(Please note that there are some corrections and additions near the end of this 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 
with "consider" not "provide."
      2. Because this provision applies to children with 
sufficient vision to sometimes use visual media under certain 
circumstances (i.e., large print or regular print with 
magnification), it is necessary to clarify that the use of, and 
instruction in, Braille does not exclude the use of, or 
instruction in, print reading and writing. 
      3. There must be a "default" position for this service 
because it is intertwined with the basic literacy skills of 
reading and writing.  This note defines the "default" in a manner 
consistent with the distinctive and unique language and procedures
outlined for this special factor as opposed to the other special 
factors in the same section.

      This concludes our comments.  Thank you again for the 
opportunity to be a part of this process.  If you have any 
questions or concerns about any of these comments, please let me 
know.  My office phone number is (410) 659-9314 and my home number 
is (410) 747-3472.



                               Cordially yours,



                               (Mrs.)Barbara Cheadle, President
                                National Organization of Parents
                                      of Blind Children

