UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

Dec 05, 2014

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to focus your attention on the educational needs of students with disabilities who 

are in correctional facilities1and the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA or IDEA, Part B) as they apply to States, State educational agencies 

(SEAs), and public agencies (including local educational agencies (LEAs), and responsible 

noneducational public agencies2) in educating these students. Absent a specific exception, all 

IDEA protections apply to students with disabilities in correctional facilities and their parents.3

Supporting effective and accountable education for incarcerated and at-risk youth can result in 

cost savings to the public and enable troubled youth to obtain an education and enhance their 

future employment options and life choices. As the U.S. Departments of Education 

(Department) and Justice recently stated, the fact that a student has been charged with or 

convicted of a crime does not diminish his or her substantive rights or the procedural safeguards 

and remedies provided under the IDEA to students with disabilities and their parents.4 This letter 

also provides information regarding technical assistance and other relevant resources to enhance 

students’ reintegration into the school setting or participation in programs. 

Students with disabilities represent a large portion of students in correctional facilities, and it 

appears that not all students with disabilities are receiving the special education and related 

services to which they are entitled. National reports document that approximately one third of 

students in juvenile correctional facilities were receiving special education services, ranging 

 

1 The definition of a correctional facility varies from State to State. For the purposes of this letter, “correctional 

institution” or “correctional facility” refers to juvenile justice facilities, detention facilities, jails, and prisons where 

students with disabilities are, or may be, confined. In addition, this letter uses the term “students with disabilities” to 

refer to children with disabilities, as that term is defined in 34 CFR §300.8.

2 The requirements in 34 CFR §300.2(b)(1)(iv) and (2) and 34 CFR §300.154 govern the responsibilities of 

noneducational public agencies for the education of students with disabilities in correctional facilities.

3 The rights of students with disabilities in correctional facilities are also protected by two other Federal laws: 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), which prohibits disability discrimination in programs or 

activities of entities, such as public schools and correctional agencies, that receive Federal financial assistance (29 

U.S.C. §794, 34 CFR part 104); and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which 

prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, including public schools and correctional agencies, regardless 

of whether they receive Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. §§12131-12134, 28 CFR part 35). For more 

information about these civil rights laws, see the OCR Dear Colleague Letter (dated June 9, 2014), available at 

http://www.ed.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/doj-dod-ltr.pdf

4

Statement of Interest for the United States, G.F. v. Contra Costa County, No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal.) 

(filed Feb. 13, 2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/contracosta_soi_2-13-14.pdf.
2

from 9 percent to 78 percent across jurisdictions.

5

 States reported that in 2012–2013, of the 

5,823,844 students with disabilities, ages 6 through 21, served under IDEA, Part B, 16,157 

received special education and related services in correctional facilities.6 Evidence suggests that 

proper identification of students with disabilities and the quality of education services offered to 

students in these settings is often inadequate.7 Challenges such as overcrowding, frequent 

transfers in and out of facilities, lack of qualified teachers,

8

inability to address gaps in students’ 

education, and lack of collaboration with the LEA contribute to the problem.9Providing the 

students with disabilities in these facilities the free appropriate public education (FAPE) to which 

they are entitled under the IDEA should facilitate their successful reentry into the school, 

community, and home, and enable them to ultimately lead successful adult lives. 

This letter is organized into three main areas. The first summarizes the key points in the letter. 

The second addresses States’ and SEAs’ responsibilities to students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities. The third addresses the responsibilities of public agencies, including 

LEAs, and correctional facilities that operate as LEAs, and noneducational public agencies that 

are responsible for providing education to students with disabilities in correctional facilities to 

carry out IDEA requirements. Because the responsibilities of these entities in certain areas 

overlap, some matters are discussed more than once. 

The following are the key points made in this letter regarding IDEA, Part B requirements, as they 

pertain to students with disabilities:

 Absent a specific exception, all IDEA protections apply to students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities and their parents. 

Shared Responsibility to Provide FAPE

 Every agency at any level of government that is involved in the provision of special 

education and related services to students in correctional facilities must ensure the 

provision of FAPE, even if other agencies share that responsibility.

 

5 Quinn, M., Rutherford, R., Leone, P., Osher, D., & Poirier, J. (2005); Center for Juvenile Justice Reform,

Georgetown University, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and 

Child Welfare Systems 2012 Edition http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/resources2/cjjrpublications/educationpaper.html

6 U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), OMB # 1875-0240: “IDEA, Part B Child Count 

and Educational Environments Collection,” 2012. The definition of “correctional facilities” for this data collection is 

“children who received special education in correctional facilities. These data are intended to be an unduplicated 

count of all children receiving special education in short-term detention facilities (community-based or residential) 

or correctional facilities.”

7 Richard A. Mendel, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, Annie E. Casey Foundation 

(2011).

8 Mary M. Quinn, Robert B. Rutherford, Peter E. Levine, David M. Osher, and Jeffrey M. Poirier, Youth with 

Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, Exceptional Children, Vol 71, No. 3, pp. 339-345 (2005).

9 Robert Balfanz, Kurt Spiridakis, Ruth C. Neild, and Nettie Legters, High-Poverty Secondary School and Juvenile 

Justice Systems: How Neither Helps the Other and How That Could Change, 99 New Directions for Youth 

Development 71-89 (2003).
3

 States must have interagency agreements or other methods for ensuring interagency 

coordination in place so that it is clear which agency or agencies are responsible for 

providing or paying for services necessary to ensure FAPE for students with disabilities 

in correctional facilities.

SEA Responsibility and Personnel Qualifications

 SEAs must exercise general supervision over all educational programs for students with 

disabilities in correctional facilities (unless covered by an exception) to ensure that their 

educational programs meet State education standards and IDEA, Part B requirements. 

This responsibility includes monitoring public agencies that are responsible for providing 

FAPE to students with disabilities in correctional facilities.

 SEAs must make annual determinations on the performance of correctional facilities in 

their State if those facilities operate as their own LEAs.

 SEAs must ensure that students with disabilities, including those in correctional facilities,

are appropriately included in general State and districtwide assessments, including 

assessments conducted under section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to the extent that the ESEA requires that those students 

be included in those assessments.

 The State Advisory Panel must include representatives from the State juvenile and adult 

corrections agencies, and include other agencies involved in the financing or delivery of 

services to students with disabilities.

 States and their public agencies must establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that 

personnel providing special education and related services, including those serving 

students with disabilities in correctional facilities, are appropriately and adequately 

prepared and trained. Public school special education teachers in correctional facilities 

must be “highly qualified,” as defined by IDEA and its implementing regulations, and 

related services personnel and paraprofessionals in correctional facilities must meet State 

qualifications for those personnel, as described in IDEA and its implementing 

regulations. SEAs must monitor to ensure that there are appropriate special education 

teachers in schools and education programs within correctional facilities.

