APPENDIX A (Taken from Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 59, [4110-02] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Vocational Education-State Administered Programs Notice of Interpretation AGENCY: Office of Education, HEW. ACTION: Notice of Interpretation. SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Education is issuing this notice of interpretation to clarify the "excess cost" requirement for the Vocational Education State Administered Program regulations. This interpretation will eliminate the uncertainty which exists concerning the application of the "excess cost" requirement to the expenditure of funds for vocational education programs for handicapped and disadvantaged persons. DATE: This interpretation is expected to take effect 45 days after it is transmitted to Congress. (Interpretations are transmitted to Congress 3-4 days before they are published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.) However, this date is changed by statute if Congress disapproves the interpretation or takes certain types of adjournments. If you want to know the exact effective date of this interpretation, call or write the Office of Education contact person. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara H. Kemp Division of Vocational and Technical Education Room 5608, ROB-3 7th &D Streets, SW Washington, D.C. 20202 Telephone: (202) 245-3465. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND Section 110(a) of the Vocational Education Act, as amended by Title II of P.L. 94-482 (the Vocational Education Amendments of 1976), requires each State to expend at least 10 percent of its allotment under section 102(a) for the “cost of vocational education for handicapped persons." Section 110(b) requires at least 20 percent of the allotment under section 102(a) to be expended for the "cost of vocational education for disadvantaged persons...' The statutory language "cost of vocational education" in section 110(a) and 110(b) was interpreted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published on April 7, 1977 at 42 FR 18542 to mean "full cost." It was stated in the preamble at 42 FR 18549 that, as long as the State complies with the matching requirements in section 110 of the Act, the State could use the combined Federal, State and local funds to pay the entire cost of the vocational education programs for handicapped and disadvantaged persons. In other words, Federal funds for vocational education programs for handicapped and disadvantaged persons were not limited solely to the cost of special services needed by the handicapped and disadvantaged. Many commenters believed that the interpretation contained in the NPRM was a serious misreading of congressional intent. According to these commenters, unless the Federal and matching State and local funds were used to pay the excess costs of necessary program modifications, supplementary services, or special programs for handicapped and disadvantaged persons, the total amount of funds available to accommodate these special populations would be greatly reduced. These commenters suggested that the statutory language "cost of vocational education" must be read in the context of the definitions of "handicapped" and "disadvantaged" which emphasize the special services which are needed to enable handicapped and disadvantaged persons to take full advantage of the vocational education program. Since a reduction in services for handicapped and disadvantaged persons might result by charging the full cost of the vocational education program against the required minimum, the comments in support of charging the excess costs were accepted. Accordingly, § 104.303 of the final regulations, published on October 3, 1977 at 42 FR 53822, requires the Federal and matching State and local funds to be used to pay the "excess costs" of the programs for the handicapped and disadvantaged. The term "excess costs" was interpreted generally in § 104.303 to mean the costs of special educational and related services not used or required for nonhandicapped and nondisadvantaged students. There is considerable evidence that some uncertainty exists concerning the application of this "excess cost" principle. Numerous inquiries have been submitted to the Office of Education from State education agencies and local education agencies as to whether this principle of "excess cost" applies to both mainstreamed programs and separate specialized programs. In light of this demonstrated uncertainty, the Commissioner has determined that publication of a clarifying interpretation of the term "excess costs" in § 104.303 of the vocational education regulations will help to ensure the uniform administration of programs under the Vocational Education Act throughout the country. INTERPRETATION The Commissioner issues the following interpretation: 1. The State shall use, to the maximum extent possible, the funds expended for handicapped and disadvantaged persons to enable these persons to participate in regular vocational education programs (section 110(d) of the Vocational Education Act). The removal of the handicapped or disadvantaged students from the regular education environment may occur only when the nature of severity of the handicapped or disadvantaged is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. In order to achieve this end, handicapped and disadvantaged students should be placed, if possible, in a mainstreamed program. In a mainstreamed program the handicapped or disadvantaged student is placed in a regular vocational class with non-handicapped or non-disadvantaged students. Extra support is provided to the handicapped or disadvantaged students or to the instructors in the class. This supplemental support may take the form of the assignment of special personnel to the class, special program modifications, or the provision of special remedial education instruction, counseling, or other services to the handicapped or disadvantaged students enrolled in regular classes. These additional services may be paid for out of Federal funds and matching State and local funds under section 110(a) and (b) set-aside. For example, if, in a particular mainstreamed program, the cost of providing vocational training in electronics to the non-handicapped or non-disadvantaged student is $600, and the cost of providing supportive services in vocational training in electronics to the handicapped or disadvantaged student in the same class is $150, the State may use the combined Federal funds and State and local funds to pay only the incremental cost of $150 for vocational training in electronics for the handicapped or disadvantaged student. The matching requirement, however, applies to the aggregate of all State and local funds expended for the excess costs of programs for the handicapped and disadvantaged. There is no separate matching requirement on a program by program basis. 2. In some instances, the handicapped or disadvantaged student must be placed in a separate specialized program because the nature or severity of the handicap or disadvantage is such that the student cannot benefit from the regular vocational education program even with modifications to the program or with the provision of special supplementary aids and services. In a separate specialized program, the class is used exclusively by handicapped or disadvantaged students (including institutionalized students) who have been identified or diagnosed as having a need for specialized staff, special educational materials or equipment, and supportive services in order to succeed in the vocational education program. Thus, to the extent a separate specialized vocational education program is warranted, the entire separate specialized program may be funded in full from the Federal and matching State and local funds under section 110(a) and (b). However, the average statewide (State and local) expenditure, per student, for handicapped persons must equal or exceed the average per student expenditure for non-handicapped persons. Likewise, the average statewide (State and local) expenditure, per student, for disadvantaged persons must equal or exceed the average per student expenditure for non-disadvantaged persons. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 13.499 Vocational Education—Special Needs.) Dated: March 22, 1978. ERNEST L. BOYER, U.S. Commissioner of Education. [FR Doc. 78-7993 Filed 3-24-78; 8:45 am] 45 APPENDIX B INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) An Individualized Education Program (IEP) must be developed in conjunction with special education and those handicapped students in high school. The requirements for the Individualized Education Program (IEP) are reflected in the checklist. All questions should be answered "YES"; otherwise, the IEP is incomplete. CHECKLIST Student's Name: Age: Diagnostic Category: A. Check appropriate answer for each question. Has an IEP been written up for this student? Does the IEP include a statement of the specific special Is there a statement that describes the extent to which this Are the projected dates for initiation of services recorded in Is the anticipated duration of the services recorded in the Have appropriate objective criteria and evaluation pro- Is the IEP being evaluated at least once a year? a. the representative of the LEA? b. the teacher? c. the parents or guardian? d. the student (when appropriate)? |