The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program, 36985-36999 [E7-13146]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 129 (Friday, July 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36985-36999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1820-ZA41


The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year 
Individualized Education Program 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 Multi-Year Individualized 
Education Program (IEP) Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program). 
State proposals approved under this program will create opportunities 
for participating local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve long-
term planning for children with disabilities through the development 
and use of comprehensive multi-year IEPs. Additionally, the additional 
requirements and selection criteria focus on an identified national 
need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs 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.

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 4088, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7355 or by e-mail: 
Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov.
    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 Multi-Year IEP Program in 
the Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75158) (December 2005 
Notice).

[[Page 36986]]

    The purpose of the Multi-Year IEP Program established under section 
614(d)(5) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as 
amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 
(Act), is to provide an opportunity for States (including Puerto Rico, 
the District of Columbia and the outlying areas) to allow parents and 
LEAs the opportunity for long-term planning by offering the option of 
developing a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed three years, 
that is designed to coincide with the natural transition points for the 
child. Under section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act, the term ``natural 
transition points'' means those periods that are close in time to the 
transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary 
grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades, 
from middle or junior high school grades to secondary school grades, 
and from secondary school grades to post-secondary activities, but in 
no case a period longer than three years (for the full text of section 
614(d)(5) of the Act, go to: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/
index.html).

Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program

    As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the 
following requirements that States must follow in developing and 
implementing their Multi-Year IEP Program proposals:
    1. A State applying for approval under this program must propose to 
conduct demonstrations using a comprehensive multi-year IEP (not to 
exceed three years) that coincides with natural transition points for 
each participating child.
    2. Except as specifically provided for under this program, all of 
the Act's requirements regarding provision of a free appropriate public 
education (FAPE) to children with disabilities (including requirements 
related to the content, development, review, and revision of the IEP 
under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural safeguards under section 
615 of the Act) apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program.
    3. A State submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program 
must include the following material in its proposal:
    (a) Assurances that if an LEA offers parents the option of a multi-
year IEP, development of the multi-year IEP is voluntary.
    (b) Assurances that the LEA will obtain informed consent from 
parents before a comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for their 
child.
    (c) A list of all required elements for a comprehensive multi-year 
IEP, including:
    (i) Measurable long-term goals not to exceed three years, 
coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will 
enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general 
education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that 
result from the child's disability.
    (ii) Measurable annual goals for determining progress toward 
meeting the long-term goals, coinciding with natural transition points 
for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make 
progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the 
child's other needs that result from the child's disability.
    (d) A description of the process for the review and revision of a 
multi-year IEP, including:
    (i) A review by the IEP team of the child's multi-year IEP at each 
of the child's natural transition points.
    (ii) In years other than a child's natural transition points, an 
annual review of the child's IEP to determine the child's current 
levels of progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being 
achieved, and a requirement to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable 
the child to continue to meet the measurable goals set forth in the 
IEP.
    (iii) If the IEP team determines, on the basis of a review, that 
the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals described 
in the multi-year IEP, a requirement that within 30 calendar days of 
the IEP team's determination, the LEA shall ensure that the IEP team 
carries out a more thorough review of the IEP in accordance with 
section 614(d)(4) of the Act.
    (iv) A requirement that, at the request of the parent, the IEP team 
will conduct an immediate review of the child's multi-year IEP, rather 
than at the child's next transition point or annual review.

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 Multi-Year IEP Program requirements to 
address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria 
that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program.
    In the December 2005 Notice, we also proposed requirements with 
which States would need to comply to allow the Department to evaluate 
the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Under section 
614(d)(5)(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 of the 
program using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the 
following outcomes:
    (i) Educational and functional results (including academic 
achievement) for students with disabilities.
    (ii) Time and resource expenditures by IEP team members and 
teachers.
    (iii) Quality of long-term education plans incorporated in IEPs.
    (iv) Degree of collaboration among IEP members.
    (v) Degree of parent satisfaction.
    These outcomes will be compared for students whose parents consent 
to their child's participation in a multi-year IEP and students who are 
matched on type of 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 multi-year IEP. Specifics of the design will be 
confirmed during discussions 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--
    (i) Assist in developing the specifics of the evaluation plan;
    (ii) Assure that districts participating in the multi-year IEP will 
participate in the evaluation;
    (iii) Supply data relevant to the outcomes being measured from 
State data sources (e.g., student achievement and functional outcome 
data, complaint numbers); and
    (iv) Provide background information on relevant State policies and 
practices, provide access to current student IEPs (consistent with the 
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (FERPA) and 
the privacy requirements under the Act) during Year One of the 
evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in interviews.
    The December 2005 Notice described the rationale for the additional 
requirements and selection criteria we were proposing. This notice of 
final additional 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 36987]]

