Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities rule (2015)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective July 1, 2015, that issued final regulations regarding the Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program. The regulations concerned topics such as requirements for local educational agencies to maintain fiscal effort.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities
  • Agency: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    The U.S. Department of Education issued regulations in the Federal Register in 2006 to govern the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program. The regulations were issued to implement changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The law aims to ensure access to public education and appropriate special education services to children with disabilities. The regulations were amended in 2008 regarding parental consent for special education, state monitoring, and the allocation of funds.[3][4]

    The Department of Education proposed regulations on September 18, 2013, to further the stated goals of IDEA concerning a maintenance of effort (MOE) for local education agencies.[2]

    The regulations governing the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program have been amended and revised following this rule. Further amendments were issued by the Obama administration in 2016 regarding modified academic achievement standards, and by the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018 regarding changes to certain definitions and state eligibility requirements.[5][6][7][8][9] The version of the regulations in 34 CFR Part 300 as of April 2023 can be read here.

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B or IDEA). These regulations govern the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities program. These amendments revise the regulations governing the requirement that local educational agencies maintain fiscal effort.[1][10] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1][2]

    “
    (1) Clarifying the compliance standard. We propose to—
    • Revise the heading of § 300.203(a) to clarify that this section addresses the compliance standard an SEA must use when determining whether an LEA has complied with the requirement to maintain effort;
    • Add language to § 300.203(a) to clarify how an LEA meets the standard in any fiscal year, based on a combination of State and local funds or local funds only; and
    • Add language to § 300.203(a) to specify how an LEA meets the standard in any fiscal year based on local funds only if the LEA has not previously met the MOE compliance standard based on local funds only;
    (2) Clarifying the eligibility standard. We propose to—
    • Revise the heading of § 300.203(b) to clarify that this section addresses the eligibility standard an SEA must use when determining whether an LEA is eligible for Part B funds;
    • Revise 300.203(b)(1) to replace the phrase “most recent prior year” with the phrase “most recent fiscal year” to conform with the remaining changes proposed in this section;
    • Revise the language in § 300.203(b)(2) to clarify that if an LEA relies on local funds only to meet the eligibility standard in § 300.203(b)(1)(i), the LEA must budget at least as much in local funds for the education of children with disabilities, either in total or per capita, as the amount it spent in local funds for that purpose in the most recent fiscal year for which information is available and for which the LEA met the MOE compliance standard based on local funds only, even if the LEA also met the MOE compliance standard based on State and local funds;
    • Add language to § 300.203(b) to specify that if an LEA relies on local funds only to meet the eligibility standard in § 300.203(b)(1)(i) and has not previously met the MOE compliance standard based on local funds only, the LEA must budget at least as much in local funds for the education of children with disabilities, either in total or per capita, as the amount it spent in local funds for that purpose in the most recent fiscal year for which information is available; and
    • Move current § 300.203(b)(3) to § 300.203(a) and to modify the language because current § 300.203(b)(3) addresses the compliance standard, not the eligibility standard;
    (3) Specifying the MOE requirements for an LEA that fails to maintain effort in a prior year. We propose to specify in § 300.203(c) that when an LEA fails to maintain its level of expenditures required by § 300.203(a), the level of expenditures required in any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2014, is the amount that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEA's reduced level of expenditures; and
    (4) Specifying the consequences for an LEA's failure to maintain effort. We propose in § 300.203(d) the consequence for an LEA that fails to maintain its level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities. The SEA would be liable in a recovery action under 20 U.S.C. 1234a to return to the Department, using non-Federal funds, an amount equal to the amount by which the LEA failed to maintain its level of expenditures.[10]
    		 ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities," April 28, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities," September 18, 2013
    3. ↑ Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities," August 14, 2006
    4. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act," accessed April 25, 2023
    5. ↑ Federal Register, "Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities," August 21, 2015
    6. ↑ Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities," March 2, 2016
    7. ↑ Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities," December 19, 2016
    8. ↑ Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities Program; Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities," June 30, 2017
    9. ↑ Federal Register, "Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities," July 3, 2018
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Assistance_to_States_for_the_Education_of_Children_With_Disabilities_rule_(2015)&oldid=9171173"