Child Find and Evaluation

 States and their public agencies must have child find policies and procedures in place to 

identify, locate, and evaluate students who are in correctional facilities who may have a 

disability under the IDEA and are in need of special education and related services, 

regardless of the severity of their disability and consistent with the State’s child find and 

eligibility standards. This responsibility includes students who have never been 

identified as a student with a disability prior to their entry into the facility. 

 Students suspected of having a disability who need special education and related services 

must be evaluated, subject to applicable parental consent requirements, in a timely manner, 
4

even if the student will not be in the facility long enough to complete the evaluation. If a 

student transfers from an LEA to a correctional facility in the same school year after the 

evaluation has begun, and the responsibility for FAPE transfers as well, both agencies must 

coordinate assessments to ensure that a timely evaluation occurs. 

FAPE in Least Restrictive Environment

 When a student with an individualized education program (IEP) transfers to a 

correctional facility in the same State in the same school year, the new public agency (in 

consultation with the parents) must provide the student with FAPE through services that 

are comparable to those described in the student’s IEP from the previous public agency 

until the new public agency either adopts the previous agency’s IEP, or develops and 

implements a new IEP for the student. 

 Unless there is a specific exception, all IEP content requirements apply to students with 

disabilities in correctional facilities, including, but not limited to, a statement of: (1) the 

student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance; 

(2) measurable annual academic and functional goals; and (3) the special education and 

related services and supplementary aids and services that will be provided to the student 

to enable him or her to advance appropriately toward attaining his or her IEP goals and to 

be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum—that is, the same 

curriculum as for nondisabled students. 

 To ensure that students with disabilities in correctional facilities continue to receive 

FAPE, public agencies must have policies and procedures to ensure that the relevant 

records of students with disabilities who move to, and from, correctional facilities are 

transferred as expeditiously as possible,” and also must take reasonable steps to 

appropriately transmit those records to facilitate the student’s transition to or from the 

correctional facility.

 The IDEA requirements related to least restrictive environment (LRE) apply to the 

education of students with disabilities in correctional facilities. IEP teams or placement 

teams must make individualized placement decisions, and may not routinely place all 

students with disabilities in correctional facilities in classes that include only students 

with disabilities, even if this means creating placement options or using other 

arrangements, to the maximum extent appropriate to the student’s needs. This may 

include, for example, having special education and general education teachers co-teach in 

the regular classroom.

 Public agencies must comply with all applicable IDEA secondary transition requirements 

to facilitate eligible students’ movement from secondary education in the correctional 

facility to appropriate post-school activities.

Due Process and Discipline

 The IDEA due process protections apply to students in correctional facilities and their 

parents, including requirements related to providing any required written notices in 
5

language understandable to the general public and in the native language of the parent or 

other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.

 Any exclusion from the classroom is particularly harmful for students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities. In general, even in the presence of disciplinary concerns, because 

correctional facilities are run by public entities, their obligation to ensure that special 

education and related services are provided to eligible students with disabilities continues. 

 A student with a disability in a correctional facility who violates a code of student conduct 

is entitled to the protections in the IDEA discipline procedures that must be afforded to all 

students with disabilities. These protections apply regardless of whether a student who 

violates a code of student conduct is subject to discipline in the facility or removed to 

restricted settings, such as confinement to the student’s cell or “lockdown” units. In any 

event, a removal from the current educational placement that results in a denial of 

educational services for more than 10 consecutive school days, or a series of removals that 

constitute a pattern that total more than 10 school days in a school year is a change in 

placement, which, in turn, requires a manifestation determination under the IDEA. 

States’ and State Educational Agencies’ Responsibilities

Responsibility for Ensuring FAPE in Correctional Facilities

Every agency at any level of government that is involved in the provision of special education 

and related services to students with disabilities in correctional settings must ensure the provision 

of FAPE, even if other agencies share that responsibility (34 CFR §300.2(b)(1)(iv)).10

 

10

There are some provisions of the IDEA that are not applicable to certain students with disabilities in correctional 

facilities. With respect to students with disabilities aged 18 through 21 in adult correctional facilities, the obligation to 

make FAPE available does not apply to the extent that State law does not require that special education and related 

services be provided to students with disabilities who, in the last educational placement prior to their incarceration in an 

adult correctional facility were not actually identified as being a student with a disability under the IDEA and did not have 

an IEP under the IDEA (34 CFR §300.102(a)(2)(i)). However, this exception does not apply where: (1) the student with a 

disability, aged 18 through 21, had been identified as a student with a disability and had received services in accordance 

with an IEP, but left school prior to his or her incarceration, or (2) did not have an IEP in his or her last educational setting, 

but had been actually identified as a student with a disability (34 CFR §300.102(a)(2)(ii)).

In addition, under 34 CFR §300.324(d), for otherwise eligible students with disabilities who have been convicted as adults 

under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons: (1) States and LEAs are not required to include such students in State 

and districtwide assessments under section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA and §300.320(a)(6); (2) the requirements in 

§300.320(b) (relating to transition planning and transition services) do not apply with respect to the students whose 

eligibility under IDEA, Part B will end, because of their age, before they will be eligible to be released from prison based 

on consideration of their sentence and eligibility for early release; and (3) the IEP Team of a student with a disability may

modify the student’s IEP or placement if the State has demonstrated a bona fide security or compelling penological 

interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated including the requirements of §§300.320 (relating to IEPs) and 300.112 

(relating to LRE).

As referenced above, under 34 CFR §300.324(d), the requirements in §300.320(b) (relating to transition planning and 

transition services) do not apply with respect to the students whose eligibility under IDEA, Part B will end, because of 

their age, before they will be eligible to be released from prison based on consideration of their sentence and eligibility for 

early release that apply to otherwise eligible students with disabilities who have been convicted as adults under State law 

and incarcerated in adult prisons. In addition, the IDEA makes no specific provision for funding educational services for 

individuals with disabilities incarcerated in a Federal prison. See Letter to Yudien, (August 19, 2003).

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2003-3/yudien081903fape3q2003.pdf
6

Regardless of the structure in a State, the State, as the IDEA, Part B grantee, has ultimate 

responsibility for ensuring FAPE is made available to all eligible students with disabilities 

residing in State and local juvenile and adult correctional facilities. This responsibility applies to 

correctional facilities with which the State contracts to provide education, including special 

education and related services (34 CFR §§300.2(b)(1)(iv), 300.101, and 300.149(a)). Indeed, the 

requirements in IDEA, Part B apply to all political subdivisions of a State11 that provide special 

education and related services to students with disabilities, including State and local juvenile and 

adult correctional facilities, regardless of whether that agency receives funds under Part B 

(34 CFR §300.2(b)(1)(iv) and (2)).