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the December 2005 
Notice, 31 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 31 
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 proposed 
additional requirements and selection criteria follows.
    We group issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address 
technical and other minor changes, and suggested changes 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 Multi-Year IEP 
Program.

FAPE

    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.
    Discussion: We agree that States participating in this program 
should be required to report on and remedy any adverse consequences of 
the Multi-Year IEP Program regarding the provision of appropriate 
services or the denial of other rights protected under the Act and its 
implementing regulations. Accordingly, we will add a new requirement 
for States to describe in their proposals how they will collect and 
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of any adverse 
consequences of their projects, including information that children 
with disabilities are not receiving appropriate services because of 
their participation in the Multi-Year IEP Program, and information 
obtained through their complaint and due process systems relating to 
the Multi-Year IEP Program. The new requirement will also require 
States to report on how the States responded to this information, 
including the outcome of that response.
    Changes: The additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements have 
been revised by adding a new paragraph 3(e) to require each State to 
include in its proposal a description of how the State will collect and 
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of adverse 
consequences of the project and how the State responded to this 
information, including the outcome of that response.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that multi-year IEPs should be 
limited to students who are given assessments based on grade-level 
achievement standards, and should not be offered to students given 
assessments based on modified or alternate achievement standards.
    Many commenters recommended that States not be allowed to restrict 
any multi-year IEP to any specific disability category or group of 
categories.
    Several commenters recommended restricting multi-year IEPs for 
students who are expected to achieve the same standards as their non-
disabled peers, as these students must have annual IEPs that are 
directly tied to grade appropriate core curriculum content standards.
    Several commenters recommended that clarification be given 
regarding processes that a State may use for students given assessments 
against modified or alternate achievement standards.
    Discussion: Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act requires that 
the IEPs for students who take alternate assessments based on alternate 
achievement standards include benchmarks or short-term objectives. We 
believe that Congress included this provision to ensure explicit short-
term planning for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities who participate in alternate assessments based on 
alternate achievement standards. However, these students might also 
benefit from longer-range planning as part of multi-year IEPs, provided 
that such longer-range planning is complemented with shorter-term 
planning. The Act does not require that an IEP include benchmarks or 
short-term objectives for a student who takes an assessment based on 
modified achievement standards, as proposed by the Department on 
December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74624).
    We do not agree with the commenters who suggested that multi-year 
IEPs should be restricted for students who are expected to achieve the 
same standards as their non-disabled peers, or for students assessed 
based on alternate or modified achievement standards. These suggestions 
would preclude the participation of all children with disabilities in 
the program and would be inconsistent with the Act.
    Clarification is available on the processes that a State may use 
for students given assessments based on alternate achievement standards 
(see Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most 
Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Non-Regulatory Guidance (August, 
2005); https://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc). Because 
the final regulations on assessments based on modified achievement 
standards have not been finalized, we are unable to provide 
clarification at this time regarding processes that a State may use for 
students given assessments based on modified achievement standards.
    We agree with the commenters who recommended that multi-year IEPs 
be available to all students with disabilities, regardless of 
disability category, except that the multi-year IEP for a student who 
takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards 
must also include benchmarks or short-term objectives in addition to 
meeting the other requirements of the multi-year IEP. Therefore, we 
will add language to additional requirement 3 reflecting this change.
    Changes: We have added paragraph 3(a) to the additional 
requirements to require that States provide assurances that the multi-
year IEP for any child with a disability who takes an alternate 
assessment based on alternate achievement standards includes a 
description of benchmarks or short-term objectives in accordance with 
section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that there is a potential conflict 
between recently released proposed regulations permitting States to 
develop modified achievement standards and assessments based on those 
standards for certain children with disabilities (see the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 
2005 (70 FR 74623)). The commenters noted that section 200.1(e)(5) of 
the proposed regulations would require that IEP teams review, on an 
annual basis, decisions to assess students based on modified 
achievement standards to ensure that those standards remain 
appropriate. (70 FR 74623, 74635).
    Discussion: The Department has not issued final regulations on 
modified achievement standards. However, when those regulations are 
finalized, if a State wanted to offer assessments based on modified 
academic achievement standards to eligible children with disabilities, 
the State would have to comply with the requirements specified in those 
regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that nothing in the proposed 
additional requirements or selection criteria would

