UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR

November 17, 2021
OSEP Policy 21-02

XXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXX:
This letter addresses your correspondence to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
regarding questions related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA’s) dispute
resolution requirements. Specifically, you ask a series of questions about whether a local
educational agency (LEA) may file a due process hearing complaint against a parent to override
the parent’s refusal to consent to a change in the child’s individualized education program (IEP)
or placement. You also ask whether a parent has met the exhaustion requirements under IDEA if
a hearing officer determines that a State educational agency (SEA) is not a proper party to a due
process hearing. We regret the delay in responding.
We note that section 607(d) of the IDEA prohibits the Secretary of the Department from issuing
policy letters or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance with, and
eligibility under, IDEA without following the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based on the requirements of IDEA section 607(e),
this response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding. It represents an
interpretation by the Department of the requirements of IDEA in the context of the specific facts
presented and does not establish a policy or rule that would apply in all circumstances. Other
than statutory and regulatory requirements included in the document, the contents of this
guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public. This
document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under
the law or agency policies.
In the situation you describe, the LEA filed a due process complaint to request a due process
hearing after a parent refused to consent to an LEA’s proposed change to the child’s IEP or
placement. After receipt of the parent’s consent for the initial provision of special education and
related services, IDEA does not require the public agency to obtain the parent’s consent to make
subsequent changes to a child’s IEP or educational placement. However, under IDEA, a State
may adopt additional parental consent requirements, other than those specifically set out by the
IDEA at 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(a) - (c), if it ensures that each public agency in the State establishes
and implements effective procedures to ensure that a parent’s refusal to consent does not result in
a failure to provide the child with FAPE. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(d)(2).

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

In Massachusetts, the State has enacted an additional consent requirement which states:
603 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 28:07: Parent Involvement
(1) Parental consent. In accordance with state and federal law, each school district shall
obtain informed parental consent as follows:
(a) The school district shall obtain written parental consent before conducting an initial
evaluation or making an initial placement of a student in a special education program
under 603 F 28.00. Written parental consent shall be obtained before conducting a
reevaluation and before placing a student in a special education placement subsequent to
the initial placement in special education…
(b) If, subsequent to initial evaluation and initial placement and after following the
procedures required by 603 CMR 28.00, the school district is unable to obtain parental
consent to a reevaluation or to placement in a special education program subsequent to
the initial placement, or the parent revokes consent to such reevaluation or placement, the
school district shall consider with the parent whether such action will result in the denial
of a free appropriate public education to the student. If, after consideration, the school
district determines that the parent’s failure or refusal to consent will result in a denial of a
free appropriate public education to the student, it shall seek resolution of the dispute
through the procedures provided in 603 CMR 28.08. Participation by the parent in such
consideration shall be voluntary and the failure or refusal of the parent to participate shall
not preclude the school district from taking appropriate action pursuant to 603 CMR
28.08 to resolve the dispute. This provision shall not apply if the parent has revoked
consent to all special education and related services as provided in 603 CMR
28.07(1)(a)(4). See 603 CMR 28.07(1)(b).
This State provision requires LEAs to obtain parental consent prior to a implementing a change
in placement. Further, Massachusetts also requires LEAs to determine whether the parent’s
refusal to consent to the proposed action will result in a denial of a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) to the child, and if so, to seek dispute resolution to prevent a potential denial
of FAPE. If an LEA determines that a parent’s refusal to consent to a change in the child’s IEP
or placement will result in a denial of FAPE, the LEA’s filing of a due process complaint to
address that issue would be consistent with IDEA. Under IDEA, a parent or a public agency may
file a due process complaint “on any of the matters described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a)(1) and
(2) (relating to the…educational placement of the child with a disability, or the provision of
FAPE to the child).” 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(1). This authority, in our view, is broad enough to
include situations where a parent refuses to consent to the LEA’s proposed change in educational
placement and the LEA determines that FAPE will be denied absent such consent. Additionally,
as noted above, 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(d)(2) requires that when a State enacts an additional
parental consent requirement, like the one at issue here, it must ensure that all public agencies in
the State establish procedures to ensure that a parent’s refusal to consent does not result in a
failure to provide the child with FAPE. Those procedures may include the filing of a due process
complaint. See OSEP’s September 20, 1991, Letter to Williams.
You also ask whether the LEA must cite a violation of IDEA in its due process complaint,
pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(2), which states, “… the due process complaint must allege a

violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew
or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due process complaint,
or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for filing a due process complaint under this part, in
the time allowed by that State law, except that the exceptions to the timeline described in 34
C.F.R. § 300.511(f) apply to the timeline in this section.” This provision references the statute of
limitations for filing a due process hearing complaint, which is set out at 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(e)
and in turn refers to the “alleged action” that forms the basis of the complaint. When 34 C.F.R. §
300.511(e) is read together with 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(1) and (2), we believe that the alleged
action in this factual scenario generally would be the parent’s refusal to consent to the proposed
change in placement which then resulted in the LEA’s determination that FAPE will be denied
absent such consent.
Finally, you discuss a due process complaint to request a due process hearing, in what appears to
be a one-tier hearing system, that initially included the SEA as a party, and specifically ask how
the hearing officer’s dismissal of the SEA from the hearing proceedings impacts the IDEA
exhaustion requirements. As you noted, the hearing officer’s authority in such situations was
addressed in OSEP’s February 15, 2012 verification letter to the State of New Mexico and
enclosure. That letter states that a parent may file a due process complaint against an SEA and
the hearing officer has the authority to determine, based on the individual facts and
circumstances of the case, whether the SEA is a proper party to the due process hearing. This
was also addressed in a January 2, 2017 letter as well as the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services' Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures
(July 23, 2013), Question C-17, which states: “[u]nder the IDEA, hearing officers have complete
authority to determine the sufficiency of all due process complaints filed and to determine
jurisdiction of issues raised in due process complaints consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.508(d)
and 300.513.” The exhaustion provisions authorize a party aggrieved by the hearing officer’s
decision to either request a State-level review, in a State with a two-tier hearing system, or, in a
one-tier system, to bring a civil action in an appropriate State or Federal court. See 34 C.F.R. §§
300.514(d) and 300.516(a). In the scenario that you describe, a hearing officer’s final written or,
at the option of the parents, electronic findings of fact and decision to dismiss a party from the
due process action would generally satisfy IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Pagano at
Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
David Cantrell, PhD
Acting Director


