Comment. Concerning §89.1047, two individuals recommended deleting proposed subsection (d) regarding notification to a foster parent of denial for the right to serve as a surrogate parent.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. Deletion of subsection (d) would not provide adequate notice to foster parents of their rights to complaint proceedings.

Comment. Concerning §89.1047, fourteen individuals requested clarification regarding the conflict of interest provision in the proposed rule since the current rule eliminates any likely conflict in the State of Texas.

Agency Response. Further guidance will be forthcoming through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1047, a local special education director opposed the proposed rules beyond a single child foster home. The special education director requested additional clarification of conflict of interest relating to group foster facilities.

Agency Response. Further guidance will be forthcoming through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1047, four individuals recommended that if a surrogate refuses to participate in the training, they couldn't serve as a surrogate.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and the rules reflect the requirement for training.

Comment. Concerning §89.1047, two individuals recommended that the training should be provided by the education service centers.

Agency Response. The agency will provide guidance regarding the sources of surrogate parent training.

Comment. Concerning §89.1049, an individual recommended that state law needs to change or be clarified so parental rights transfer at age 18.

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1049, forty-four individuals and five advocacy organizations opposed the proposed rule as written, because the language creates serious legal issues by not transferring parental rights when the student turns 18 years of age. They commented that if the rule is adopted, additional clarification will be necessary.

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has made revisions to the adopted rule to reflect public comment in part.

Comment. Concerning §89.1049, five individuals and a representative from a parent/professional organization supported the rules as proposed.

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part but has made revisions to the proposed rule to reflect public comment in part.

Comment. Concerning §89.1049, ten individuals questioned whether the rule language means that students with disabilities no longer have the right to attend the ARD meeting, provide consent, etc.

Agency Response. The agency will provide guidance to the education service centers related to the rule.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual supported the use of the term "ARD Committee" instead of "IEP Team."

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual suggested replacement of the term ARD committee with school district in subsection (a).

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual requested that a side-by-side document be developed after the rules are adopted.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and a side-by-side document will be developed.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, two individuals supported the clarification that consent is not necessary when sending or receiving student records.

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual requested that language be added to the last sentence in subsection (f) to allow for extenuating circumstances that may prevent the sending district's providing student records within 30 days.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. State statute requires compliance with the 30-day period.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, five individuals, the CAC, and four representatives of parent/advocacy organizations opposed subsection (c) as written because the subsection does not contain reference to the participation of the general education teacher in the ARD committee process/meeting.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and made the suggested changes.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual raised concerns about subsection (h) regarding teacher/school personnel disagreement with the ARD committee decision and whether the 10-day recess applies.

Agency Response. The 10-day recess does not apply to school personnel's disagreement with ARD decisions.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, six individuals, a state representative, the CAC, and eight representatives from advocacy organizations commented that the proposed rule language in subsection (e) should be amended to include the following, "In the event the child's parents are unable to speak English...." to assist in clarifying district responsibility. In addition, they requested the term "good-faith efforts" be defined.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees with adding the suggested language regarding district responsibility because requirements are defined in the Texas Education Code and such an addition would expand the statutory requirement. The agency does not feel it is necessary to define "good-faith efforts."

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, twenty-five individuals and the CAC opposed the proposed rule language in subsection (f) referencing "student enrollment" instead of "first ARD committee meeting" as the starting point for conducting transfer ARD committee meetings.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and made the suggested change.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual suggested that records should be sent within 20 calendar days.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. State law defines the timeline as 30 days.

Comment. Concerning §89.1050, an individual suggested that records should be sent to the new district 30 days after the old district receives notice from the new district instead of 30 days from when the student enrolls.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. State law specifies the timeline as 30 days after enrollment.

Comment. Concerning §89.1055, an individual recommended that rule language addressing positive behavioral supports and functional behavior assessment should be added to the proposed rules.

Agency Response. This requirement is addressed in federal regulation.

Comment. Concerning §89.1055, three individuals and three representatives from parent/advocacy organizations are opposed to subsection (a) as written. Specifically, they are opposed to the removal of subsection (a)(2) relating to the student's participation in state- and district-wide assessments. Their rationale for reinstating (a)(2) is based on the new federal requirements relating to student participation in state- and district-wide assessments and the new alternative assessment, which will be administered for the first time in April 2001.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and the proposed rule was revised.

Comment. Concerning §89.1055, twenty-two individuals, the CAC, and four representatives from parent/advocacy organizations requested the addition of the phrase "from the student's current IEP" to the end of subsection (b) in relation to extended school year services goals and objectives.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and the proposed rule was revised. Proposed subsection (b) has become subsection (c) as a result of the insertion of a new subsection (b).

Comment. Concerning §89.1055, an individual requested the elimination of subsections (d) and (e) relating to additional consideration items for students with autism/pervasive developmental disorders.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. This section was opened only for the purposes of reordering the rules. The agency did not propose changes to these areas.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, an individual commented that TEA should develop procedures or guidelines to assist districts with the transfer process.