[[Page 36988]]

require an IEP team to revisit and adjust a student's IEP when a 
student is not progressing in accordance with his or her annual IEP 
goals.
    Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed 
by the statutory requirements for this program. Under the Act, IEP 
teams are required to conduct annual reviews of a child's level of 
progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved 
and to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue 
to meet the measurable goals set forth in the IEP (see 
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(BB) of the Act). Moreover, under 
614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(CC) of the Act, if the IEP team determines, 
on the basis of an annual review, that a child is not making sufficient 
progress toward the goals described in the multi-year IEP, the LEA must 
ensure that, within 30 days of the IEP team's determination, the IEP 
team carries out a more thorough review of the IEP. These statutory 
requirements are restated in paragraph 3(d)(ii) and (iii) of the 
Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program section of this 
notice. Because the Act addresses the commenters' concerns, we do not 
believe additional requirements or selection criteria are necessary. 
Furthermore, all of the statutory requirements will be reflected in the 
application package for this competition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that States be required to 
provide a detailed description of how they plan to provide training on 
multi-year IEPs 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 for multi-year IEPs.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is 
essential that parents, teachers, administrators, related services 
providers, and education support professionals understand the program 
in order to ensure proper implementation.
    Changes: We have revised the additional requirements by adding a 
new paragraph 3(f) 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 Multi-Year IEP Program.
    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 asked the Department to provide additional 
clarification on the meaning of the term ``natural transition points.''
    Discussion: Section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act defines the term 
``natural transition points'' as those periods that are close in time 
to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to 
elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high 
school grades, from middle or junior high school grades to secondary 
school grades, and from secondary school grades to post-secondary 
activities, but in no case a period longer than three years. We believe 
that this definition is clear and that no further clarification is 
necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concerned that the Multi-Year 
IEP Program would compromise the right of children with disabilities to 
receive FAPE. The commenters recommended that the final requirements 
and selection criteria specify that all of the Act's requirements 
regarding the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities 
(including requirements related to the content, development, review, 
and revision of the IEP under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural 
safeguards under section 615 of the Act) apply to participants in this 
Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Discussion: Public agencies participating in the Multi-Year IEP 
Program may develop, under the terms of their State's approved 
application, IEPs that may deviate in certain specified ways from the 
normal requirements regarding IEP content, review and revision. That 
said, nothing in this program authorizes participating public agencies 
to deny appropriate services to children with disabilities or to limit 
any other right they have under the Act and its implementing 
regulations.
    Changes: None.

National Evaluation

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the national evaluation 
study be completed as two separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs)--one 
awarded to a group that will work in multiple States and sites to 
investigate the outcomes variables in a more controlled, experimental 
way, and one awarded to a separate group that will complete the study 
evaluation.
    Discussion: According to section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the 
Department must report on the effectiveness of the program and provide 
to Congress recommendations for broader implementation, if appropriate. 
A maximum of 15 States can participate in this program. Including only 
select States in the evaluation would undermine the rigor of the 
evaluation, as well as limit the generalizability of the findings.
    Changes: None.
    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 (i) of the outcomes to be measured 
now reads: ``Educational and functional results (including academic 
achievement) for students with disabilities.''
    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 regarding the need 
to establish a specific timeframe for evaluation activities to commence 
or to begin collecting background information from States prior to 
awards being made. The collection of background information cannot 
begin until after awards are made to States, and we believe that it is 
more appropriate to allow IES to confirm the specifics of the