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR

November 15, 2021

OSEP Policy Letter 21-03
Timothy Boals, PhD
Founder and Director
WIDA
1025 West Johnson Street, MD#23
Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1706
Dear Dr. Boals:
This letter is in response to your correspondence to former Secretary Betsy DeVos. In your letter,
you seek written guidance and clarification from the U.S. Department of Education (Department)
on issues affecting English learners with disabilities. You referred to research released in 2018
that indicated that English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities are not always
receiving the supports they need to be successful. Your letter also states that you routinely hear
from educators around the country that they lack the necessary guidance to provide both
language development and disability services for their English learners with disabilities. You ask
two specific questions, which we address below.
We note that section 607(d) of the IDEA prohibits the Secretary of the Department from issuing
policy letters or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance with, and
eligibility under, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) without following the
rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based
on the requirements of IDEA section 607(e), this response is provided as informal guidance and
is not legally binding. It represents an interpretation by the Department of the requirements of
IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented and does not establish a policy or rule that
would apply in all circumstances. Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in
the document, such as those pursuant to the authorizing statute and other applicable laws and
regulations, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not
meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the
public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. In addition, it does not
create or confer any rights for or on any person.
In 2017-18, 680,601 students, ages 6-21, served under Part B of IDEA, were English learners,
which represents 11.31 percent of all students with disabilities served under IDEA Part B (U.S.
Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse, “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

Environments Collection,” 2018-19). Data on students with disabilities exiting IDEA Part B
reported under IDEA Section 618 demonstrates that more English learners with disabilities drop
out and fewer English learners with disabilities graduate from high school compared with all
students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse, “IDEA Part
B Exiting Collection,” 2017-18). The Department is dedicated to improving results for children
with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities, and works closely with State
educational agencies (SEAs), our technical assistance investments, and research centers to
support improved outcomes for English learners with disabilities.
The specific questions you ask in your correspondence are addressed below.
Question 1: Does IDEA require language development goals be included in a student’s
individualized education program (IEP) if that student is an English learner? Educators are not
always clear on whether language development goals, including a student’s English language
proficiency level scores, can be documented in an IEP.
Response: Under IDEA, the IEP Team must consider a number of special factors in developing,
reviewing, or revising a child’s IEP. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2) and (b)(2). Specifically,
under 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(ii), the IEP Team must “[i]n the case of a child with limited
English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as those needs relate to the child’s
IEP.”
Section 300.320(a)(2)(i) requires that each IEP include a statement of measurable annual goals,
including academic and functional goals designed to (a) meet the child’s needs that result from
the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general
education curriculum; and (b) meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from
the child’s disability. In addition, for children with the most significant cognitive disabilities who
take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards, the IEP must
include a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(ii).
It is important to clarify that IDEA does not specify what types of annual goals must be included
in a child’s IEP, provided they are measurable and include academic and functional goals
designed to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education
curriculum. Determinations as to specific IEP goals are made on an individual, fact-specific basis
by the participants on the child’s IEP Team. Although the IDEA does not require specific goals
for any child, there is a relationship between the statement of annual goals and the instruction
and services to be included in the child’s IEP. Each child’s IEP must include a statement of the
special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, program modifications,
and other supports that are designed to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining
the annual goals and to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum (34
C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(i)-(ii)).
Therefore, while there is no specific requirement in IDEA that language development goals be
included in the IEP of each English learner with a disability, including an English learner with a
most significant cognitive disability, the IEP Team must ensure that the child receives special
education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and program modifications and
supports for school personnel that are necessary for the child to be involved in and make

progress in the general education curriculum. In this regard, consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§
300.324(a)(2)(ii) and 300.320(a)(4), the IEP Team must consider how the child’s level of
English language proficiency affects the special education and related services, supplementary
aids and services, program modifications, and supports for school personnel that the child needs
in order to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. Whether the
child’s IEP needs to include a language development goal in order for the child to be involved in
and make progress in the general education curriculum is a determination that must be made on
an individual basis by the participants on the child’s IEP Team in light of the particular
disability-related needs of the child. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent to which an
English learner’s disability affects the student’s participation in the general curriculum or
whether the child needs interventions related to the student’s disability that impact the child’s
developing English language proficiency are matters that should be addressed in the child’s IEP
in light of the individual needs of the child. In addition, regardless of whether goals for English
language development are included in a student’s IEP, an English learner must receive needed
English language services as a matter of civil rights law. (Jan. 7, 2015, Dear Colleague Letter
issued by the U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education (2015 DCL) 1)
To ensure that appropriate IEPs are developed for English learners with disabilities, including
English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the IEP Team should include
participants who have the requisite knowledge or special expertise regarding the student’s
language needs. These could include persons with expertise in second language acquisition and
other professionals, such as speech and language pathologists, who understand how to
differentiate between limited English proficiency and a disability. 2 The participation of these
individuals on the IEP Team should help to ensure that appropriate academic and functional
goals are developed for the child and the child is provided the necessary special education and
related services, supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and supports for
school personnel designed to enable the child to advance toward attaining these goals. An IEP
Team that includes all of the appropriate members should be able to make informed decisions
about the content of an English learner’s IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(6)). In addition, SEAs and
local educational agencies (LEAs) are encouraged to provide other IEP Team members with
appropriate training in language acquisition and the unique needs of English learners with
disabilities.
Below are a few resources 3 that address best practices for developing IEPs for English learners
with disabilities.
•

