However, we agree that additional 
clarification is needed and will add a note reflecting this change.
    Changes: We have revised the final additional requirements and 
selection criteria to include a note defining the term ``parent'' 
consistent with the definition of that term under section 300.30 of the 
final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that States be required to use 
the model IEP, procedural safeguards notice, and prior written notice 
forms developed by the Department.
    Discussion: As part of the 2004 amendments to the Act, the Congress 
required the Department to publish and widely disseminate model forms 
that are consistent with the requirements of part B of the Act and are 
``sufficient to meet those requirements.'' Specifically, the Act 
requires the Department to develop forms for the IEP; the notice of 
procedural safeguards; and the prior written notice. Consistent with 
the Act, the Department developed the three forms to assist SEAs and 
LEAs in understanding the content that part B of the Act requires for 
each of these three types of forms. The content of each of these forms 
is based upon the requirements set forth in the final regulations 
implementing part B of the Act. Although States must ensure that school 
districts include all of the content that part B of the Act requires 
for each of the documents that they provide to parents, States are not 
required to use the format or specific language reflected in these 
forms. States may choose to include additional content in their forms, 
so long as the additional content is consistent with all requirements 
under part B of the Act.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that States should indicate in 
their applications whether they will need technical assistance from the 
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) or some other entity.
    Discussion: States may choose to indicate in their applications 
whether they will need technical assistance from OSEP in the 
implementation of the program. States that are awarded authority to 
participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program may contact OSEP for 
assistance. OSEP funds a number of national technical assistance 
centers and regional resource centers that can provide technical 
assistance to States in the operation of the Paperwork Waiver Program.
    Changes: None.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. We will invite 
applications through a separate notice in the Federal Register.

Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria

Additional Requirements

    The Secretary establishes the following additional requirements for 
the Paperwork Waiver Program.
    (1) A State applying for approval under this program must submit a 
proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time 
burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional 
results for children with disabilities. A State submitting a proposal 
under the Paperwork Waiver Program must include the following material 
in its proposal:
    (a) A description of how the State met the public participation 
requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including how the State 
(1) involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children with 
disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, related 
services providers, and school and district administrators, in 
selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific 
proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork, and (2) 
provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the 
requirements proposed for the waiver.
    (b) A summary of public comments received in accordance with 
paragraph 1(a) of these additional requirements and how the public 
comments were addressed in the proposal.
    (c) A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure 
that, if the waiver is granted, it will not result in a denial of the 
right to FAPE to any child with a disability, a waiver of any 
applicable civil rights requirements, or a waiver of any procedural 
safeguards under section 615 of the Act. This description also must 
include an assurance that the State will collect and report to the 
Department, as part of the State's annual performance report submission 
to the Secretary in accordance with section 616(b)(2)(c)(ii)(II) of the 
Act, and to the national evaluator, all State complaints related to the 
denial of FAPE to any student with a disability and how the State 
responded to this information, including the outcome of that response

[[Page 36984]]

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

    Note: Receipt of an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does 
not preclude an applicant from applying for and receiving an award 
for the Department's Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that 
receives an award for both programs may not execute both programs 
within the same local school district.


    Note: The term ``parent'' as used in these requirements and 
selection criteria for the Paperwork Waiver Program has the same 
meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations 
implementing part B of the Act.

Selection Criteria

    The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate State 
proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were 
selected because they address the statutory requirements and program 
requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to 
addressing these requirements.

    Note: We will inform applicants of the points or weights 
assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published 
in the

[[Page 36985]]

Federal Register inviting States to submit applications for this 
program.

    1. Significance. The Secretary considers the significance of the 
proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (a) The extent to which the proposed project involves the 
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, 
or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
    (b) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased 
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues or effective 
strategies.
    (c) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and 
student achievement.
    2. Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the 
quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers 
the following factors:
    (a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (b) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is 
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target 
population or other identified needs.
    (c) The quality of the proposed project's procedures for 
documenting project activities and results.
    3. Quality of the management plan. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining 
the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (a) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous 
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
    (b) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria 
has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the 
terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits 
of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are 
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and 
efficiently. Although there may be costs associated with participating 
in this pilot, the Department will provide incentive payments to States 
to help offset these costs. In addition, we expect that States will 
weigh these costs against the benefits of being able to participate in 
the pilot and will only opt to participate in this pilot if the 
potential benefits exceed the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.326P Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration 
Program)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1408.

    Dated: June 29, 2007.
Jennifer Sheehy,
Director of Policy and Planning for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E7-13145 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P