[[Page 36989]]

evaluation design during its discussion with a technical workgroup and 
the participating States during the first several months of the study.
    Changes: None.
    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).
    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 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 this reason, 
IES will conduct the national evaluation using a rigorous quasi-
experimental design (i.e., the evaluation will not randomly assign 
States or LEAs to ``experimental'' and ``control'' groups). In addition 
to quantitative analysis, IES may choose to employ a variety of 
qualitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-
benefit analyses). 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.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended deleting the requirement for 
States to work with the national evaluator for four months to conduct 
joint planning prior to implementing the program. The commenters 
instead recommended that States establish their own schedule to 
implement their proposals in an ``expeditious manner.''
    Discussion: We believe that it is important to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. A successful evaluation of 
the program requires States to work with the national evaluator. We 
believe that the four-month timeline for States to conduct joint 
planning with the national evaluator is essential to adequately plan 
and lay the groundwork for data collection and implementation of the 
program and the national evaluation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States 
that participate in the Multi-Year IEP 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.
    Discussion: Paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements makes 
clear that participating States must cooperate fully in the national 
evaluation. Section 614(d)(5) of the Act does not require a State 
evaluation component to the Multi-Year IEP Program and we believe that 
it is not 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: Many commenters recommended that LEAs not be required to 
participate in the national evaluation. One commenter noted that States 
lack the authority to enforce the cooperation of school districts to 
participate in the national evaluation.
    Discussion: 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 Multi-Year IEP 
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.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify the language in 
paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional requirements regarding an evaluator 
having access to the most recent IEP created before participating in 
the Multi-Year IEP Program because this language implies that no 
initially identified child (where the multi-year IEP would be the 
child's first IEP) could participate in the pilot project.
    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 3(d)(i) has been revised to clarify that the 
evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if 
applicable) before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that IES report on the 
extent to which program activities ensure satisfaction of family 
members.
    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 Multi-Year IEP Program. 
Section 614(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Act requires the Department to submit a 
report to Congress and include in that report specific recommendations 
for ``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. We have revised the Background 
for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria of this notice to 
clarify that IES will collect data on parent satisfaction with the 
program. In addition, as part of our internal review of the notice, we 
determined that it was appropriate to revise the Background for 
Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria to clarify that IES will 
collect data on teacher and administrator satisfaction. We have not 
made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria 
in response to these comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the list of parties 
who will be involved in determining the specifics of the evaluation 
design should be expanded to include representatives of national parent

[[Page 36990]]

organizations that represent a cross-section of disabilities, as 
opposed to being limited to the evaluator, a technical workgroup and 
the participating States.
    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: One commenter recommended that the evaluation process 
include public meetings during which parents who participate in the 
Multi-Year IEP Program may publicly state their opinions regarding the 
operation of the program.
    Discussion: We do not believe that it is necessary to design the 
evaluation process to include public meetings for parents because 
parent participation in the national evaluation of the program is 
assured under paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements. In 
addition, parent participation in the development and implementation of 
the program is assured under paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the additional 
requirements. However, we believe a change is necessary to paragraph 
3(d)(v) of the additional requirements because it is appropriate to 
require all participating States to provide assistance to the evaluator 
on the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed 
consent for parents to participate in interviews and respond to 
questionnaires and surveys.
    Changes: Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been 
amended by deleting the words ``If necessary to the final design of the 
study,'' to ensure that the national evaluation of the program will 
include the collection of data on the satisfaction of parents of 
children participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(d)(v) of the 
additional requirements should require the State to ensure that the 
national evaluation includes surveys of parents of children with 
disabilities from all 13 disability categories, and parents 
representing varying minority and socioeconomic backgrounds.
    One commenter noted that the individual nature of each IEP may not 
be conducive for the use of the proposed treatment of comparing 
students participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program with those who are 
not. The commenter went on to state that the national evaluation should 
not group students by disability category.
    Discussion: We recognize that random assignment of students to 
experimental and control groups is not possible due to the nature of 
the Multi-Year IEP Program. However, we believe that it is critical to 
compare the outcomes of students who participate in the program with 
those who do not to determine if patterns in student outcomes are 
demonstrated.
    We decline to require the national evaluation to include surveys of 
parents of children with disabilities from all 13 disability 
categories. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during 
discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the 
participating States during the first several months of the study. IES 
will conduct an evaluation of the program using a quasi-experimental 
design that collects data on educational and functional results for 
students with disabilities, time and resource expenditures by IEP team 
members and teachers, quality of long-term education plans incorporated 
in IEPs, degree of collaboration among IEP members, and degree of 
parent satisfaction. These outcomes will be compared between students 
whose parents consent to their child's participation in a multi-year 
IEP and students who are matched on type of 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 multi-year IEP.
    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 Multi-Year IEP 
Program.
    One commenter noted that the quasi-experimental research design 
will be overly costly and burdensome to States and school districts, 
particularly regarding data collection.
    Discussion: Participating States will play a crucial supportive 
role in this evaluation. They will assist in developing the specifics 
of the evaluation plan; assure that districts participating in the 
multi-year IEP will participate in the evaluation; supply data relevant 
to the outcomes being measured from State data sources (e.g., student 
achievement and functional outcome data, complaint numbers); and 
provide background information on relevant State policies and 
practices, provide access to current student IEPs during Year One of 
the evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in 
interviews. State participation in the national evaluation is critical 
to assess the impact of the program. 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, 
during 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 
3(d)(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 students' most current IEPs. In 
addition, we 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 3(d)(i) of the 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 students' IEPs.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department contract 
with an independent agency to develop a research design that would 
produce reliable information about the effectiveness of the Multi-Year 
IEP 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-