Education Service Center, Region 20, and the Texas Education Agency. (2018).
Writing Cultural Relevant IEPs. Retrieved from:

Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf
Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(b)(1)(iii)-(b)(2), a student cannot be determined to be a child with a disability if the
determinant factor is limited English proficiency and if the student does not otherwise meet the definition of “child
with a disability” under IDEA.
3
The views expressed in these resources do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the Department. No
official endorsement by the Department of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned is intended or
should be inferred.
1
2

https://projects.esc20.net/upload/page/0195/docs/Writing%20Culturally%20Relevant%2
0IEPs%2011.05.18%20508.pdf
•

Multistate Association for Bilingual Education, Northeast, Analyzing Linguistically
Appropriate IEP Goals in Dual Language Program. (March 19, 2016). [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from:
https://mabene.org/resources/What%20We%20Do/MABE%202016%20Turner%20and
%20Esparza%20Brown%20Analyzing%20Linguistically%20Appropriate%20IEP%20G
oals.pdf

•

Hoover, John J., Erickson, Jennifer R., Patton, James R., Sacco, Donna M., & Tran, Le
M. (August 21, 2018). Examining IEPs of English Learners with Learning Disabilities
for Cultural and Linguistic Responsiveness. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12183

•

Jozwik, Sara L., Cahill, Alice & Sánchez, Gilberto. (2018). Collaboratively crafting
individualized education program goals for culturally and linguistically diverse students,
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 62:2, 140148. Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393791

Question 2: If States and districts do not have the means to staff their schools with educators
who are dually certified in special education and English language development, what are the
recommended best practices that they can use to ensure they provide appropriate instruction and
services to English learners with disabilities?
Response: English learners with disabilities, including English learners with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, must receive English language development instruction (2015 DCL).
SEAs, through their guidance, monitoring, and oversight responsibilities, must have policies and
procedures in place for ensuring that districts have adequately trained teachers to implement their
English language development programs (2015 DCL).
With respect to special education generally, in order to effectively teach children with
disabilities, including children with the most significant cognitive disabilities, SEAs must
establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that special education teachers are appropriately
and adequately prepared and trained, including that they have the necessary subject-matter
knowledge and skills in the academic subjects that they teach to help students meet challenging
State academic standards (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(A)-(E); 34 C.F.R. § 300.156(a)).
While there is no Federal requirement that individuals who teach English learners with
disabilities be dually certified in special education and English language acquisition, it is crucial
to the success of English learners with disabilities that teachers working with English learners
with disabilities, including English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities, are
trained on how to support English learners’ English language development, in addition to their
mastery of academic content knowledge and their specific special education and related services
needs. Teachers of English learners with disabilities should have an understanding of the second
language acquisition process and how this might be influenced by the child’s individual

development, knowledge of effective instructional practices for English learners and, if relevant,
the child’s disability. We note that some States have established procedures that require specific
certifications for teachers serving both English learners and students with disabilities.
There are a number of best practices that districts, schools, and teachers can use to ensure they
provide appropriate instruction and services to English learners with disabilities throughout the
school day. Districts and schools should provide teachers continual, up-to-date training on the
best way to serve English learners with disabilities. Teachers should work towards enhancing
their collaborative professional relationships across special education and English language
development programs. This could include thorough cross-disciplinary professional
development, team teaching, and/or collaboration on lesson development. Additionally, for a
student who receives services from a speech and language pathologist, it may be beneficial for
the speech and language pathologist to work with the special education teacher to support the
language needs of the student based on their individual English language development. For
example, the speech and language pathologist could consult with the special education teacher on
embedding stronger language instruction in their delivery of reading instruction. In addition, as
stated above in response to Question 1, the IEP Team for an English learner with a disability
should include an English language development teacher, in addition to the special education
teacher or provider required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(3).
Below are a few resources 4 that address best practices for teachers of English learners with
disabilities:

4

•

Shyyan, V. V., Gholson, M. L., & Christensen, L. L. (June 2018). Considerations for
educators serving English learners with significant cognitive disabilities (ALTELLA Brief
No. 2). Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, Alternate English Language Learning Assessment project.
Retrieved from:
https://altella.wceruw.org/pubs/ALTELLA_Brief%2002_Considerations.pdf

•

Burr, E. (2019). Guidance manuals for educators of English learners with disabilities:
Ideas and lessons from the field (NCEO Report 410). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED595227.pdf

•

Garcia, Shernaz & Tyler, Brenda-Jean. (April 13, 2010). Meeting the Needs of English
Language Learners With Learning Disabilities in the General Curriculum. Retrieved
from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shernaz_Garcia/publication/233354810_Meeting_th
e_Needs_of_English_Language_Learners_With_Learning_Disabilities_in_the_General_
Curriculuam/links/5682f2e408ae051f9aee88d1/Meeting-the-Needs-of-EnglishLanguage-Learners-With-Learning-Disabilities-in-the-General-Curriculuam.pdf

See Footnote 4.

