(Please note that there are some corrections and additions near the end of this file, so read all the way through.) Urgent! Time Sensitive! Act Now! To: Members of NOPBC and NFB From: Barbara Cheadle, President, NOPBC Date: January 15, 1998 Re: Comments on IDEA proposed rules Most if not all of you received at least one mailing, maybe two, from Mr. Gashel and me about this issue many, many weeks ago. If you have already sent in your comments, thank you! However, you may still want to read through this as we kept finding new items that needed comments. If you have not sent in comments, please do so ASAP! Thanks! Here is a brief explanation and a list of the recommendations the NFB and NOPBC will be making: The U.S. Department of Education has issued proposed rules (regulations) for the implementation of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 and are now seeking public comments on these proposed rules. IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is the law which establishes and regulates the IEP process. The rules governing the new amendments to the law will have an impact on how well the IEP process will work. It is important, then, that we send in comments. The National Organization of Parents of Blind Children and the National Federation of the Blind have examined the provisions and proposed rules which impact blind and visually impaired children and will submit comments which will include several recommendations. These are: (a) The NOPBC recommends that consistent language be used when referring to blind or visually impaired children. The law currently uses the phrases "visual impairment including blindness" section 300.7(b) and "blind or visually impaired"section 300.346(a)(2)(iii) and section 300.22(b)(6). We propose that to eliminate confusion, and to be consistent with nearly 30 state Braille literacy laws, that the phrase "blind or visually impaired" be adopted and that the phrase "visual impairment including blindness" be eliminated. (b) The NOPBC recommends that a note of explanation be added to the section regarding the provision of Braille instruction section 300.346(a)(2). The note should emphasize that "provide" means "provide." That is, it is assumed that these children will receive Braille instruction and that rare exemptions will be allowed only when appropriate reading and writing assessments, including an assessment of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille, determines that Braille is not needed. It should be emphasized that when there is disagreement or while an assessment is being ordered that Braille instruction shall be the default during the interim. There should also be another note explaining that Braille instruction cannot be denied because other reading and writing media (that is, print or tapes) are also appropriate. (c) NOPBC commends the department for efforts to insure that the highest standards are used for special education and related services personnel section 300.136. However, without an additional note, this provision could condone practices that have screened out disabled persons from such professions as Orientation and Mobility. Until very recently, for example, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) routinely denied O&M certification to blind mobility instructors. This long-standing AER practice naturally inhibited university O&M training programs from accepting blind students. However, there are many highly-qualified, agency-trained blind mobility instructors who are not AER-certified, and who are currently employed in both eduation and rehabilitation programs. NOPBC believes that blind mobility instructors whether agency- or university-trained are excellent role models as well as safe instructors for blind children. Therefore, NOPBC recommends that section 300.136 be amended by inserting a new subsection which would read: "(h) To the extent that such standards may screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, the state shall assure that such standards will not be utilized." (d) Finally, NOPBC commends the department for recognizing and defining Orientation and Mobility as a distinctive related-service for blind or visually impaired students section 300.22(b)(6). This distinction is important. The travel or mobility needs of other disability groups should not be confused with, or merged, with the unique orientation and mobility needs of the blind. NOPBC does recommend that part (ii) of the definition of "Orientation and Mobility" under section 300.22(b)(6) be revised to read: "Teaching blind and visually impaired students to use the long cane, as appropriate, as a tool for safely negotiating the environment." The current wording is unnecessarily lengthy, and implies that a cane is less important to persons with some vision than those who are totally blind. This, it seems, is a subjective, individual determination and has no bearing on the need for, or the provision of, this service. It is urgent that we get letters or email or fax comments in support of these recommendations out right now! Comments must be received on or before January 20, 1998. You can mail, fax, or e-mail your comments to the following: Regular mail: Thomas Irvin, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Room 4607, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202. Fax: (202) 260-0416. E-mail: [comment@ed.gov] The subject line for your e-mail must read Assistance for Education. Date: January 16, 1998 From: Barbara Cheadle Re: More data and a correction regarding previous e-mail about IDEA comments I am sending you a copy of the IDEA rules comments I have submitted for NOPBC. First, and important correction if you are sending comments by mail, the correct room number in the address is "Room 3090." Please make that change. Next, you will note that I added a comment item in my letter which was not in any of the other mailings or e-mail Mr. Gashel or I sent you. This is in regard to the section which defines "Child with a disability." The proposed rules have a provision allowing states to define children up to age 9 (or any subgroup up to that age, for example, birth to age 5) as "developmentally delayed." Since it is not easy to diagnose some disabilities this early, this allows greater flexibility in serving children who obviously need it, but for whom there is not yet a diagnosis. However, I believed it had potential to create problems in the provision of services to blind and visually impaired children, and could also create problems in getting accurate counts for APH Quota Funds. Thanks for getting your comments in! Please be sure to share this with anyone else you think would send in comments supportive of our position. January 16, 1998 Mr. Thomas Irvin Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education, Room 3090 Mary E. Switzer Building 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202 Re: IDEA Proposed Rules Dear Mr. Irvin: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on proposed rules for the implementation of the IDEA Amendments of 1997. As President of the National Organization of Parents of Blind Children I represent over 3,000 families of blind and visually impaired children nationwide. We are particularly pleased that, for the first time since the original legislation was passed, two of the most important needs of blind and visually impaired students are specifically addressed in the statue and in the proposed rules. We believe this has the potential to greatly enhance the educational services provided to these students. To assure as much as possible that this end is achieved, we offer the following comments and recommendations: Comments regarding Subpart A and B Sections 300.7(b), 300.346(a)(2)(iii), and 300.22(b)(6) [Phrases: "visual