Agency Response. The agency agrees. Clarification regarding requirements will be provided through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, three individuals commented that TEA should clarify that assistive technology (AT) devices belong to the school district and any transfer of the device must be agreed to by the school district.

Agency Response. The agency does not feel that this clarification is necessary.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, an individual and six parent/advocacy organizations supported the rule as proposed.

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, four individuals questioned the need for this section, since it is not required.

Agency Response. This rule was developed based on requirements of state statute.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, an individual questioned the need for parental consent.

Agency Response. This rule was developed based on requirements of state statute.

Comment. Concerning §89.1056, two individuals questioned the amount of "sale" and whether this applies to any price or just over a certain amount. The individuals also questioned when the uniform transfer agreement (UTA) is required.

Agency Response. Clarification will be provided through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1060, an individual requested that the Texas Education Agency provide a definition of occupational therapy and physical therapy.

Agency Response. The agency does not feel that this clarification is necessary.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, a representative from a parent/advocacy organization opposed the continuation of using a regression/recoupment standard. In addition, they commented that funding reimbursement should not be limited to the regression/recoupment criteria.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, an individual recommended changing proposed rule language to "significant loss of skills necessary for the student to appropriately progress toward achieving the goals set out in the student's IEP for which he cannot recoup within the normal amount of time needed for students being served in the general education curriculum."

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has made revisions to the rule language.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, two individuals suggested that the extended school year (ESY) decision system is becoming too vague and offered that ESY services should be for students who have demonstrated regression and this need should be documented.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, three individuals supported proposed language in paragraph (1)(A) and (B).

Agency Response. The agency agrees.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, two individuals opposed paragraphs (1) and (2) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, an individual and two representatives from parent/advocacy organizations opposed paragraphs (2) and (3) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, three individuals and three representatives from parent/advocacy organizations oppose paragraph (4) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, seven individuals opposed paragraph (4)(B) because it is too vague, goes beyond intent of regression/recoupment standard, and will require full ESY funding to implement. They recommend the following wording, "significant loss of skills necessary for the student to appropriately progress toward achieving the goals set out in the student's IEP."

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has revised rule language to reflect consideration for loss of skills. Wording related to progress toward goals set in the student's IEP goes beyond intent of ESY services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, two individuals and three representatives from a parent/advocacy organization supported paragraph (4)(B), but opposed paragraph (4)(A) and (C)-(E) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Ten individuals opposed paragraph (4)(B) because it is too vague, goes beyond intent of regression/recoupment standard, and will require full ESY funding to implement.

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has revised rule language.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, an individual supported (4)(B).

Agency Response. The agency has revised rule language based on public comment.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, the CAC suggested rewording of paragraph (4)(B) to reflect that the ESY services are not for advancing skills, but for maintenance.

Agency Response. The agency has revised rule language based on public comment.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, an individual recommended that the state adopt the federal regulation pertaining to ESY.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, an individual and a representative from a parent/advocacy organization opposed paragraph (6) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1065, four individuals and four representatives from parent/advocacy organizations opposed paragraph (9) because the proposed rule language maintains the regression/recoupment standard and does not allow for reimbursement for other types of determination of ESY services.

Agency Response. The purpose of the proposed amendment to this section was to update the terminology and reference to extended school year services and not to make significant changes to related issues. The agency recognizes the need to convene a task force to study issues surrounding extended school year services.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, five individuals requested that the commissioner define a regular high school diploma "as a diploma granted to a student who has satisfactorily completed the minimum academic credit requirements for graduation applicable to students in general education, including satisfactory performance on the exit level assessment instrument."

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has made changes to this section.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, two individuals requested that the commissioner add the language to reflect that for students who graduate according to subsection (2)(C)(3) of this subsection, the ARD committee shall determine whether educational services will be resumed upon the request of the student or parent, as appropriate, so long as the student meets the age eligibility requirements.

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part and has made changes to this section.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, four individuals requested that the rule language list the requirements of state statute, instead of just a reference to the code.

Agency Response. The agency does not feel this is necessary.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, an individual states that this section offers helpful clarification.

Agency Response. The agency agrees in part but has made changes to this section.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, an individual commented that subsection (c) sets no standard and that there are grammatical problems with this section.

Agency Response. The agency has made changes to this section.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, four individuals commented that the term "retain" relative to employment is vague.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees. The agency believes that local education agencies will be able to determine whether students with disabilities are able to retain employment based on follow-up queries to determine the employment status of individuals.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, four individuals commented that reference to TEC, §39.024, does not state clearly how a student would then graduate.

Agency Response. Additional clarification will be provided through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, five individuals commented that receipt of a certificate or credential does not terminate entitlement to special education services, but makes no reference to where educational services would then be rendered. A high school setting is not appropriate.

Agency Response. Additional clarification will be provided through the education service centers.

Comment. Concerning §89.1070, an individual stated that students need to have minimum credits or criteria, such as attend high school four years or be age appropriate for graduation.

Agency Response. Additional clarification will be provided through the education service centers.