Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: School Districts' Response
to Regulatory Deadline (Statement/Record, 04/22/98, GAO/T-HEHS-98-156).

GAO discussed its ongoing work on the impact of federal requirements on
school districts, focusing on: (1) the school districts' response to the
timeframe set out in the Department of Education's proposed regulations
implementing changes to Individualized Education Programs (IEP).

GAO noted that: (1) during its interviews, school districts related
three major concerns about the July 1 1998, deadline: (a) confusion and
uncertainty because school districts had to begin implementing the new
IEP requirements without final federal and state regulations; (b)
logistical challenges arising from the need to revise many IEPs within a
short time period; and (c) concern about the quality of the IEP process
if it was done in too much of a hurry; (2) more specifically, district
officials with whom GAO spoke with expressed concern about developing
and revising IEPs without the benefit of final federal and state
guidance; (3) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Education oversees the states, who assume the major portion of
responsibility for ensuring that school districts comply with the law's
requirements; (4) in some states, the state Department of Education
prescribes specific forms and procedures to be used in the development
of IEPs; (5) because the state forms and procedures had not yet been
revised to fully reflect the new requirements, some district officials
expressed confusion over what they need to do; (6) in one state, state
officials told GAO that some districts were waiting for final federal
and state regulations to begin implementation; as a result, the
districts may be unable to meet the prescribed deadline; (7) officials
from several school districts GAO visited viewed the July 1 deadline as
unreasonable because of logistical difficulties; (8) for example, one
special education director from a rural school district GAO visited
called the deadline a procedural nightmare; (9) he told GAO that he
would have to put other tasks aside to schedule and attend numerous IEP
meetings over the next few months, and expects the district's costs for
substitute teachers to increase because teachers will have to be excused
from classes to attend these meeting; (10) other district
superintendents and special education directors echoed these concerns;
(11) revising a large number of IEPS within a short timeframe also
raises concerns about the quality of the IEP process; and (12) as the
blueprint for addressing the educational needs of a child with a
disability, the IEP can be crucial to the child's success.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-HEHS-98-156
     TITLE:  Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: School 
             Districts' Response to Regulatory Deadline
      DATE:  04/22/98
   SUBJECT:  Special education
             Education program evaluation
             Proposed legislation
             Teachers
             Children with disabilities
             School districts
             Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  Individualized Education Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S.  Senate, and
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:30 a.m.
Wednesday, April 22, 1998

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT - SCHOOL DISTRICTS'
RESPONSE TO REGULATORY DEADLINE

Statement for the Record by Cornelia M.  Blanchette
Associate Director, Education and Employment Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-98-156

GAO/HEHS-98-156T


(104933)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  IDEA - Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
  IEP - Individualized Education Programs

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT:  SCHOOL DISTRICTS'
RESPONSE TO REGULATORY DEADLINE
============================================================ Chapter 0

Messrs.  Chairmen and Members of the Committees: 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to share with you some
preliminary information from our ongoing work on the impact of
federal requirements on school districts.  We began this work last
fall for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the
House Committee on the Budget, and the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight's Subcommittee on Human Resources to examine the
major federal requirements affecting school districts, the issues
districts face in implementing these requirements, and the
availability of regulatory flexibility to address these issues.  This
study encompasses many broad areas, including special education,
environmental protection, and food service, and is primarily based on
interviews with officials from over 70 school districts.  In response
to our general questions about implementation of federal
requirements, a number of school districts commented on the time
frame set out in the Department of Education's proposed regulations
implementing changes to Individualized Education Programs (IEP) under
the 1997 Amendments to Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). 

On October 22, 1997, the Department of Education issued proposed
regulations to implement the 1997 amendments to IDEA.  The IEP, a
written statement that describes the child's educational performance,
the goals for the child in the coming year, and the special
educational and support services the child will receive to help meet
these goals, remains central in the revised IDEA.  The 1997
amendments specified several changes to IEPs, including requiring the
participation of regular education teachers in developing IEPs,
beginning to plan for transition services when students reach age 14,
and considering specific services such as assistive technology.  To
help ensure that all students with disabilities receive the benefits
of this new process as soon as possible, these proposed regulations
would require school districts to have completed updating all
students' IEPs in compliance with the new requirements by July 1,
1998.  However, these regulations have not been finalized. 

During our interviews, school districts related three major concerns
about the July 1 deadline:  (1) confusion and uncertainty because
school districts had to begin implementing the new IEP requirements
without final federal and state regulations; (2) logistical
challenges arising from the need to revise many IEPs within a short
time period; and (3) concern about the quality of the IEP process if
it was done in too much of a hurry. 

More specifically, district officials with whom we spoke expressed
concern about developing and revising IEPs without the benefit of
final federal and state guidance.  Under IDEA, the Department of
Education oversees the states, who assume the major portion of
responsibility for ensuring that school districts comply with the
law's requirements.  In some states, the state Department of
Education prescribes specific forms and procedures to be used in the
development of IEPs.  Because the state forms and procedures had not
yet been revised to fully reflect the new requirements, some district
officials expressed confusion over what they need to do.  In one
state, state officials told us that some districts were waiting for
final federal and state regulations to begin implementation; as a
result, these districts may be unable to meet the prescribed
deadline. 

Officials from several school districts we visited viewed the July 1
deadline as unreasonable because of logistical difficulties.  For
example, one special education director from a rural school district
we visited called the July 1 deadline "a procedural nightmare." He
told us that he would have to put other tasks aside to schedule and
attend numerous IEP meetings over the next few months, and he expects
the district's costs for substitute teachers to increase because
teachers will have to be excused from classes to attend these
meetings.  Other district superintendents and special education
directors echoed these concerns. 

Revising a large number of IEPs within a short time frame also raises
concerns about the quality of the IEP process.  As the "blueprint"
for addressing the educational needs of a child with a disability,
the IEP can be crucial to the child's success.  One superintendent
told us that when IEPs are done "just ...  to keep up," the quality
of the IEP process suffers.  Other officials expressed similar
opinions. 

In conclusion, many of the changes to IEPs were designed to enhance
the IEP process by expanding participation in the IEP team and
broadening the range of factors considered in developing a child's
education program.  However, implementing these requirements within
the proposed time frame may make it challenging for school districts
to develop IEPs that are truly tailored to each student's needs with
the resources available. 


*** End of document. ***