From: David Andrews 
Subject: IDEA Comments from NFB (Revised)
Below are revised comments from the National Federation of the Blind
concerning the new proposed IDEA regulations.
(Please note that there are some corrections and additions near the end of t
his 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
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------