Ms. Carolyn S.

Boney Chief Supervisor Administrative Section Office of Programs for the Handicapped South Carolina Department of Education Columbia, SC 29201

It is my understanding that you recently discussed two (2) IEP issues by telephone with Lois Stephenson of our staff. We want to be certain we have understood your responses correctly. The first issue concerns the required IEP meetings which must be conducted when a pupil with disabilities is classified as homebound, owing to a medical problem ordered by a physician and not as a result of a multidisciplinary team placement recommendation. It is our understanding that if a pupil is on homebound for this reason for a period of ten (10) calendar days or less, this constitutes a short term placement and no revision is necessary in the IEP. If, however, the pupil must be on homebound placement for this reason for more than ten (10) calendar days, an IEP/Staffing meeting is necessary to change the placement and the contents of the IEP, if warranted. Further, if the IEP goals and objectives on the current IEP will remain the same and only the time in special education will change, then an amendment may be added to the IEP stating specifically the amount of time to be spent in special education and the required IEP/Staffing participants will sign the amendment to be attached to the IEP. Amendments may also be developed if other minor revisions to the current IEP (including adding or deleting certain short term objectives) are needed. Major revisions would necessitate the development of another IEP. Since time would not be available, in most instances, to send a letter of notification to the parents prior to the meeting, it would be permissible to ask the parents if they wish to waive the prior notification timeline. In this event, they would sign a statement to the effect that they received the letter of notification and were informed of all of their rights. If appropriate, a statement that the original IEP will go back in effect upon the pupil's return from the homebound placement will be included in the amendment or in the revised IEP. Then, if all IEP/Staffing participants agree to this, there will be no need for another IEP/Staffing meeting following the pupil's return from homebound. Another IEP/Staffing must be conducted following the pupil's return from the homebound placement unless the IEP amendment states that the original IEP will go back in effect upon the pupil's return from the homebound placement. In this event written notification as required by 34 CFR 300.505 will be provided to the parents and they will be offered the opportunity for another IEP meeting. The second issue involves interim IEPs. It is our understanding that there are two purposes for an interim IEP. They can be used for (1) collecting the information (diagnostic evaluation to determine eligibility) in order to further define an appropriate program for the pupil as well as for (2) determining an appropriate placement following an evaluation. Interim IEPs should include as much information as possible. In the event the interim IEP is being used to determine an appropriate

placement following an evaluation, there should be adequate information available from the evaluation to develop present levels of educational performance, annual goals and short term objectives. The problem most often encountered by school districts relative to interim IEPs is that parents enroll a child in a school district but are able to provide little or no information relative to the previous placement. Coordinators of programs for the handicapped have informed us that parents seldom bring their child's previous school folders with them. Sometimes they inform the new school district that their child was in a special program, but they are not sure which one. If this happens, it is our understanding that the school district should require that a teacher of the category of suspected handicapping condition or a regular education teacher develop goals and objectives. The IEP participants must be the same as for any other IEP meeting, since this requirement cannot be waived. They must identify the present level of educational performance as agreed upon by the team (e.g., "Jane is functioning at the fifth grade level in math" or "John appears to be experiencing communication difficulties"). The placement must be identified (e.g., EMH Resource, 5 hours per week). An appropriate annual goal would be to complete whatever assessments are appropriate, with the specific assessments stated in the annual goal. The evaluation procedures could be "teacher observation/evaluation" with criteria of 100%. When an evaluation is unavailable, it is our understanding that the interim IEP would not need to reflect as much information for resource room placement as for self-contained placement. The present levels of educational performance for a pupil placed on an interim IEP in a self-contained placement must reflect all of the courses in which the pupil will be taught by a teacher of special education, should include an observation by the school psychologist and must rely heavily on the information provided by the parents (or by the previous school district, if possible). Any information received by the school district should be included in the interim IEP. Phone calls should be made to the former district to obtain as much information as possible, even if it is just the handicapping condition and the placement. Please let us know if this information is correct. We always appreciate your assistance and look forward to hearing from you regarding these issues. Text of Response This is in response to your letter, dated April 2, 1991, to Mr. Ray Miner of my staff, in which you asked for clarification of the requirements in Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B), formerly cited as the Education of the Handicapped Act, regarding the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). A copy of the Part B regulations is enclosed for your reference. First, you asked about IEPs for homebound students who qualify for services under Part B. The Part B requirements at 34 CFR 300.340-300.349 provide clear, minimal standards for the development and content of IEPs. These requirements must be followed when IEPs are developed for homebound students. A local educational agency cannot deny a child with a disability a free appropriate public education, simply because the child is homebound. In your letter, you described some requirements that go beyond the requirements at 34 CFR 300.340-300.349. Each State has the option of establishing its own standards in addition to those required by Part B. This is allowable, and we defer judgments on the legality of additional State standards, as long as the Part B requirements are satisfied. On January 12, 1988, this Office sent a letter to Ms. Mary Jo Butler, an attorney from Boise, Idaho,

that responds to questions about State standards and the provision of instructional services to homebound students. See Education of the Handicapped Law Report 213:114. Please note that this letter also includes a discussion regarding the provision of services to a student who was absent from school on an intermittent basis. In your letter, you also asked about interim IEPs. Interim IEPs are not mentioned in the requirements found at 34 CFR 300.340-300.349, and are not explicitly required under Part B. However, the interim-IEP concept is discussed in 34 CFR Part 300, Appendix C, at question and answer #5, which deals with children receiving special education for the first time. While the use of interim IEPs is permissible, they should only be used in special circumstances when such a measure is necessary. The requirement found at 34 CFR 300.342(b)(2) states that an IEP must be implemented as soon as possible following the IEP meeting. A State cannot use interim IEPs to circumvent the requirement at 34 CFR 300.342(b)(2). I hope that you find this information helpful. Judy A. Schrag Director Office of Special Education Programs Regulations Cited 34.300.340 34.300.349 34.300.342