3. Clarify the relationship between free appropriate public education (FAPE) and early intervening services.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to either limit or create a right to FAPE under Part B of the Act or to delay appropriate evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability.
[34 CFR 300.226(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1413(f)(3)]

1. Some people suggest that reallocation of (15% of) funds from special education could result in a loss of services for students with disabilities. Others suggest that new options would lead to more meaningful interventions in general education.
   What do you think?



2. Some people suggest that EIS will delay appropriate evaluation for special education services; others say that EIS will close skill gaps and special education services will not be needed by the student. What do you think?



3. In terms of programs and services, what is the relationship between EIS and referral to special services?



4. From your perspective, what do you believe are the differences the student will experience in the classroom with services through early intervening rather than services through special education? Will there be a difference in outcomes based on the differences in experiences?

1. How can the district engage the community of stakeholders in determination of guidelines for EIS processes and to ensure FAPE for students?



2. Does your state provide guidance to the district relative to ensuring that a right to FAPE is neither limited nor created through an EIS process? How and where can you find state information?



3. What procedures are currently in place within the district/school to assist the EIS team in selecting appropriate interventions, determining implementation guidelines, monitoring student progress, and making recommendations for fading, changing, or moving to the next level of interventions? What procedures are needed?



4. What will/must the district do to ensure that parents are appropriately informed and can participate in EIS?



5. How might students participate in EIS decision-making relative to their own learning and academic or behavioral needs? Will this provision impact current practice in this regard?



6. What processes and procedures will the district put into place to document and report the effectiveness (results) of EIS?



7. What procedures can the district put in place to ensure no delay or limitation in the referral process?



8. How might the LEA/school determine whether to provide students academic and/or behavioral EIS or to refer them for special education services?



9. How might the LEA/school determine how long to provide academic and/or behavioral EIS for students before referring them for special education evaluation?
   
   These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:
   
   Role: Service Provider
   Location: California
   
   Role: Speech-Language Pathologist
   Location: Florida
   
   Role: Special Education Administrator
   Location: Florida
   
   Role: Educational Consultant
   Location: Florida
   
   Role: Family Member
   Location: Georgia
   
   Role: General Education Administrator
   Location: Illinois
   
   Role: Higher Education
   Location: Indiana
   
   Role: Teacher
   Location: Indiana
   
   Role: Special Education Administrator
   Location: Indiana
   
   Role: Special Education Administrator
   Location: Kentucky
   
   Role: School Psychologist
   Location: Maryland
   
   Role: School Psychologist
   Location: Maryland
   
   Role: Teacher
   Location: Minnesota
   
   Role: Family Member
   Location: New Jersey
   
   Role: Higher Education
   Location: New York
   
   Role: Family Member
   Location: West Virginia