States have different administrative structures or arrangements for providing education, including 

special education and related services, to students with disabilities in correctional facilities. 

These arrangements include assigning the responsibility for providing special education and 

related services in correctional facilities to: (1) the SEA; (2) the correctional facility as an LEA; 

(3) the LEA where the correctional facility is located or another LEA; (4) a noneducational 

public agency12 through an interagency agreement or other mechanism for interagency

coordination that meets the requirements in 34 CFR §300.154; and (5) a transfer of authority 

pursuant to 34 CFR §300.149(d).13 

When the State assigns responsibility for providing FAPE to a noneducational public agency, the 

IDEA expressly requires the Chief Executive Officer of a State, or his or her designee, to ensure 

that an interagency agreement or other mechanism for interagency coordination is in effect 

between each noneducational public agency and the SEA (34 CFR §300.154(a)). The purpose of 

this requirement is to ensure that the responsibility for the provision of FAPE for all students 

with disabilities is clear and that services necessary to ensure FAPE are provided in a timely and 

appropriate manner. This is particularly important in the context of correctional facilities, where 

it is not uncommon for multiple agencies to share responsibility for the operation of distinct 

functions within the same facility. The State may meet this requirement through a contract, or 

other methods, such as a State statute or regulation, or a signed interagency agreement, between 

 

11 The definition of “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the 

outlying areas (34 CFR §300.40).

12 Under 34 CFR §300.154(b)(1)(i), a “noneducational public agency” is described as “any public agency that is 

otherwise obligated under Federal or State law, or assigned responsibility under State policy, or pursuant to 

[§300.154(a) ] to provide or pay for any services that are also considered special education or related services.”

13 The Governor, or another individual pursuant to State law, may assign to any public agency in the State the 

responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of IDEA are met with respect to students with disabilities who are 

convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in an adult prison (34 CFR §300.149(d)). However, such an 

assignment does not relieve the State, or the assigned public agency, of its responsibility to meet all the requirements

of IDEA, even if the public agency does not receive IDEA, Part B funds (34 CFR §300.2(b)(2)). This letter does not 

address the circumstances covered by 34 CFR §300.149(d).
7

respective agency officials that clearly identifies the responsibilities of each agency14

(34 CFR §300.154(b) and (c)(1) and (2)). 

Interagency agreements, or other mechanisms for interagency coordination, must include 

provisions relating to: (1) the financial responsibility of each agency for providing special 

education and related services,15 including reimbursement terms;16 (2) the resolution of 

interagency disputes; and (3) the coordination and delivery of special education and related 

services (34 CFR §300.154(a)). In addition to these required provisions, as a best practice, 

States are encouraged to include additional provisions in their interagency agreements or other 

mechanisms to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities will be properly identified and 

appropriately addressed so that these students timely receive the special education and related 

services to which they are entitled under the IDEA. For example, States should consider 

including provisions that identify the: (1) location of IEP Team meetings and, if not within the 

correctional facility, the responsibility for ensuring that the student is transported to the meeting,

if appropriate for the student to attend17; and (2) where applicable, the responsibility of the 

correctional facility to ensure that it grants appropriate access to facilities to all personnel

necessary to implement the IDEA requirements. Granting appropriate access may be essential to 

ensure that evaluations (including the administration of any necessary assessments or other 

evaluation materials), IEP Team meetings, and the provision of required special education and 

related services occur in a timely manner. 

Accountability, Data Collection, and Reporting

SEAs must ensure that all students with disabilities, including those in correctional facilities, are 

appropriately included in all general State and districtwide assessment programs, including 

assessments described in section 1111 of the ESEA, to the extent that the ESEA requires that 

students in correctional facilities be included in those assessments.18 Students with disabilities 

 

14 A State may also meet this requirement through other appropriate written methods, as approved by the Chief 

Executive Officer of a State, or his or her designee and approved by the U.S. Department of Education (34 CFR 

§300.154(c)(3)).

15 Under 34 CFR §300.154(b)(1)(i), a noneducational public agency, including the State Medicaid agency and other 

public insurers of children with disabilities, may be assigned the responsibility to pay for special education and 

related services. In that case, the financial responsibility of the noneducational public agency precedes the financial 

responsibility of the LEA (or the State agency responsible for developing the child’s IEP) (34 CFR §300.154(a)(1)).

Even though these statutory and regulatory provisions specifically refer to the State Medicaid agency or other public 

insurers of students with disabilities, they are equally applicable to any noneducational public agency that is 

otherwise obligated under State or Federal law to provide or pay for special education and related services. This 

requirement includes the corrections context where an agency other than an SEA or LEA is responsible for 

providing or paying for special education and related services.

16 If a noneducational public agency fails to provide or pay for special education and related services, the LEA (or, if 

applicable, the State agency) responsible for developing the student’s IEP must provide or pay for these services in a 

timely manner. The LEA or State agency may then claim reimbursement pursuant to the terms of the interagency 

agreement or other mechanism for interagency coordination (34 CFR §300.154(b)(2)). 

17 A parent and a public agency may agree to use alternative means of satisfying the IEP Team meeting participation 

requirements, such as through video conferences and conference calls. (34 CFR §300.328).

18 This requirement does not apply to students in correctional facilities who have been convicted as adults under 

State law and incarcerated in adult prisons.
8

who are required to take any general State assessment during the time that they are confined to a 

correctional facility must be provided appropriate accommodations on the State assessment, or 

administered an appropriate alternate assessment, if determined to be necessary for the student 

by the student’s IEP Team (34 CFR §§300.160(a) and 300.320(a)(6)). The SEA must also 

exercise general supervision over all educational programs for students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities (34 CFR §300.149) to ensure that such programs meet the education 

standards of the SEA and IDEA requirements. As part of this responsibility, the SEA must 

monitor public agencies that are responsible for providing FAPE in correctional facilities 

(34 CFR §300.149)).

19

 Furthermore, SEAs must make annual determinations about the 

performance of each correctional facility that is its own LEA (34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)). States 

must include students with disabilities in correctional facilities when collecting and reporting 

data, including data reported in connection with IDEA section 618 data submissions and in the 

State’s Annual Performance Report. 

