Modifications To Questions In The April 2009 Guidance On The ...
MODIFICATIONS TO QUESTIONS IN THE
APRIL 2009 GUIDANCE ON THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT, PART B
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
APRIL 13, 2009
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released detailed
guidance on the program. As a preface to the guidance, the Department indicated that it
would provide additional or updated guidance as necessary and invited interested
parties to provide comments on the document.
In response to comments received, we are updating answer D-7. This question, with
the revised answer, is provided below. The Department intends to periodically
incorporate new questions and answers into a revised version of the complete guidance
document.
The answer to the question below modifies and supersedes the answer in the initial
guidance:
D-7.
How can an LEA determine that it is eligible to reduce its state and local
effort by up to 50 percent of the increase in its subgrant allocation?
(Revised April 13, 2009)
The first step for an LEA that is considering taking advantage of this flexibility
is to compare the total Federal subgrant allocation the LEA received under
the Part B Grants to States program in FY 2008 with the total subgrant Grants
to States allocation they expect to receive in FY 2009 (including both the
regular Part B LEA Grants to States subgrant allocation and any Part B IDEA
Grants to States ARRA funds that the LEA receives). If the total Federal
subgrant allocation under the Part B Grants to States program received by an
LEA in FY 2009 exceeds the amount received by that LEA in FY 2008 under
that program, the LEA may be eligible to reduce the level of local, or state and
local, special education expenditures otherwise required, by up to 50 percent
of this increase.
There are other provisions of the IDEA that limit whether an LEA may reduce
local effort under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) (34 CFR §300.205). Under IDEA
section 616(a) (34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)), SEAs are required to make
determinations annually about the performance of each LEA using the
following categories: Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs
Intervention, and Needs Substantial Intervention. Under 616(f) (34 CFR
§300.608(a)), if in making its annual determinations, an SEA determines that
an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B, including meeting targets in
the state’s performance plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from reducing
its MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) for any fiscal year. Therefore, an
SEA must prohibit an LEA from taking advantage of the MOE reduction under
IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) if the LEA’s determination is Needs Assistance,
Needs Intervention, or Needs Substantial Intervention.
Also, IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C)(iii) requires an SEA to prohibit an LEA from
reducing its MOE if the SEA has taken responsibility for providing a FAPE in
the LEA because the LEA is unable to establish and maintain programs of
FAPE, or the SEA has taken action against the LEA under IDEA section 616.
Finally, an LEA that is required to use 15 percent of its IDEA Part B allocation
on CEIS because the SEA identified the LEA as having significant
disproportionality under 34 CFR §300.646, will not be able to reduce local
MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C).
