UFT Response to IDEA 2004
Sep 6, 2005 2:01 PM
Troy R. Justesen, Ph.D
Deputy Assistant Secretary, OSERS
U. S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Potomac Center
Plaza, Room 5126
Washington, DC
20202-2641
Dear Dr. Justesen:
We are writing to share our comments on the proposed regulations implementing the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004. With more than 140,000 members, the UFT represents most of the non-supervisory educators who work in the New York City Public Schools. Members include approximately 74,000 teachers and 17, 000 classroom paraprofessionals, along with guidance counselors, school psychologists, social workers, speech therapists, audiologists, occupational and physical therapists, and school nurses. The UFT also represents teachers and other employees of some private educational institutions. Recognizing that the interests of school children and their teachers are inseparable, the UFT strives to make every school a place where parents want to send their children and where educators want to work.
There are many aspects of the proposed regulations that we like very much. The Department’s decision to place all information needed to implement IDEA in a single document will be very helpful to everyone involved in the education of students with disabilities. While we may not agree with all of the Department’s decisions, we do appreciate the Department’s effort to streamline and reorganize the document. It was an ambitious and worthwhile undertaking.
In accordance with the Department’s request, we have arranged our comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. However, we would like to highlight three areas of particular concern to our members. These are the provisions allowing parents and school districts to agree to excuse mandated members from IEP team meetings, to change IEPs without a meeting and to waive the triennial reevaluation prior to consideration of the need for additional data. We recognize that Congress provided this authority in statute and thus we are not asking you to change these provisions. Rather, we are asking the Department to clarify that States will not jeopardize their entitlement to federal IDEA funds if they acquiesce in demands by parents, advocates, disability groups and teacher and provider organizations to maintain higher standards in these areas. We are confident that the intent of Congress was to provide flexibility, not to undermine State standards that are the product of the Act’s own public participation requirements.
Proposed regulations on highly qualified teachers and eligibility for students suspected of having specific learning disabilities also raise significant concerns. However, we have not submitted extensive comments on these issues. With the exception of the two areas discussed in our comments, we believe that the definition of highly qualified teacher in the proposed regulations is consistent with the 2004 amendments to IDEA. We believe that the interests of our members are best served by continuing to work with our State Education Department to ensure that new and veteran special education teachers can benefit from the flexibility in IDEA 2004.
Our comments regarding the proposed regulations concerning procedures for evaluating students suspected of having specific learning disabilities are limited as well because, at this time we have more questions than answers. Here, too, we believe that the best course of action is to collaborate with parents, disability groups, advocates and local and state education officials in developing eligibility criteria consistent with the Act and the final regulations and planning a smooth and effective transition to new procedures.
We thank the Department, its staff, and you personally for the extraordinary effort made to solicit public input prior to and during the regulatory process. We look forward to publication of the final regulations and beginning the New Year with clear direction from the Department regarding implementation of the 2004 amendments to IDEA.
Sincerely,
Carmen Alvarez
Vice
President At Large
Special Education