Personnel Qualifications

The IDEA personnel qualifications requirements continue to apply even though personnel are 

providing special education and related services to students with disabilities in a correctional 

facility. Accordingly, the SEA must: (1) establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that those 

personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of the IDEA are appropriately and adequately 

prepared and trained, including that those personnel have the content knowledge and skills to 

serve students with disabilities (34 CFR §300.156(a)); (2) ensure that qualifications of related 

services personnel and paraprofessionals are consistent with any State-approved or Staterecognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to 

the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related 

services (34 CFR §300.156(b)); and (3) ensure that each person employed as a public school 

special education teacher in the State is “highly qualified” (34 CFR §§300.18 and 300.156(c)).

Child Find 

The SEA must have child find policies and procedures in effect that ensure that all age-eligible 

students with disabilities, including those in correctional facilities, who are in need of special 

education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated, regardless of the severity of 

their disability (34 CFR §300.111(a)(1)(i)).20 To meet these requirements, we strongly encourage 

SEAs to develop child find policies and procedures that address the unique challenges associated 

with identifying students with disabilities in correctional facilities. For example, State child find 

policies and procedures frequently focus on teachers and staff in traditional schools, as well as 

the local medical community. State child find policies and procedures should also include those 

 

19 In addition, as the IDEA, Part B grantee, each State must provide auditors and Department officials with access to 

financial and programmatic records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other records under program 

regulations or the grant agreement, and maintain such records and documents to facilitate an audit and to 

demonstrate compliance with program requirements (34 CFR §§76.730 through 76.731). See also 2 CFR 

200.302(b)(3).

20 However, there is no obligation for States to identify and evaluate those students with disabilities in adult 

correctional facilities for whom the State is otherwise not required to provide FAPE.
9

individuals in the community who come in contact with students in the juvenile justice system, 

including intake staff, social workers, probation officers, truant officers, police, and medical and 

mental health professionals who treat students in correctional facilities, as well as other staff in 

the juvenile justice system and in correctional facilities. 

Surrogate Parents

In circumstances where the appointment of a surrogate parent is necessary, as described in 

34 CFR §300.519(a), the SEA must make reasonable efforts to ensure the assignment of a 

qualified surrogate parent not more than 30 days after a public agency determines that the 

student needs a surrogate parent. The surrogate parent may represent the student in all matters

relating to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the student, and the 

provision of FAPE. The surrogate parent must meet the knowledge, skills, impartiality, and other 

required criteria described in the IDEA and its implementing regulations. 34 CFR §300.519(d), 

(g), and (h). 

Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority

The IDEA permits, but does not require, a State to transfer all rights accorded to parents under 

the IDEA to students who are in an adult or juvenile, State or local correctional facility when the 

student with a disability reaches the age of majority under State law, unless the student has been 

determined to be incompetent under State law (34 CFR §300.520). Once a student reaches the 

age of majority, questions regarding guardianship as an adult may arise. As a best practice, it is 

advisable for students, families, and the IEP Team to consider alternatives to guardianship first, 

in order to preserve a young person’s legal independence to the maximum extent possible. 

State Advisory Panel

To implement the supports and interventions needed by students with disabilities entering, 

attending classes, and exiting the corrections system, requires significant collaboration and 

communication across agencies. The State Advisory Panel (SAP) is in a position to advise on 

such matters, particularly since it must include representatives from the State juvenile and adult 

corrections agencies, and other agencies involved in the financing or delivery of services to 

students with disabilities (34 CFR §300.168). As an advisory body, the SAP can work to address 

concerns regarding interagency record sharing, coordinated efforts between agencies, shared 

databases, and other related activities.21

Responsibilities of Public Agencies, Including LEAs, Correctional Facilities, and 

Noneducational Public Agencies, to Ensure a Free Appropriate Public Education 

As noted above, in Responsibility for Ensuring FAPE in Correctional Facilities, States have 

different methods for assigning responsibility for FAPE for students with disabilities in 

 

21 For further information regarding collaborative efforts to support youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice 

system, see http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/addressing-the-unmet-educational-needs-of-children-andyouth-in-the-juvenile-justice-and-child-welfare-systems-2/
10

correctional facilities. In some cases, the correctional facility is itself an LEA or is a 

noneducational public agency with the responsibility for FAPE. For the purposes of this letter, 

we refer to public agency or LEA interchangeably when discussing specific responsibilities. 

However, these requirements apply to any public agency, LEA, correctional facility, and 

noneducational public agency responsible for providing FAPE to children with disabilities in 

correctional facilities. 

FAPE and Transfer of Records 

The rules governing the responsibility for FAPE in connection to students with IEPs who transfer 

from one public agency to another apply when a student with a disability is in a correctional 

facility and the responsibility for the provision of FAPE transfers from one public agency 

(generally an LEA) to another public agency (generally another LEA that is, or includes, the 

correctional facility).

22

 All agencies involved must have policies and procedures that ensure that 

the education records of students with disabilities who move to, and from, correctional facilities

are transferred as expeditiously as possible. 

The failure of a public agency to obtain educational records promptly can interfere with the 

student’s ability to receive FAPE and to receive credits towards graduation. Therefore, it is 

critical that public agencies and correctional facilities have systems in place to ensure 

compliance with the transmittal of records requirements in 34 CFR §300.323(g). Public agencies 

are encouraged to assign specific staff the responsibility to work with correctional staff to 

promptly transfer education records to facilitate the student’s timely connection to educational or 

training activities. 

The new public agency in which the student enrolls must take reasonable steps to promptly 

obtain the student’s records (including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records 

relating to the provision of special education or related services to the student) from the previous 

public agency in which the student was enrolled, pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA)23 (34 CFR §300.323(g)). The previous public agency in which the student 

 

22 If a student with a disability (who had an IEP that was in effect in a previous public agency in the same State) 

transfers to a new public agency in the same State, and enrolls in a new school within the same school year, the new 

public agency (in consultation with the parents) must provide FAPE to the student (including services comparable to 

those described in the student’s IEP from the previous public agency), until the new public agency either: (1) adopts 

the student’s IEP from the previous public agency; or (2) develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that meets the 

applicable requirements in 34 CFR §§300.320 through 300.324 (34 CFR §300.323(e)). If a student with a disability 

(who had an IEP that was in effect in a previous public agency in another State) is moved to a correctional facility in 

a new State within the same school year, the new public agency (in consultation with the parents) must provide the 

student with FAPE (including services comparable to those described in the student’s IEP from the previous public 

agency), until the new public agency: (1) conducts an evaluation pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.306 (if 

determined to be necessary by the new public agency); and (2) develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP, if 

appropriate, that meets the applicable requirements in 34 CFR §§300.320 through 300.324 (34 CFR §300.323(f)).