[[Page 36991]]

experimental design that will yield valid and reliable results 
consistent with the WWC evidence standards for 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 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act.
    Changes: None.
    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 
614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Secretary will submit an annual report to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions of the Senate regarding the effectiveness of the program and 
any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is the 
expectation of the Department that this annual report will be based, at 
least in part, on the results of the national evaluation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the final additional 
requirements and selection criteria require States to assist the 
national evaluator in collecting data on the implementation of the 
program from parents and family members of children participating in 
the program, including by obtaining informed consent from parents to 
participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that States should be 
required to assist the national evaluator in collecting data from 
parents. Therefore, a change will be made.
    Changes: Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been 
revised to clarify that participating State educational agencies (SEAs) 
must provide assistance to the evaluator in the collection of data from 
parents, including obtaining informed consent for parents to 
participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.

Consent

    Comment: Many commenters recommended that the final additional 
requirements and selection criteria clarify that parents may revoke 
their consent for their child to participate in the Multi-Year IEP 
Program at any time.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it would be useful to 
clarify that consent may be revoked at any time. Therefore, a change 
will be made.
    Changes: Paragraph 3(b)(ii) of the additional requirements 
(paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements) has been 
revised to clarify that parents may revoke their consent at any time 
during the implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring that, before a 
comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for a child, the LEA must 
obtain informed written consent from the parent agreeing to allow the 
development of a multi-year IEP for the child that would supercede the 
regular IEP requirements, and that the notice that the LEA provides to 
the parent must be in the native language of the parent.
    Discussion: We intended the phrase ``informed consent'' in 
paragraph 3(a) of the proposed additional requirements to mean written 
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. For consent to be informed, parents must understand what 
they are consenting to (i.e., that they are agreeing to a multi-year 
IEP for their child in lieu of an IEP that meets the requirements of 
section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act). To avoid any confusion or 
misunderstanding, we agree to revise the final additional requirements 
to state explicitly that LEAs must obtain voluntary informed written 
consent from parents for a multi-year IEP for their child, and that, 
before an LEA requests such consent, it must inform the parents in 
writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is 
not feasible to do so) of any differences between the requirements 
relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs 
under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating 
to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the 
State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal.
    Changes: Paragraph 3(b) of the additional requirements (paragraph 
3(a) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to 
clarify that States must include in their proposals assurances that, 
before an LEA requests a parent's voluntary informed written consent to 
the development of a multi-year IEP in lieu of an IEP that meets the 
requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the LEA will inform 
the parent in writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless 
it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any differences between the 
requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision 
of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements 
relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs 
under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that informed written parental 
consent must include a statement including the opinions of those in the 
field that recommend against such consent. The commenters noted that 
such a statement should give a description of how the multi-year IEP 
differs from a regular IEP and encourage parents to seek advice from 
advocacy agencies and resource centers before consenting to a multi-
year IEP.
    Discussion: We believe it is unreasonable to expect States and 
school districts to seek out and collect information from individuals 
who oppose the development of multi-year IEPs for students with 
disabilities and to include such information in notices that are 
provided to parents. Parents are encouraged to consult with parent 
resource centers and other resources in making educational decisions 
for their child. The parent notification rights under section 
615(c)(1)(D) of the Act requires that parents receive notification of 
sources that parents may contact to obtain assistance in understanding 
the provisions of the Act, including the provisions of the Multi-Year 
IEP Program under section 614(d)(5) of the Act. Furthermore, paragraph 
3(b)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(a)(i) of the 
proposed additional requirements) requires the LEA to identify any 
differences between the requirements relating to the content, 
development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the 
Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, 
review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP 
Program proposal.
    Changes: None.