In order to support States in their efforts to ensure children are taught by effective teachers, the
Department funds technical assistance and research centers. Centers that have a specific focus on
teacher effectiveness are listed below:
•

The Regional Comprehensive Centers and a National Comprehensive Center make up the
Comprehensive Center Network. The Department funds 19 Regional Centers to provide
high-quality intensive capacity-building services to State clients and recipients to
identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that support improved
educator and student outcomes. The National Center provides high-quality universal and
targeted capacity-building services to address common high-leverage problems, services
to address programmatic monitoring reports and audit findings, implementation
challenges, and emerging national education trends. https://compcenternetwork.org/

•

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform
Center (CEEDAR) is designed to help SEAs, Institutions of Higher Education, and LEAs
create aligned professional learning systems that provide teachers and leaders effective
opportunities to learn how to improve core and specialized instruction in inclusive
settings that enable students with disabilities to achieve college and career ready
standards. Web site: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu. On the CEEDAR web site, one can
also find a document that addresses evidence-based practices for English learners at
https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/EBP-for-englishlearners.pdf

•

Supported by the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and
located at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College, the IRIS Center develops and
disseminates free, engaging online resources about evidence-based instructional and
behavioral practices to support the education of all students, particularly struggling
learners and those with disabilities. These resources, designed to bridge the research-topractice gap, are intended for use in college teacher preparation programs, in professional
development activities for practicing professionals, and by independent learners. The
array of IRIS resources includes modules, case studies, information briefs,
course/professional development activities, a high-leverage practices alignment tool, and
an online glossary of disability-related terms as well as supporting products to enhance
their use in coursework and professional development activities.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/
On the IRIS Center’s website is a module, Teaching English Language Learners:
Effective Instructional Practices. This module helps teachers understand second language
acquisition, the importance of academic English, and instructional practices that will
enhance learning for English learners.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ell/#content

A few resources related to serving English learners with disabilities are listed below:
•

The Department’s Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides SEAs and LEAs with information to assist them in

meeting their obligations under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). This
guidance also provides members of the public with information about their rights under
this law and other relevant laws and regulations:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf#:~:tex
t=NonRegulatory%20Guidance%3A%20English%20Learners%20and%20Title%20III%20of,S
ucceeds%20Act%20%28ESSA%29%20%20September%2023%2C%202016%20
•

Addendum to September 23, 2016 Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title
III of ESEA, as Amended by ESSA:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/elandiitleiiiaddendum1219.pdf

•

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s English Learner Resource Page
contains information about requirements related to English learners in the ESEA, and
provides links to resources to support States in developing and implementing programs
and services for English learners: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formulagrants/school-support-and-accountability/english-language-acquisition-state-grants/

•

The Department’s English Learner Tool Kit was developed to help SEAs and LEAs meet
their obligations to English learners. Chapter 6 includes tools and resources for
addressing English learners with disabilities. Specifically, the Tool Kit provides resources
to assist educators in developing IEPs for English learners with disabilities.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap6.pdf

•

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) is a national technical assistance
center that focuses on the inclusion of students with disabilities, English learners, and
English learners with disabilities in comprehensive assessment systems. https://nceo.info/

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Lisa Pagano in OSEP at
202-245-7413 or by email at Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
David Cantrell, PhD
Acting Director


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR

November 10, 2021
OSEP Policy Letter 21-04
Dear Part C Coordinators:
The Department of Education (Department) recognizes the extraordinary disruption that the
COVID-19 pandemic has caused our communities for the past 18 months. The Department is
encouraged by the return to safe, in person services for many of our nation’s infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families and the commitment of early intervention service (EIS)
providers to helping all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families make progress in
the 2021–22 school year.
As we stated in our August 24, 2021 letter, infants and toddlers with disabilities were
disproportionately affected by the pandemic compared to their peers without disabilities. Even
with the support of the early intervention services required by their individualized family service
plans (IFSP), some infants and toddlers with disabilities experienced difficulty accessing those
services in ways that could allow them to make meaningful progress. Parents and EIS providers
responded to the unprecedented challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic by finding new ways to
collaborate so that the needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities could continue to be met.
Despite these efforts, some infants and toddlers with disabilities were unable to progress toward
achieving the measurable results or measurable outcomes included in their IFSPs.
The purpose of this communication is to reinforce the Department’s priority to monitor States as
they meet their general supervision obligations under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) so that eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
receive early intervention services consistent with their IFSPs. The Department expects States to
ensure that EIS programs are complying with IDEA’s requirements, including child find,
evaluations and appropriate IFSPs. It is equally important for States to address the equitable
treatment of all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities, with a particular focus on those
from low-income backgrounds, who are racial or ethnic minorities, who are English learners,
and/or who are experiencing homelessness, all of whom were greatly impacted by the pandemic.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
David Cantrell, PhD
Acting Director