23 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99, generally requires 

that school districts and schools obtain the prior written consent of a parent or eligible student (i.e., a student 18 

years of age or older or enrolled in a postsecondary institution) before disclosing personally identifiable information 

from education records; however, there are a number of exceptions to this prior consent requirement. The IDEA also 

contains confidentiality of information provisions that require prior written consent for disclosure of personally 
11

was enrolled must take reasonable steps to promptly respond to the request from the new public 

agency (34 CFR §300.323(g)(2)).24 In addition, the parent of a student with a disability may 

provide a copy of the IEP directly to the new public agency. 

However, if, after taking reasonable steps, the new public agency is not able to obtain the IEP from 

the parent or from the previous public agency, the new public agency must, at a minimum, place 

the student in the regular school program, conduct an evaluation, and make an eligibility 

determination pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.306, if the new public agency 

determines an evaluation is necessary (34 CFR §300.323(f)(1)). Although the new public agency 

is not required to provide special education and related services to the student because it would be 

unable to determine what constitutes comparable services for the student without an IEP from the 

previous public agency, excluding the student from all educational services is not permissible. 

Moreover, even if the new public agency is unable to obtain the student’s IEP from the previous 

public agency, if the new public agency decides that an evaluation is necessary because it has 

reason to suspect that the student has a disability, nothing in the IDEA or its implementing 

regulations would prevent the agency from providing special education services to the student 

while the evaluation is pending, subject to an agreement between the parent and the agency.25

Child Find and Evaluations

LEAs are responsible for implementing the SEA’s child find policies. It is not sufficient to 

assume that a student that enters a correctional facility is not a student with a disability simply 

because he or she has not yet been identified as such. Therefore, LEAs should work with 

individuals who are most likely to come into contact with students in the juvenile justice system 

(see Child Find above) to identify students suspected of having a disability and ensure that a 

timely referral for an evaluation is made. To determine if a student has a disability, a parent or a 

public agency may initiate a request for an evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation of a student 

suspected of having a disability must occur once parental consent has been obtained even if the 

student will not be in the facility long enough to complete the process. 

Generally, the IDEA requires completion of initial evaluations within 60 days of receiving 

parental consent for the evaluation or within the State-established time frame 

 

identifiable information from education records and that generally incorporate the FERPA exceptions to the prior 

consent requirement. 20 U.S.C. 1417(c) and 34 CFR §300.622. The FERPA exception to the prior consent 

requirement that would be most relevant to a school district’s or school’s disclosure of education records of students 

who are entering a correctional facility is in 34 CFR §§99.31(a)(2) and 99.34 of FERPA regulations, which permits 

schools and school districts that are subject to FERPA to disclose personally identifiable information from education 

records without prior written consent to officials of another school or school district, including a school or school 

district run by a juvenile justice agency, where a student is enrolled, or seeks or intends to enroll, so long as the 

disclosure is for purposes related to the student’s enrollment or transfer. See 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf for further clarification regarding the IDEA and FERPA 

confidentiality provisions and the transmission of education records to the correctional facility.

24 See Reentry Myth Buster on Student Records, Federal Interagency Reentry Council, June 2013.

http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Student-Records.pdf

25 See Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations.

Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C3%2C
12

(34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (procedures for initial evaluation) and 34 CFR §300.9 (definition of 

consent)). In addition, it is important to note that assessments and other evaluation materials 

used to assess a student must be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a 

racial or cultural basis and must be provided and administered in the student’s native language or 

other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information, unless it 

is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer (34 CFR §300.304(c)(1)(i) and (ii)).

If the student is transferred to a correctional facility in the same school year, in the same State or 

in a different State, after the previous LEA has begun but has not completed the evaluation, both 

public agencies must ensure that assessments are coordinated to ensure completion of the 

evaluation. This must occur as necessary and as expeditiously as possible 

(34 CFR §300.304(c)(5)). However, the relevant time frame does not apply when the following 

two conditions are present: (1) the new school district is making sufficient progress to ensure 

prompt completion of the evaluation; and (2) the parent and new school district agree to a 

specific time when the evaluation will be completed (34 CFR §300.301(d)(2) and (e)). As noted 

in FAPE and Transfer of Records above, 34 CFR §300.323(g) requires public agencies to take 

reasonable steps to promptly exchange relevant records when a child transfers to a new public 

agency and enrolls in a new school in the same school year, subject to FERPA. Relevant records 

could include existing evaluation data on the child, consistent with 34 CFR §300.305. Prompt 

exchange of any relevant records avoids duplicating previously conducted evaluations, and 

provides critical data to the new public agency to ensure the timely completion of the

evaluation.26

Personnel Qualifications and Training

The public agency must ensure that all personnel necessary to fulfill the requirements of the 

IDEA are appropriately and adequately prepared, subject to the requirements of 

34 CFR §300.156, relating to personnel qualifications (34 CFR §300.207).27 Public agencies 

should consider including noneducational correctional staff in professional development 

activities regarding the IDEA, including positive behavioral interventions and supports and 

discipline procedures, and provide opportunities for discussions across agency staff regarding 

any problems students with disabilities may experience in correctional facilities. 

Individualized Education Programs 

All of the IEP content requirements apply to students with disabilities in correctional facilities 

(34 CFR §300.320),28 including, but not limited to, a statement of: (1) the student’s present levels 

 

26 See Office of Special Education Programs’ Dear Colleague Letter on Education for Highly Mobile Children, July 

19, 2013, for a more thorough discussion of IDEA requirements applicable when students transfer.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/12-0392dclhighlymobile.pdf

27 See the Personnel Qualifications section discussed above.

28 In States that have opted to make available FAPE to students with disabilities convicted as an adult under State 

law and incarcerated in an adult prison, the LEA may modify an IEP for such a student if the State has demonstrated 

a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated (34 CFR 

§300.324(d)(2)).
13

of academic achievement and functional performance (IEP Teams need to have the student’s 

academic and other school records in order to determine the student’s present levels of 

achievement and performance); (2) measurable annual academic and functional goals; and (3) the 

special education and related services and supplementary aids and services that will be provided to 

the student to enable him or her to advance appropriately toward attaining his or her IEP goals and 

to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum (the general education 

curriculum is the same curriculum provided to students without disabilities in the State). 

When a student with an existing IEP from another public agency arrives in a correctional facility 

in the same State, the facility either must implement the existing IEP or hold an IEP Team 

meeting to modify the contents of the IEP (34 CFR §300.323(e)). If a student with an existing 

IEP from another public agency arrives in a correctional facility in a different State, the new 

public agency either must conduct its own evaluation and make a new eligibility determination

pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.304-300.306, if determined to be necessary by the new public agency, 

or develop and implement a new IEP for the student (34 CFR §300.323(f)). However, as an 

initial matter, the new public agency, in consultation with the parents, must provide the student

FAPE (including services comparable to those described in the student’s IEP from the prior 

public agency) in accordance with 34 CFR §300.323(e) or (f), as appropriate.

