PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 29, 2003
IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003 - Directs the Secretary of Education to report to specified congressional committees, with respect to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), on advisable regulatory proposals to reduce: (1) the IDEA paperwork burden on teachers, administrators, and related services providers; and (2) the non-instructional time spent by teachers to comply with IDEA requirements.Directs the Secretary to: (1) identify, develop, and disseminate simplified and streamlined model documents for individualized education programs (IEPs), procedural safeguards notices, and prior written notice reporting requirements incorporating relevant Federal statutory and regulatory requirements under IDEA; and (2) disseminate and provide training and technical assistance on such model IEPs, notices, and requirements to all State and local educational agencies (LEAs), parent training centers, and other appropriate entities.Allows LEAs receiving funds under IDEA part B to offer parents the option of developing a comprehensive three-year IEP (instead of an annual IEP) for each child with disabilities, including goals coinciding with natural transition points for the child and certain annual goals.Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program of granting waivers of IDEA paperwork requirements for up to four years for up to ten States, based on State proposals for addressing reduction of paperwork and non-instructional time spent fulfilling statutory and regulatory requirements. Requires the annual report of the Department of Education to Congress to include information on the efficacy and promise of such waivers.Amends IDEA to provide for flexibility with respect to IEP meetings, by allowing: (1) regular education teachers to be excused from attendance under certain circumstances; and (2) the parents and the LEA to agree to excuse any IEP team member from attending a meeting when such member's attendance is not necessary, as well as to waive, consolidate, or develop alternatives to certain meetings. Limits certain IEP information to what is specifically required. Revises requirements for procedural safeguard notices.
People & committees
Rep. Keller, Ric [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E103-104)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.464 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.464 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.464 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.464 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.