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR

November 10, 2021
OSEP Policy Letter 21-05
Dear Part B State Directors:
The Department of Education (Department) recognizes the extraordinary disruption that the
COVID-19 pandemic has caused our communities for the past 18 months. The Department is
encouraged by the return to safe, in person learning for many of our nation’s students and the
commitment of educators to helping all students make academic progress in the 2021–22 school
year.
As we stated in our August 24, 2021 letter, children with disabilities were disproportionately
affected by the pandemic compared to their peers without disabilities. Even with the support of
the special education and related services required by their individualized education programs
(IEPs), some children with disabilities experienced difficulty accessing the general education
curriculum in ways that could allow them to make meaningful progress. Parents, educators, and
related services providers responded to the unprecedented challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic
by finding new ways to collaborate so that the needs of children with disabilities could continue
to be met. Despite these efforts, some children with disabilities were unable to progress toward
achieving the functional and academic goals included in their IEPs.
The purpose of this communication is to reinforce the Department’s priority to monitor States as
they meet their general supervision obligations under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) so that eligible children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment in the current school year. The Department expects
States to ensure that local educational agencies are complying with IDEA’s requirements,
including child find, evaluations and reevaluations, and appropriate IEPs. It is equally important
that States and LEAs properly address the equitable treatment of all eligible students with
disabilities, with a particular focus on those from low-income backgrounds, who are racial or
ethnic minorities, who are English learners, and/or who are experiencing homelessness, all of
whom were greatly impacted by the pandemic.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
David Cantrell, PhD
Acting Director

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20202

OSEP QA 21-08

RETURN TO SCHOOL ROADMAP:
PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES FOR INFANTS
AND TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES
UNDER PART C OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS), has received requests from a diverse group of stakeholders asking that the
Department issue new guidance interpreting requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) in light of the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and as more
schools and programs are returning to in-person services. Topics include meeting timelines,
ensuring implementation of initial evaluation and reevaluation procedures, determining
eligibility for early intervention, special education and related services, and providing the full
array of early intervention services and special education and related services that children with
disabilities need in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 1 Similarly,
stakeholders have inquired about the implications of delayed evaluations and early intervention
services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families served under IDEA Part C. 2
The purpose of the Return to School Roadmap IDEA guidance documents, 3 which focus on
school and program reopening efforts and in-person service delivery, is to support the full
implementation of IDEA requirements. The documents also serve to clarify that, regardless of
the COVID-19 pandemic, or the mode of intervention or instruction, children with disabilities

Free appropriate public education means special education and related services that (1) are provided at public expense, under
public supervision, and without charge; (2) meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of IDEA; (3) include an
appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (4) are provided in
conformity with an individualized education program that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 through 300.324.
34 C.F.R. § 300.17.
2 States reported to OSEP in their Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2019 State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports
(SPP/APR) for the period July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, IDEA Section 618 data and through other sources that the
number of children referred to Part C of the IDEA decreased.
3 Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in this Q&A document, the contents of this guidance do not have the
force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public
regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. The questions and answers in this document are not intended
to be a replacement for careful study of IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and
other important documents related to IDEA and the regulations are found at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/.
1

www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

are entitled to FAPE, and infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families to appropriate
IDEA Part C services.
As the Nation addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and State lead agencies (State
LAs) and local early intervention service (EIS) providers are faced with making decisions about
service delivery, the Department has received questions related to the provision of early
intervention services. The questions in this document are intended to provide guidance and to
identify the relevant regulatory requirements and options for flexibility for the State LA and EIS
providers when faced with unprecedented programmatic circumstances. Furthermore, the
Department recognizes that the generally home-based nature of IDEA Part C services presents a
complicated set of considerations for State LAs and EIS providers in providing IDEA Part C
services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Part C of the IDEA provides funds to a State LA to make early intervention services available to
all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families living within the State. Early
intervention services are provided in conformity with the child’s individualized family service
plan (IFSP) developed by the child’s IFSP Team, which includes the parent consistent with the
requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.342 through 303.346. This document supplements the
guidance released by the Department in October, 2020, regarding the implementation of IDEA
Part C services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) analysis of States’ IDEA Federal fiscal
year 2018 Section 618 Data, 4 reported prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted that certain
populations, including American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black or African American infants
and toddlers, were less likely to be screened, referred for services, and served under Part C of the
IDEA than all racial and ethnic groups combined.
The Department recommends that States address how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the
disparity in accessing early intervention services and create systems to identify and address these
inequities. With funding from the American Rescue Plan for IDEA Part C, now is the time for
States to implement infrastructure changes and enhance implementation capacity to support EIS
providers in implementing evidence-based practices to address the disparities in the State’s early
intervention system from screening, eligibility, and service delivery all the way through
transition. These activities could include improving data systems so they can be used to help
identify and measure equity challenges and ensure that families with limited English proficiency,
families from low-income backgrounds, and families of color have access to high-quality early
intervention services through targeted outreach, resources, and supports. Building a strong
equitable system also requires a diverse workforce with the capacity to effectively support
families with a variety of backgrounds.

4

See the 2020 Annual Report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

2

IDEA acknowledges the importance of parents and other family members in supporting a child’s
development. To be able to make sound decisions about their child’s involvement in early
intervention, and their own involvement, parents should be fully informed about what will take
place and where, what is being proposed, and much more. 5 Parents who would like additional
support in understanding IDEA’s requirements may contact their local regional parent training
and information centers (PTIs) for direct assistance and referrals to other organizations and to
gain skills to effectively participate in the education and development of their children. There are
over 100 PTIs in the United States and Territories that provide training, resources, and support
on a wide variety of topics. Parents can locate the appropriate PTI for their area at Find Your
Parent Center. 6
This document focuses on the development and implementation of Individualized Family
Service Plans (IFSP). An IFSP is the written plan for providing early intervention services to an
infant or toddler with a disability and the infant’s or toddler’s family. The IFSP must be
developed by the child’s IFSP Team, which includes the parent, in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.342, 303.343, and 303.345 and include the content
required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.344.