impairment including blindness" and "blind or visually impaired"] Action Requested: Strike the phrase "visual impairment including blindness" used in section 300.7(b) and insert the phrase "blind or visually impaired", which is used in sections 300.346(a)(2)(iii) and 300.22(b)(6). Rationale: This would eliminate confusion and misinterpretations of the population to which the rules regarding these sections apply. Also, the term "blind or visually impaired" is consistent with the language used in nearly 30 states which have Braille literacy provisions similar to section 300.346(a)(2)(iii). Mr. Thomas Irvin January 16, 1998 Page two Section 300.136 Personnel Standards Action Requested: Amend the section by adding "(h) To the extent that such standards may screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, the state shall assure that such standards will not be utilized." Rationale: Without the proposed note, this provision could condone practices that have screened out disabled persons from such professions as Orientation and Mobility. Until very recently, for example, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) routinely denied O&M certification to blind mobility instructors. This long- standing AER practice naturally inhibited university O&M training programs from accepting blind students. However, there are many highly-qualified, agency-trained blind mobility instructors who are not AER-certified, and who are currently employed in both education and rehabilitation programs. These blind mobility instructors--whether agency- or university-trained--are excellent role models as well as safe instructors for blind children. Section 300.7(a)(2) Child with a disability Action Requested: Add provision that if a state chooses to use the term "developmental delay" for a subgroup of children, the state must (a) be required to identify those children within this group who have a specific medically diagnosed disability, such as a visual impairment or blindness, and (b) be required to provide special education and related services that address the specific medically diagnosed disability (i.e., blindness, visual impairment, deafness, deaf-blindness, etc.). Rationale: For funding and other purposes, it is crucial that states have as precise a count as possible of student with specific medically diagnosed disabilities. For example, states receive extra federal funding for legally blind students in the form of goods and materials through the federally funded American Printing House for the Blind Quota program. States receive materials and goods through this program based upon the numbers of legally blind students in that state. It is also necessary to assure that children with specific medically diagnosed disabilities not be denied disability-specific special education and related services, (i.e. Pre-Braille readiness and Orientation and Mobility for blind and visually impaired students). Section 300.22(b)(6) Related Services--Orientation and Mobility Services Action Requested: We support the department for recognizing and defining Orientation and Mobility as a distinctive related service for blind or visually impaired students. Mr. Thomas Irvin January 16, 1998 Page three We recommend three changes: 1. Strike the current language in part (ii) and revise it to read: 300.22(b)(6)(ii) "Teaching blind and visually impaired students to use the long cane, as appropriate, as a tool for safely negotiating the environment." 2. Remove Note 2. and add a definition of travel training for other disabilities either in it's own section or within the definition of transportation. 3. Replace Note 2. with a note which explains that Orientation and Mobility specialists are trained to meet the travel needs of blind and visually impaired students, not the travel needs of other disability groups. Rationale: 1. The current language in 300.22(b)(6)(iii) is unnecessarily lengthy, and implies that a cane is less important to persons with some vision than those who are totally blind. This, it seems, is a subjective, individual determination and has no bearing on the need for, or the provision of, this service. 2. This will prevent confusion and the provision of inappropriate services. Providing a separate definition of the travel needs of students with disabilities other than visual impairment or blindness will promote appropriate services to all children involved. The current note, by focusing first on "Orientation and Mobility" implies that students with other disabilities could benefit from the "same" service provided to blind and visually impaired students. This is not true. Students with other disabilities who have travel needs do not need the "same" training that is provided to blind or visually impaired students. Nor can that training be provided by Orientation and Mobility specialists who are trained in work with the blind and visually impaired. 3. Different disabilities require different adaptations and modifications. The use of the cane, visual aids, and remaining senses (i.e. smell, sound, proprioception) make up the curriculum of training programs for Orientation and Mobility specialists. These techniques and aids are distinctive to the blind and visually impaired population and are irrelevant to the travel needs of students with other disabilities. Section 300.346(a)(2) Action Recommended: We recommend that a note be added to this section which explains that: 1. "Provide" means provide with the proviso that discretion to grant an exception from the general rule may be exercised in a limited number of circumstances where an exception is appropriate. 2. A blind or visually impaired student may not be denied Braille services on the basis that modified reading and writing media, other than Braille, are being provided. 3. When there is disagreement about whether Braille should be provided, or during the time period an assessment is being ordered, it shall be assumed that Braille instruction will be provided in the interim period until such time as lawful procedures have culminated in a final decision. Mr. Thomas Irvin January 16, 1998 Page four Rationale: 1. The language of the Braille services factor was chosen deliberately to reverse the decline in Braille instruction and use for blind and visually impaired children. Therefore, a great deal of significance should be attached to the word "provide" at the beginning of the clause in question. By comparison it should be noted that each of the other special factors listed in paragraph (2) is headed with the term "consider." If Congress had wanted the IEP team to have essentially the same degree of discretion in regard to Braille as compared to the other factors, the clause would have been headed with "consider" not "provide." 2. Because this provision applies to children with sufficient vision to sometimes use visual media under certain circumstances (i.e., large print or regular print with magnification), it is necessary to clarify that the use of, and instruction in, Braille does not exclude the use of, or instruction in, print reading and writing. 3. There must be a "default" position for this service because it is intertwined with the basic literacy skills of reading and writing. This note defines the "default" in a manner consistent with the distinctive and unique language and procedures outlined for this special factor as opposed to the other special factors in the same section. This concludes our comments. Thank you again for the opportunity to be a part of this process. If you have any questions or concerns about any of these comments, please let me know. My office phone number is (410) 659-9314 and my home number is (410) 747-3472. Cordially yours, (Mrs.)Barbara Cheadle, President National Organization of Parents of Blind Children