IDEA 2004: Building the Legacy
Part C (birth - 2 years old)
Note: This document has been delivered to the Office of the Federal Register but has not yet been scheduled for publication. The official version of this document is the document that is published in the Federal Register.
§303.321(a)(3)(ii) (proposed §303.320(b)(2)), which states
that informed clinical opinion may not negate the results of assessment instruments used to establish eligibility.
We inadvertently referred to “assessment” instruments
instead of “evaluation” instruments in proposed §303.320(b)
(2)). We have corrected this in new §303.321(a)(3)(ii) to
state that in no case may informed clinical opinion be used to negate the results of evaluation instruments used to establish eligibility.
Changes: We have clarified in new §303.321(a)(3)(ii)
(proposed §303.320(b)(2)) that qualified personnel must use
their informed clinical opinion when conducting an evaluation or assessment of the child and replaced the
phrase “assessment instruments” with the phrase “evaluation
Comment: One commenter recommended that it should remain a State option to determine when a low test score for a child, in a domain such as adaptive behavior, is due to cultural preferences rather than a true delay.
Discussion: All evaluations and assessments of a child and
family under new §303.321(a)(4) must be selected and
administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. In conducting an evaluation and assessment, the lead agency must ensure that they are not