See Building the Legacy for Our Youngest Children with Disabilities: Module 10: Introduction to Procedural Safeguards
(Mar. 2015).
6 This document contains examples of resources that are provided for the user’s convenience. The inclusion of these resources is
not intended to reflect their importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered, by
these entities. These resources may include materials that contain the views and recommendations of various subject-matter
experts as well as hypertext links, contact addresses and websites to information created and maintained by other public and
private organizations. The opinions expressed in any of these materials do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the
Department. The Department does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any outside
information included in the materials that may be provided by these resources.
5

3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Question 1:

What are the State LA or EIS providers’ responsibilities for ensuring that
IFSP Teams address the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
child and family when developing the initial IFSP?

Answer:

Upon referral, the State LA or EIS provider must, within 45 days of referral,
conduct: (1) any screening, if applicable; 7 (2) the initial evaluation to determine
the child’s eligibility under Part C of IDEA; (3) the initial child and family
assessment; and (4) the initial IFSP meeting to develop the IFSP with the IFSP
Team, which includes the parent. The evaluation of the child must identify the
levels of functioning in all five developmental areas (physical, cognitive,
communication, adaptive, and social or emotional) under 34 C.F.R. § 303.321.
Furthermore, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.321(a)(2) and (c), EIS providers must assess
the child’s unique strengths and needs, as well as conduct a family-directed
assessment to identify the family’s resources, priorities, and concerns and the
supports and services necessary to help the family meet the needs of their infant
or toddler with a disability. Additionally, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.321(a)(2) and (c),
EIS providers must assess the child’s unique strengths and needs, as well as
conduct a family-directed assessment to identify the family’s resources, priorities
and concerns and the supports and services necessary to help the family meet the
developmental needs of their infant or toddler with a disability. Finally, under
34 C.F.R. § 303.344(a), when developing the IFSP, the IFSP Team must include a
statement of the child’s level of functioning in all five developmental areas, based
on the information from the child’s evaluation and assessments conducted under
34 C.F.R. §303.321.
The challenges of the pandemic have impacted the physical, social, and emotional
health of families across the nation. Some families have faced an increase in
joblessness, homelessness, food insecurity, and health challenges related to the
COVID-19 pandemic. A child’s development and the family’s capacity to support
the needs of an infant or toddler with a disability can be adversely impacted by
these types of traumatic stress. IFSP Teams should consider the full impacts of the
pandemic on each child and family and include social-emotional and behavioral
supports in the development and implementation of the initial IFSP. It is
important that all early intervention services, including social-emotional,

7

The State LA may adopt screening procedures, consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 303.320, to screen children
under the age of three who have been referred to the Part C program to determine whether they are suspected of having a
disability. Screening (if a State has adopted such procedures) requires parental notice and consent and must be performed
within the 45-day timeline. At a parent's request and with parental consent, the EIS provider must conduct an initial evaluation
of the infant or toddler even if the results of the screening do not identify the child as suspected of having a disability.

4

behavioral, and mental health supports, are culturally relevant, meaningful to the
child and family, provided by qualified personnel, based on peer-reviewed
research (to the extent practicable), and are necessary to meet the unique needs of
the child and the family to achieve the desired results or outcomes under
34 C.F.R. § 303.344(d).
Question 2:

What are the State LAs and EIS providers’ responsibilities to ensure that
IFSP Teams address the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
child and family after the initial IFSP has been developed?

Answer:

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.342(b), a periodic review of the IFSP must be conducted
minimally at six months or more frequently as conditions warrant. The COVID19 pandemic’s impact on the child and family may warrant a periodic review of
the IFSP prior to the six-month or annual review dates.
As part of periodic review of the IFSP, EIS providers must conduct ongoing
assessment under 34 C.F.R. § 303.321(c) of the child’s unique strengths and
needs. The periodic review must also include a family-directed assessment to
identify the family’s resources, priorities, and concerns and the supports and
services necessary to help the family meet the developmental needs of their infant
or toddler with a disability. The qualified personnel conducting initial assessments
should take into consideration the specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
both the needs of the child and the resources and capacity of the child’s family.
The IFSP Team, which includes the parent, must identify on the IFSP, under
34 C.F.R. § 303.344(d), any changes needed in the services, including frequency,
delivery, method, or setting, to address the child’s needs and outcomes. The State
LA or EIS provider must ensure that services identified on the IFSP are provided
to the child and family.