Program Implementation

    Comment: Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that 
submits a proposal for the Multi-Year IEP 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. In addition, many commenters recommended 
requiring that the State's

[[Page 36992]]

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 
statutory and regulatory requirement, and State requirement, that the 
State proposed to waive under its proposed Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of 
mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including holding public 
meetings 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, and 
parents.
    Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(c) of the additional 
requirements clarify that proposed State proposals must comply with the 
public participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act.
    Several commenters urged the Secretary to require that States 
obtain input from representatives of parent training and information 
centers and community parent resource centers (in addition to obtaining 
input from school and district personnel, and parents). In addition, 
one commenter recommended that the Secretary should require States to 
(1) Obtain input from family members and advocates for children with 
disabilities, (2) require the State to summarize input that it received 
and the type of stakeholder who submitted the input, and (3) describe 
how the State's proposal would improve educational and functional 
results for children.
    Discussion: Proposed State plans must conform with the public 
participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act, which 
require that before the adoption of any policies and procedures needed 
to comply with the Act (including any amendments to such policies and 
procedures), the State ensures that there are public hearings, adequate 
notice of the hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the 
general public, including individuals with disabilities and parents of 
children with disabilities.
    However, we believe that States should have some flexibility in 
designing their process for obtaining public input, rather than 
adopting the specific suggestions of the commenter. Accordingly, we 
have revised paragraph 3 of the additional requirements (paragraphs 
3(b) and 3(c) of the proposed additional requirements) to require 
States to include in their proposals a description of how they involved 
multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public comment in 
developing their proposals consistent with section 612(a)(19) of the 
Act. With this change, each State's application will be judged on the 
extent to which the State involved multiple stakeholders and provided 
an opportunity for public comment when developing its proposal.
    Changes: We have revised and renumbered paragraph 3(c) of the 
additional requirements to incorporate language from paragraph 3(b) of 
the proposed additional requirements and to clarify that a State must 
include in its proposal a description of how it will meet the public 
participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act. More 
specifically, paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements now 
requires each State to include in its proposal how the State (a) 
Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children, special 
education and regular education teachers, related services providers, 
and school and district administrators in the development of its 
proposal; (b) provided an opportunity for public comment in developing 
its proposal, including a summary of public comments received by the 
State as well as a description of how the proposal addresses those 
public comments; and (c) obtained input from school and district 
personnel and parents in developing the list of required elements for 
each multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review 
and revision of each multi-year IEP.
    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 
additional 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 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 must also provide a summary of 
public comments and how public comments were addressed in the 
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 program design and development 
activities.
    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.
    One commenter asked for clarification on whether the Department 
will allocate additional dollars to school districts or if the State 
would use its incentive payments to offset school district costs.
    Discussion: Paragraph 4 of the proposed additional requirements 
provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the 
Multi-Year IEP 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 4 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 Multi-Year IEP 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 4 of the final additional 
requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to 
participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be awarded an annual 
incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related 
evaluation activities, and not less than

[[Page 36993]]

