I would like to truly understand past correlation what peer reviewed, research based data this is about? As well as if the study was replicated, & the size of data set groups to truly understand the validity of the research this recommendation is based on. Why is it when clearly defined terms are requested, this is the result? Is there a specific reason that the language used in this proposed amendment as with most governing guidelines has difficult to understand phrasing and language? Not every person attended college, some parents of special education students have disabilities too. Why does the burden fall to the parents/caregivers to have to figure it all out just to get access to what children need for an appropriate education? I also don't understand why it is a negative impact if a child were to receive a service they might not "need". Versus implementing possible additional exclusionary language; when multiple decades worth of replicated, peer reviewed, research based data exists indicating: Early Intervention is Key.? I simply have more questions after reading this proposed amendment, in addition to ones I've had previously. How are the children themselves being appropriately served? I have seen some intentionality on the part of some districts trying to be better. That is great, collaborative efforts are wonderful. Yet, we still have systemic issues with early intervention and the socio-economic, minority, & ESL communities. As well as lack of full testing to get a complete picture of the student & their needs as reasonable & customary to access an appropriate, free, public education. My reference is to the cultural and language amendment specifically. My comments & concerns extend itself to the totality of the system and the equitable rights of all students, including those impacted by disabilities.