Question 3:

What are the State LAs and EIS providers’ responsibilities to infants and
toddlers with disabilities and their families who did not receive some or all of
the early intervention services in their IFSPs due to circumstances related to
the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer:

The State LA or EIS provider must review its data and other information, such as
information provided by a child’s family, to determine whether and which eligible
children did not receive services identified on their IFSPs, and take appropriate
actions based on the results of the review. If IFSP services have not been provided
in conformity with the IFSP, the State LA or EIS provider may need to conduct a
periodic review of the IFSP in order to determine the current needs of the child
and family. 34 C.F.R. § 303.342(b). As part of that periodic review by the IFSP
Team, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.344(c), the IFSP must include a statement of the
5

child’s progress toward achieving the results or outcomes identified in the IFSP
and whether modifications to the IFSP are necessary.
Additionally, the IFSP Team may determine whether and to what extent
compensatory services may be needed to address service disruptions due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. 8 The IFSP Team may determine that compensatory
services are necessary to mitigate the impact of disruptions and delays in
providing appropriate services to the child. IFSP Teams must ensure decisions
about compensatory services are individualized based on updated assessment
information for the child and family under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.340 through 303.344.
The State LA must also report data on any noncompliance under
34 C.F.R. § 303.342(a) and (e) under Indicator 1 (Timely Receipt of Services) in
their SPP/APR and correct each individual case of noncompliance, unless the
child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program and provider,
consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02 (OSEP Memo). 9
Question 4:

What are the State LAs and EIS providers’ responsibilities for infants and
toddlers with disabilities and their families who, due to circumstances related
to the COVID-19 pandemic, received services under an interim IFSP 10?

Answer:

Under certain circumstances, early intervention services for an eligible child and
the child’s family may begin before the evaluation and assessments are
completed, especially when those services have been determined to be needed
immediately by the child and the child’s family. However, the required
evaluations and assessments must still be completed within the 45-day timeline in
34 C.F.R. § 303.310.
State LAs and EIS providers that utilized interim IFSPs 11 due to circumstances
related to the COVID-19 pandemic and did not complete the full evaluation and

Under IDEA, courts have awarded compensatory services as an equitable remedy to address the needs of the infant or toddler
with a disability and the family. Likewise, the State complaint procedures provide for compensatory services as an available
remedy when there is a finding of a failure to provide appropriate services under IDEA in order to address the needs of the
infant or toddler with a disability and his or her family. 34 C.F.R. 303.432(b)(1). It is the Department’s position that, generally,
many of the same types of individualized and child-centered deliberations that are appropriate for an IFSP Team meeting
discussing the infant’s or toddler’s and family’s IFSP, would be appropriate when considering the need for, and extent of,
compensatory services.
9 OSEP Memo 09-02 provides guidance regarding the steps States must take under Sections 616 and 642 of the IDEA to report
on the correction of noncompliance in the APR.
10 An interim IFSP may be put into place with parental consent under 34 C.F.R. § 303.345 to provide IDEA Part C services
before the evaluation or assessment is completed, and in addition must include the name of the responsible service coordinator,
consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.344(g). The service coordinator will implement the interim IFSP and coordinate with any other
agencies or people as appropriate.
11 The requirements for an interim IFSP are in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.310(c) and 303.345.
8

6

develop an initial IFSP within timelines required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.310, must
still complete the evaluations, although late, convene an IFSP Team meeting to
review the results, and revise the IFSP as needed. OSEP strongly encourages State
LAs and EIS providers to prioritize those infants and toddlers who have been
served through an interim IFSP for the longest period of time.
Interim IFSPs that exceed 45 days would constitute noncompliance unless there
are documented exceptional family circumstances. The LA or EIS provider must
also report the data on any noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. § 303.310 under
Indicator 7 (45-day Timeline) in their SPP/APR and correct each individual case
of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS
program and provider, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
Question 5:

What should the IFSP Team consider if a parent requests that early
intervention services are provided virtually 12 as a method of delivery?

Answer:

The child’s IFSP Team (including the parent) must determine whether delivering
the service virtually is an appropriate methodology for each service identified on
the IFSP. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic some States permitted IFSP services
to be delivered virtually. During various stages of the pandemic, States have
allowed infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families to receive IFSP
services virtually. Some parents may wish to continue to receive some or all IFSP
services virtually. The State LA and its EIS providers may be able to provide
IFSP services virtually depending on the State’s policies and procedures, whether
the services can be effectively provided on a virtual basis, and the individualized
determination made by the child’s IFSP Team. Early intervention services must
be tailored to meet the unique needs of the individual child and family
(34 C.F.R. § 303.344(d)).

Question 6:

What options are available to parents, State LAs, and EIS providers to
resolve disputes under IDEA Part C?

Answer:

OSEP encourages parents, State LAs, and EIS providers to work collaboratively,
in the best interest of infants and toddlers with disabilities, to resolve
disagreements that may occur when providing positive early intervention
experiences. However, when there are disputes over Part C requirements, parents

12

Virtual service delivery, also referred to as: teleintervention, remote early intervention, remote learning, telehealth,
telemedicine, telepractice, teletherapy, virtual home vision and virtual learning. This method of delivery primarily engages
audio or video technology to connect EIS providers with parents and/or caregivers in ways that support their child’s
development throughout their daily activities and routines. (https://ectacenter.org/topics/disaster/tele-intervention.asp).
primarily engages audio or video technology to connect providers with parents or other caregivers in ways that support their
child's learning and development throughout their daily activities and routines.