$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 States not be allowed to 
authorize LEAs to begin using multi-year IEPs 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 and 
all the background information for the national evaluation has been 
provided to IES.
    Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed 
because the evaluation design will be determined and all background 
information will be collected prior to implementation of the Multi-Year 
IEP Program. Accordingly, LEAs may not begin using multi-year IEPs 
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 and all the background information for the 
national evaluation has been provided to IES.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended prohibiting an existing annual 
IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before a child's next 
scheduled annual IEP meeting, unless the child's parent submits a 
written request to convene an IEP meeting on this issue at an earlier 
date.
    Discussion: In its application, a State may propose to prohibit an 
existing IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before the 
child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting. However, we do not see a 
compelling reason to preclude States from proposing to allow 
participating LEAs to convert an existing IEP into a multi-year IEP 
that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(5) of the Act and the 
requirements in this notice. It is important to note, however, that if 
a participating school proposes to convert an existing IEP into a 
multi-year IEP before the child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting, it 
will need to obtain the informed written consent of the parent, and may 
not implement a multi-year IEP for the child without that informed 
written parental consent.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the language in paragraph 
3(d)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements that requires States 
to provide a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and 
have agreed to implement the Multi-Year IEP Program. These commenters 
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 SEA or participated in a 
disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes.
    Discussion: We generally agree with the commenters. 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 Multi-Year 
IEP Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take 
corrective action, if needed.
    Changes: Paragraph 3(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph 
3(d) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to 
require the State to provide a description of how it will collect and 
report to the Department and the evaluator evidence that children are 
not receiving appropriate services because of the State's 
implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program, 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 multi-year IEPs due to unresolved compliance problems.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the final additional 
requirements and selection criteria reference the language from the 
report of the U.S. House of Representatives indicating that the usual 
rules for annual IEPs must apply to multi-year IEPs.
    Discussion: We believe that the Act is clear that except as 
specifically provided for under section 614(d)(5) of the Act, all of 
the Act's requirements regarding the provision of FAPE to children with 
disabilities apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. We 
reiterate this information in the Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year 
IEP Program section of this notice. The provisions of section 614(d)(5) 
of the Act, though, do contemplate that States could propose to apply 
to multi-year IEPs some changes to the normally applicable rules for 
annual IEPs, such as changes in the process of reviewing multi-year 
IEPs in some years.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit 
States from participating in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the 
Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program), 
which is the subject of a separate notice.
    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: 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 Multi-Year IEP 
Program and the Paperwork Waiver 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: Paragraph 5 has been added to the final additional 
requirements to clarify that States must describe how districts were 
selected and provide an assurance that districts are voluntarily 
participating along with a description of the circumstances under which 
district participation may be terminated. States participating in this 
program and the Paperwork Waiver Program may not select the same LEAs 
to participate in both programs.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that we approve only those 
Multi-Year IEP Program proposals that propose a project period of not 
more than four years.
    Discussion: We agree with this comment. A four-year period is 
sufficient time to allow States to spend one year preparing to 
implement multi-year IEPs and three years on the actual implementation, 
which coincides with one full cycle of a multi-year IEP (i.e., three 
years). In addition, a four-year project period is consistent with the 
project period established under the Paperwork Waiver Program. (The 
Department will invite applications for the Paperwork Waiver Program 
through a separate competition.)
    Changes: Paragraph 6 has been added to the final additional 
requirements to specify that State proposals will be approved for a 
project period not to exceed four years.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional 
requirements for this program be revised to prohibit

[[Page 36994]]

applicants from using the Paperwork Waiver Program (authorized under 
609(a) of the Act) as a vehicle for implementing multi-year IEPs that 
do not comply with the terms of the Multi-Year IEP Program.
    Discussion: 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 change 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.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: As part of our internal review of the proposed 
additional requirements and selection criteria for this program, we 
determined that it was appropriate to revise Paragraph 1 of the 
proposed additional requirements to provide that the Secretary may 
disapprove a State's application to participate in the program if the 
Secretary determines 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. The Act does not require the 
Secretary to disapprove a State's application to participate in the 
program under these conditions and we do not believe that it would be 
appropriate to require the Secretary to deny approvals under these 
conditions. Instead, we believe that it is important that the Secretary 
have the authority to take into consideration the compliance history of 
States as part of the process used for selecting States to participate 
in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Accordingly, we have determined that the 
Secretary should retain the discretion to deny or approve a State's 
application if the Secretary determines 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.
    Changes: Paragraph 1 of the additional requirements has been 
revised by deleting the words ``will not grant'' and replacing them 
with the words ``may deny'' such that the requirement reads as follows: 
``The Secretary may deny a State approval to participate in this 
program if the Secretary determines 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.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising paragraph 2 of the 
additional requirements by deleting the words ``may terminate'' and 
replacing them with the words ``shall terminate,'' so that there will 
be no option to allow a State's Multi-Year IEP Program to continue 
under the circumstances described in that paragraph.
    Discussion: We disagree with the commenter that there should be no 
option to allo