When developing or modifying an IEP for a student in a correctional facility, IEP Teams should 

consider whether there has been an interruption in the provision of special education and related 

services during the student’s transfer to the correctional facility, and how the break in services 

has affected the type or amount of special education and related services needed to provide FAPE 

to the student. In addition, the special factors that the IEP Team must consider in developing, 

reviewing, and revising the IEP of each student with a disability are particularly relevant to 

students with disabilities in correctional facilities. Among these special factors is the 

requirement for the IEP Team to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and 

supports and other strategies to address behavior in the case of a student whose behavior impedes 

his or her learning or the learning of others (34 CFR §300.324(b)(2)). Appropriate 

implementation of these positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to 

address behavior should ensure that the student is able to benefit from his or her educational 

program in the correctional facility, and hasten the student’s transition from the facility and reentry into the community. 

Students identified with a disability either before or during incarceration in a correctional facility, 

who: (1) did not transfer to the correctional facility with an IEP; or (2) were not attending or 

enrolled in school at the time of incarceration, must have a meeting to develop an IEP within 30 

days of the determination that the student needs special education and related services 

(34 CFR §300.323(c)(1)).29 As soon as possible following the development of the IEP, the public 

agency must make available special education and related services to the student

 

29 Please see fn. 11 for a discussion of the responsibility to make FAPE available to students with disabilities aged 

18 through 21 in adult correctional facilities
14

(34 CFR §300.323(c)(2)). IEP Teams should pay particular attention to those related services 

that are likely to be required for students in correctional facilities -- for example, counseling, 

parent counseling and training, psychological services, transportation, and social work services 

in schools (34 CFR §300.34(c)(2), (c)(8), (c)(10), (c)(14), and (c)(16)). 

Least Restrictive Environment

The IDEA emphasizes the importance of educating students with disabilities in regular classes 

and in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities with nondisabled students to the 

maximum extent appropriate (34 CFR §§300.114, 300.117, and 300.320(a)(4) and (5)). 

Therefore, each public agency must ensure that special classes, separate schooling, or other 

removal of students with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when 

the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of 

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (34 CFR §300.114(a)(2)). If a 

determination is made that a student with a disability cannot be educated satisfactorily in the 

regular educational environment, even with the provision of appropriate supplementary aids and 

services, that student then could be placed in a setting other than the regular educational setting. 

Placement decisions must be made on an individual basis by a group of persons, including the 

parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data,

and the placement options (34 CFR §300.116(a)). In addition, the IEP must also include an 

explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with nondisabled 

students in the regular classroom or in extracurricular or other nonacademic activities 

(34 CFR §300.320(a)(5)). 

Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet 

the needs of students with disabilities for special education and related services 

(34 CFR §300.115). These options must be available to the extent necessary to implement the 

student’s IEP. Any alternative placement selected for the student outside of the regular education 

environment (education with nondisabled peers) must maximize opportunities for the student to 

interact with nondisabled peers, to the extent appropriate to the needs of the student. 

Accordingly, IEP Teams must make individualized placement decisions, and may not routinely 

place all students with disabilities in correctional facilities in classes that include only students 

with disabilities, even if this means creating a placement that is appropriate for the student, 

through methods such as having special education and general education teachers co-teach in the 

regular classroom (34 CFR §§300.116(a) and (b)). 

Secondary Transition

There are inherent difficulties associated with reentry from a correctional facility to home or 

another community environment. Therefore, it is particularly important that public agencies 

comply with the IDEA requirements related to secondary transition (34 CFR §300.320(b)).30 

 

30 Transition services requirements are not applicable to students with disabilities in adult prisons and to students 

whose eligibility for IDEA services will end, because of their age, before they will be eligible to be released from 

prison based on consideration of their sentence and eligibility for early release (34 CFR §300.324(d)(1)(ii)).
15

Accordingly, beginning no later than the first IEP to be in effect when the student turns 16 (or 

younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team), and updated annually thereafter, the IEP 

must include: (1) appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate 

transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, 

independent living skills; and (2) the transition services (including courses of study) needed to 

assist the student in reaching those goals. In addition, the public agency must invite the student 

with a disability to attend the student’s IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the 

consideration of the postsecondary goals for the student and the transition services needed to 

assist the student in reaching those goals, as required in 34 CFR §300.321(b).31 If the student 

does not attend the IEP Team meeting, the public agency must take other steps to ensure that the 

student's preferences and interests are considered. Moreover, to the extent appropriate, with the 

consent of the parents or a student who has reached the age of majority, the public agency must 

invite a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or 

paying for transition services (34 CFR §300.321(b)(1)–(3)). Finally, beginning not later than one 

year before the student reaches the age of majority under State law, the IEP must document that 

the student has been informed of the student's rights under the IDEA, if any, that will transfer to 

the student on reaching the age of majority under 34 CFR §300.520 (34 CFR §300.320(c)).

Due Process Protections

All of the due process protections under the IDEA extend to eligible students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities and their parents. Parents remain required members of the IEP and 

placement teams and retain all rights under IDEA, Part B unless a court has limited their rights or 

parental rights have transferred to the student at the age of majority. A parent who disagrees with 

the public agency on matters arising under the IDEA, including matters arising prior to the filing 

of a due process complaint, must have the opportunity to resolve the dispute through the 

mediation process described in 34 CFR §300.506 (34 CFR §300.500). In addition, a parent has 

the right to file a due process complaint to request a due process hearing on any matter relating to 

the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student, or the provision of FAPE 

to the student, in accordance with procedures in 34 CFR §§300.507 through 300.518 

(34 CFR §300.507(a)(1)). If a student has been assigned a surrogate parent, the due process 

rights that are available to parents are afforded to the surrogate parent, and the prior written 

notice and procedural safeguards notice must be provided to the surrogate parent (34 CFR 

300.519(g)). Similarly, the surrogate parent may utilize mediation or exercise due process rights 

on behalf of the student or themselves. (See Parental Engagement below for a discussion of 

affording parents prior written notices in the native language of the parent or other mode of 

communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.)