7

are entitled to exercise their rights to State dispute resolution options under Part C
of IDEA.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.421(a), parents must receive prior written notice a
reasonable time before the State LA or an EIS provider proposes, or refuses, to
initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or placement of their infant or
toddler, or the provision of early intervention services to the infant or toddler with
a disability and that infant’s or toddler’s family. Under 34 C.F.R. §303.421(b)(3),
this notice must include information about all dispute resolution options. These
include the right to: (1) file a State complaint regarding an alleged violation of
any requirement of Part C of IDEA; (2) request mediation to resolve any matter
under Part C; and (3) file a due process complaint regarding the identification,
evaluation, or placement of their infant or toddler or the provision of early
intervention services to their child and family. 13
Question 7:

What are the State LA or EIS providers’ responsibilities if an infant or
toddler with a disability did not receive timely transition services due to
circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer:

Under 34 C.F.R § 303.209(a)(1)(ii) States are required to ensure a smooth
transition for infants and toddlers with disabilities under the age of three and their
families who are exiting the Part C early intervention program. If the LA
determines that a toddler with a disability is not potentially eligible for Part B
preschool services, the lead agency, with the approval of the family of that
toddler, makes reasonable efforts to convene a conference among the lead agency,
the family, and providers of other appropriate services for the toddler to discuss
service options that the toddler may receive (34 C.F.R. § 303.209(c)(2)). The
transition plan in the IFSP includes, consistent with 34 C.F.R. §303.344(h), as
appropriate, steps for the toddler with a disability and his or her family to exit
from the Part C program and any transition services that the IFSP Team identifies
as needed by that toddler and family. A transition conference or meeting to
develop the transition plan must meet the IFSP meeting requirements in 34 C.F.R.
§§ 303.342(d) and (e) and 303.343(a).
The State LA or EIS provider must review its data and other information (such as
information provided by a child’s family) to determine whether and which
eligible children did not receive transition services and take appropriate actions,

13 The Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP-funded technical assistance center,

has developed a series of guides and companion videos to assist parents in understanding IDEA’s dispute resolution
procedures. These materials are available on CADRE’s website.

8

even if such children are now three years old or older. Additionally, if an eligible
child did not receive transition services, the State LA must report data on any
noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. § 303.209 under Indicator 8 (Early Childhood
Transition) in its SPP/APR and correct each individual case of noncompliance,
unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program and
provider, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.342(b), the State LA or EIS provider may need to conduct
a periodic review of the IFSP to determine if transition services were not
provided. As part of that periodic review, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.344, the IFSP
Team may also consider, on an individualized basis, whether and to what extent
compensatory services may be needed to address service delays and disruptions
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. IFSP Teams must ensure decisions about
compensatory services are based on any transition needs identified and services
not provided to the child and family.
Question 8:

What systemic actions should the State LA or EIS provider take to address
transition activities that were not completed within the required timeline or
that were delayed due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer:

At a systemic level, the Department expects that State LAs and State educational
agencies ensure that EIS providers and local educational agencies meet all
applicable transition requirements and timelines by utilizing their data systems
and reviewing their child find policies and procedures to complete required
transition activities that were not completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This
includes reengaging families with whom they may have lost contact and
completing timely transition services for all infants, toddlers, and children
determined to be eligible for early intervention and special education. States must
collect and report data on these referrals under Part C Indicator 8 (Early
Childhood Transition) and Part B Indicator 12 (Effective Transition) in their
SPP/APR.
EIS providers should identify a system to prioritize and resolve any overdue
transition services while simultaneously adhering to current timelines for children
exiting Part C services. States can use IDEA Part C funds (both the regular IDEA
Part C funds and the supplemental Part C funds appropriated under the American
Rescue Plan Act) and funds provided to States through the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief and Governor’s Emergency Education
Relief funds to complete overdue transition activities. It is critical that toddlers
and their families exiting the Part C program experience a smooth and effective
transition to the child’s next program or other appropriate services, including

9

services that may be identified for a child who is no longer eligible to receive
IDEA Part C or Part B services.
In considering how to prioritize services, EIS providers may consider: conducting
activities to address the transition needs of children who are the oldest (e.g.,
turned three sooner than others with overdue transition services); analyzing and
triaging the reasons for overdue transition services; and identifying mitigation
strategies, including utilizing fiscal resources to support timely transition.
As the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues, States might consider
expanding IDEA Part C services to include at-risk populations. States might also
consider expanding IDEA Part C services to include infants or toddlers who
would be at risk of experiencing a substantial developmental delay if early
intervention services were not provided to the infant or toddler. Additionally,
States might consider infrastructure improvements within its Part C system, as
well as specialized professional development for EIS providers to address needs
related to Early childhood mental health (ECMH) diagnosis and treatment for all
children and families, especially underserved populations.
Question 9:

What resources are available to support the safe return to in-person services to
reduce the spread of COVID-19?

Answer:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides COVID-19
guidance for Early Care and Education (ECE) programs, including child care
centers, home-based programs and family child care, Head Start, and other prekindergarten programs. CDC’s guidance includes strategies that ECE programs
can use to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and maintain safe operations.
Key takeaways include:
•

Vaccination is currently the leading public health prevention strategy to end
the COVID-19 pandemic. Promoting vaccination among eligible individuals
can help Early Care and Education (ECE) programs protect staff and children
in their care, as well as their families.

•

Most ECE programs serve children under the age of 12 who are not yet
eligible for vaccination at this time. Therefore, this guidance emphasizes
implementing layered COVID-19 prevention strategies (e.g., using multiple
prevention strategies together) to protect children and adults who are not
fully vaccinated.

•

COVID-19 prevention strategies remain critical to protect people, including
children and staff, who are not fully vaccinated, especially in areas of
moderate-to-high community transmission levels.

10

•

Masks should be worn indoors by all individuals (ages 2 and older) who are
not fully vaccinated. ECE settings may implement universal mask use in some
situations, such as if they have increasing, substantial, or high COVID-19
transmission in their ECE program or community, and while they serve a
population not yet eligible for vaccination.

11