 

31 Students with disabilities in correctional facilities should already be participating as a member of the IEP Team, 

where appropriate (34 CFR §300.321(a)(7)). Because students with disabilities in a correctional facility are 

physically in the facility where the IEP Team is likely to be meeting, absent a significant medical or security 

concern that cannot be accommodated, the student should be participating as a member of the IEP Team, as such 

participation is likely to improve the student’s cooperation and should assist the IEP Team in identifying the special 

education and related services that must be included in the IEP.
16

Discipline Procedures

Any exclusion from the classroom is particularly harmful for students with disabilities in 

correctional facilities because they often have already lost instructional time due to their 

involvement in the juvenile justice system. Collaboration between the correctional facility and 

the public agency responsible for FAPE, if different, is essential to minimize behavioral incidents 

and avoid disciplinary exclusions from school. For students whose behavior impedes the 

student’s learning, or that of others, the IEP Team must consider, behavioral intervention 

strategies, including the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, when developing 

the initial IEP, or modifying an existing IEP, so as to reduce the need for discipline of students 

with disabilities (34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(i)). Public agencies cannot avoid their IDEA 

obligations, including the discipline procedures, by contracting, transferring them to, or sharing 

them with another agency.32 Therefore, we expect that correctional facilities will not use 

discipline methods that deprive eligible students with disabilities of FAPE.

A student with a disability in a correctional facility who violates a code of student conduct is 

entitled to the protections that must be afforded to all students with disabilities related to 

discipline procedures, including those related to a change of placement, manifestation 

determination, and provision of services beginning with the 11th cumulative day of removal in a 

school year (34 CFR §§300.530 through 300.536).33 These disciplinary protections apply 

regardless of whether a student is subject to discipline in the facility or removed to restricted 

settings, such as confinement to the student’s cell or living quarters or “lockdown” units. In any 

event, a removal that results in a denial of educational services for more than 10 consecutive 

school days, or a series of removals that constitute a pattern that total more than 10 school days 

in a school year, is a change in placement, which, in turn, requires a manifestation determination 

in accordance with 34 CFR §300.530(e).34

 

32 Statement of Interest for the United States, G.F. v. Contra Costa County, No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal.) 

(filed Feb. 13, 2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/contracosta_soi_2-13-14.pdf.

33 Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); see also Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Questions 

and Answers on Discipline Procedures, June 2009, 

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C7%2C for a detailed discussion of the 

discipline procedures applicable to children with disabilities, including the requirements related to functional 

behavioral assessments in 34 CFR §300.530(d)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(i). 

34 Under 34 CFR §300.536, a change of placement because of disciplinary removals occurs if the removal from the 

child’s current educational placement is for more than 10 consecutive school days, or if the public agency

determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a pattern of removals constitutes a change of placement because the series 

of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year; the student’s behavior is substantially similar to the 

behavior that resulted in the previous removals; and because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, 

the total amount of time the student has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another. The public 

agency may consider any unique circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, when determining whether a pattern of 

removals constitutes a change in placement under 34 CFR §300.536 (34 CFR §300.530(a)). The Department 

believes that “unique circumstances” are best determined at the local level by school personnel who know the 

individual child and are familiar with the facts and circumstances regarding a child’s behavior. “Factors such as a 

child’s disciplinary history, ability to understand consequences, expression of remorse, and supports provided ... 

prior to the violation of a school code [of student conduct] could be unique circumstances considered by school 

personnel when determining whether a disciplinary change in placement is appropriate for a child with a disability.”

71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46714 (Aug 14, 2006).
17

Each time a student with a disability in a correctional facility is removed from his or her current 

educational placement for more than 10 consecutive school days, or each time that the public 

agency determines that a series of removals constitutes a change of placement, the public agency 

must: (1) provide services to the student as provided for in 34 CFR §300.530(d) to enable the 

student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting 

and to progress toward meeting the goals in the student’s IEP; and (2) conduct, as appropriate, a 

functional behavioral assessment and provide behavioral intervention services and modifications, 

that are designed to address the behavioral violation so that it does not recur 

(34 CFR §300.530(d)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)). In addition, within 10 school days of any decision to 

change the placement of a student with a disability because of a violation of a code of student 

conduct, the LEA, parent, and relevant members of the student’s IEP Team must conduct a 

manifestation determination (34 CFR §300.530(e)). Specifically, an IEP Team is required to 

hold a manifestation determination to determine whether the student’s conduct in question was 

caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability, or if the conduct 

in question was the direct result of the failure to implement the IEP. It is particularly important 

for IEP Teams to review carefully whether the student has, in fact, received the special education 

and related services that are provided in the student’s IEP when making this determination, as the 

failure to implement an IEP may be more common in some correctional facilities than in 

traditional schools.

Parental Engagement 

Parental35 engagement in a student’s education is particularly important when a student with a 

disability is in a correctional facility. Parents who remain involved with their child’s education 

while the student is in a correctional facility will be better equipped to provide needed support to 

the student when he or she exits the facility and returns to the community and/or school. Unless 

the State has opted to transfer parental rights at the age of majority under 34 CFR §300.520(a) 

(see Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority, above), parents do not lose their rights under 

the IDEA when their child is placed in a correctional facility, even if the student has been 

convicted as an adult and incarcerated in an adult prison. 

Parents of students in correctional facilities are entitled to receive all “prior written notice” and 

procedural safeguards notice documents, as required by 34 CFR §§300.503, 300.504, and 

300.520(a)(1)(i). The LEA or other responsible public agency must provide the parents with a 

prior written notice, in accordance with 34 CFR §300.503, a reasonable time before the public 

agency proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational 

placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child. These notices must 

be written in language understandable to the general public and provided in the native language 

 

35 The definition of parent is in 34 CFR §300.30.
18

of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible 

to do so (34 CFR §300.503(c)(1)).36 

Furthermore, correctional facilities may not assume the role of a parent under the IDEA, and 

therefore may not, for example, provide or refuse consent for a student’s initial evaluation or 

reevaluation, or provide, refuse, or revoke consent for services under the IDEA or serve as the 

parent on an IEP Team. It may be difficult for some parents to participate in person in IEP Team 

meetings if the correctional facility is not located near the parent’s residence. Nevertheless, the 

parent participation requirements in 34 CFR §300.322 are fully applicable to public agencies that 

are responsible for educating students with disabilities in correctional facilities.37 See footnote 

18 for further discussion regarding use of video conferences and conference calls. 

In many States, the public agency with the responsibility for the appointment of a surrogate 

parent is the LEA. In carrying out this responsibility, the LEA must have a method for 

determining whether a student needs a surrogate parent and for assigning a surrogate parent to 

the student (34 CFR §300.519(b)). The IDEA also permits a judge overseeing the case of a 

student who is a ward of the State to appoint a surrogate parent (34 CFR §300.519(c)). A 

surrogate parent must meet certain requirements, including that the individual not be an 

employee of the SEA, the LEA, or any other agency that is involved in the education or care of 

the student (34 CFR §300.519(d) and (e)). However, public agencies must not assume that all 

students with disabilities in correctional facilities need a surrogate parent. Rather, a surrogate 

parent acts in place of a student’s parent only when: (1) the parent cannot be identified; (2) the 

parent cannot be located after reasonable efforts; (3) the student is a ward of the State under the 

laws of that State; or (4) the student is an unaccompanied or homeless youth, as defined in 

section 725(6) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §11434(a)(6)) 

(34 CFR §300.519(a)). 

If parental rights transfer to students with disabilities who have reached the age of majority under 

State law (except for a student with a disability determined to be incompetent under State law), 

the public agency must provide any notices required by the IDEA, Part B regulations to both the 

student and the parents, and all rights accorded to parents under IDEA, Part B transfer to the 

student (34 CFR §§300.320(c) and 300.520(a)(3)). Therefore, it is important that public agencies 

 

36 If the native language or other mode of communication of the parent is not a written language, the public agency 

must take steps to ensure: (1) that the notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native 

language or other mode of communication; (2) that the parent understands the content of the notice; and (3) that 

there is written evidence that these requirements have been met. (34 CFR §300.503(c)(2)).

37 If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the LEA or other responsible public agency must use other 

methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls consistent with §300.328 

(related to alternative means of meeting participation) (34 CFR §300.322(c)), and the public agency must maintain 

required documentation when the IEP Team meeting is conducted without either parent in attendance if the public 

agency is unable to convince the parent to attend (34 CFR §300.322(d)). Moreover, the public agency must take 

whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parents understand IEP Team meeting proceedings, including 

arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English (34 CFR 

§300.322(e)).
19

are aware of the applicable law in their State governing whether parental rights transfer and 

provide the required notices to the student and his or her parents. 

Reentry Considerations 

Reentry services promote the effective reintegration of students back to communities upon 

release from correctional facilities. Evidence strongly supports the notion that juvenile 

offenders, both with and without disabilities, are significantly more likely to experience 

successful reentry into their home schools and communities if appropriate programs and supports 

are in place and discussed with the student prior to his or her release.

38

 Many experts in the field 

recommend a comprehensive approach to reentry that includes individualized reentry plans, 

vocational and life skills training, behavior management systems and direct academic instruction. 

Reentry planning supports the successful reentry of students into their communities and includes 

information about State reentry options that may include the student’s school prior to 

commitment in the correctional facility, charter schools, virtual schools, evening schools, adult 

education programs, community colleges, alternative schools for students with specific needs, 

schools with a dual focus on diploma/GED and career and technical education, and dual 

enrollment high/school/college programs. Informing students of their options is an important 

part of the reentry process. Methods to disseminate information regarding reentry options may 

include: (1) home visits; (2) information sharing between schools; (3) collaboration with 

community-based organizations; (4) school expos/reengagement fairs; 

(5) reengagement/transition centers; (6) print and electronic media; (7) collaboration with 

probation and parole practitioners from both public and private sectors; and (8) community wide 

campaigns.39 The IDEA’s requirements related to parental engagement, records sharing among 

public agencies, and transition planning, discussed above, complement these efforts. 

On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice issued a 

letter addressing the Administration’s efforts related to the education of students in juvenile 

facilities. The letter includes information on Title I, Part D of the ESEA, which is administered 

by the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and, among other matters, 

includes requirements that support juvenile correctional education and reentry. We are providing 

a copy of that letter and its enclosure with this letter to ensure that you and your staff are aware 

of this information and the resources available on this topic. 

 

38 Reentry Programs for Students with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System: Four State Approaches, National 

Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), December 2011. See also National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for resources related to reentry.

http://www.crimesolutions.gov/TopicDetails.aspx?ID=2

39 For further information regarding strategies to reenroll youth with disabilities after exiting the correctional system, 

see Reentry Programs for Out of School Youth with Disabilities, Julia Wilkins, National Drop Out Center for 

Students with Disabilities, July 2011, and A Reentry Education Model Supporting Education and Career 

Advancement for Low-Skill Individuals in Corrections at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/reentry-model.pdf. For information regarding funding 

opportunities for reentry programs, see http://www.ojjdp.gov/funding/FundingList.asp
20

Conclusion

The Department is committed to supporting all students in our nation’s schools, including 

correctional facilities, to achieve positive educational outcomes. Ensuring that students in 

correctional facilities are receiving a high quality education will have a clear, positive effect in 

reducing recidivism and increasing post-release success in higher education, employment, and 

other life endeavors. Providing FAPE to students with disabilities in correctional facilities is not 

only required by law; it is critically important to ensuring successful outcomes. 

The Department strongly encourages SEAs, LEAs, and other public agencies, and correctional 

facilities serving students with disabilities to review their policies, procedures, and practices to 

verify that they are in compliance with IDEA requirements with a focus on improved educational 

outcomes for these students. SEAs and LEAs must, as part of their monitoring responsibilities, 

ensure that identified noncompliance is timely corrected. 34 CFR §300.600(e). We encourage 

SEAs and LEAs and other stakeholders to review the resources enclosed with this letter. We 

look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that all students with disabilities, 

including students with disabilities in correctional facilities, have access to high-quality 

educational services. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Office of Special Education Programs

Education Program Specialists, Dr. Curtis Kinnard at 202-245-7472 or Curtis.Kinnard@ed.gov

or Dr. Tony G. Williams at 202-245-7577 or TonyG.Williams@ed.gov. 

Thank you for your support and your continued interest in improving results and ensuring equal 

access to educational services for students with disabilities. 

Sincerely,

/s/ /s/

Melody Musgrove, Ed.D.

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Michael K. Yudin

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

Enclosures
21

RESOURCES

U.S. Department of Education

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved November 18, 2014 from 

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C

Joint letter to Chief State School Officers and State Attorneys General with Attorney General 

Eric Holder regarding educational support for youth in the juvenile justice system, June 9, 2014. 

Retrieved July 11, 2014 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/140609.html 

IDEA and FERPA Confidentiality Provisions. June 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014 from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf

Office of Special Education Programs Memorandum and Questions and Answers on Dispute 

Resolution, July 23, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/acccombinedosersdisputeresolutionqaf

inalmemo-7-23-13.pdf

Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and 

Reevaluations, September 2011. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from 

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C3%2C

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, June 2009. Retrieved November 18, 2014 

from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C7%2C 

Dear Colleague Letter on Education for Highly Mobile Children, July 19, 2013. Retrieved 

November 18, 2014 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/12-

0392dclhighlymobile.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/juveniles.php

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section. 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/.

Statement of Interest of the United States, G.F. v. Contra Costa Cnty., No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014). http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/contracosta_soi_2-13-

14.pdf