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

OSEP Policy Letter 22-04
April 15, 2022
Perry Zirkel, PhD
University Professor Emeritus of Education and Law
Lehigh University
perry.zirkel@lehigh.edu
Dear Dr. Zirkel:
This correspondence responds to your multiple inquiries to the U.S. Department of Education
(Department), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), regarding implementation of the
State complaint, due process complaint, and due process hearing procedures required under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We have consolidated the questions you
raised, and our responses are provided below. 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. Further, please note that OSEP responds to these matters, generally,
and not in the context of any specific due process complaint or State complaint that may be
pending or resolved.
Due Process Complaints and Due Process Hearings
Question 1: Does a parent’s failure to provide a proposed resolution of the problem in their due
process complaint as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(6), restrict the authority of a hearing
officer to order prospective relief (such as ordering an individualized education program (IEP)
Team meeting to correct identified deficiencies in the child’s IEP) and/or retrospective relief
(such as requiring the agency to provide compensatory services or reimburse the parent for
expenses they incurred)?
OSEP Response: A due process complaint must be deemed sufficient unless the party receiving
the due process complaint notifies the hearing officer and the other party in writing within 15
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.

Page 2 – Perry Zirkel, PhD
days of receiving it, that the receiving party believes the due process complaint does not meet the
requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d). Therefore, if a party does
not include a proposed resolution to the problem in their due process complaint to the extent
known and available to the party at the time, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(6), the
other party may ask the hearing officer to determine the sufficiency of that complaint. If a party
does not raise a sufficiency claim within 15 days of receiving the due process complaint, the due
process complaint is deemed sufficient, and a due process hearing may occur.
We understand your question to involve those situations in which either no challenge was made
to the sufficiency of the due process complaint, or a hearing officer determined the due process
complaint was sufficient, notwithstanding the filing party’s failure to provide a proposed
resolution to the problem. In some instances, a parent may not be aware of the possible ways to
remedy the issue that forms the basis of their due process complaint. Since 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.508(b)(6) requires the filing party to propose a resolution to the complaint only to the
extent known and available to the party at the time the complaint is filed, the failure to include a
proposed resolution to the problem would not automatically render a due process complaint
insufficient. In addition, consistent with IDEA Section 615(c)(2)(D), the final decision regarding
the sufficiency of a due process complaint is left to the discretion of the hearing officer. Analysis
of Comments and Changes accompanying the 2006 final IDEA Part B regulations, 71 Fed. Reg.
46540, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
OSEP believes that one primary purpose of including the “proposed resolution” in a due
process complaint is to assist in the resolution process. 1 Moreover, the inclusion or
omission of a proposed resolution should not be read to create a conflict with, or
limitation upon, an impartial hearing officer’s authority and ability to formulate an
appropriate equitable remedy.
Question 2: What is the outer limit for the number of calendar days for an expedited hearing
from the date of filing to the date of the hearing officer’s decision?
OSEP Response: The timelines for holding a due process hearing on an expedited due process
complaint and for issuing a decision in the matter are measured in school days. Whether a day is
considered a school day for the purposes of calculating the expedited due process hearing
timeline is determined according to the definition in 34 C.F.R. § 300.11(c). School day means
any day, including a partial day that children are in attendance at school for instructional
purposes. School day has the same meaning for all children in school, including children with
and without disabilities.
A hearing on an expedited due process complaint must occur within 20 school days of the date
the due process complaint is filed, and the hearing officer’s determination must be made within
10 school days after the hearing. 34 C.F.R § 300.532(c)(2). The 10 school-day timeline for
issuing the decision commences at the conclusion of the hearing. See 34 C.F.R § 300.532(c)(2).
See S. Rep. No. 105-17, 25 (May 9, 1997); H.R. Rep. No. 105-95, 105 (May 13, 1997) (“The Committee believes
that the addition of this provision will facilitate an early opportunity for schools and parents to develop a common
frame of reference about problems and potential problems that may remove the need to proceed to due process and
instead foster a partnership to resolve problems.”).
1

Page 3 – Perry Zirkel, PhD
School district calendars vary a great deal and are affected by factors such as whether a school:
(1) operates summer school programs for all children; (2) recognizes certain days as holidays
that require closure of the school for students; (3) conducts staff in-services and professional
development conferences that result in closure of the school for students; (4) closes due to
inclement weather; or (5) allows use of school building facilities for elections and other
community functions that require closure of the school for students. School district calendars
vary widely, and there are many variables that may affect whether a day is a “school day.” 2 To
the extent that you are asking the Department to calculate the maximum number of calendar days
between the date an expedited due process complaint is filed and the date the hearing officer
must issue a decision, this number will vary, and the Department declines to speculate in this
way.
In your correspondence to OSEP, you indicate that the timeline for issuing a final decision in a
non-expedited due process hearing is “relatively clear [i.e.,] 30 (resolution period) + 45 (postresolution period) - 75 calendar days.” We want to clarify some of the possible variations for
these components of the timeline. Under IDEA and its implementing regulations, the 30-day
resolution period may be adjusted if: (1) both parties agree in writing to waive the resolution
meeting; (2) after either the mediation or resolution meeting starts but before the end of the 30day period, the parties agree in writing that no agreement is possible; or (3) if both parties agree
in writing to continue the mediation at the end of the 30-day resolution period, but later, the
parent or public agency withdraws from the mediation process. 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c). Thus, the
resolution period could be shorter or longer than 30 days. Also, a hearing officer may grant
specific extensions of the 45-day hearing timeline at the request of either party. 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.515(c). For these reasons, the timeline for issuing a final decision in a non-expedited due
process hearing may be shorter or longer than 75 calendar days after receipt of the due process
complaint. Thus, it is also not appropriate to speculate on the maximum number of calendar days
in which a final decision must be issued in a non-expedited due process hearing.
Question 3: You state in your correspondence to OSEP that some States, especially those that
opt to use State administrative law judges to adjudicate IDEA due process complaints, engage in
practices that dismiss a due process complaint and/or issue summary judgment on the matter
without holding a hearing. You ask whether such practices (other than when a hearing officer
rules that a due process complaint is insufficient) violate the parties’ right to a hearing under
IDEA and/or arguably Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights.
OSEP Response: Please note that OSEP’s response to your inquiry is limited to the hearing
rights afforded to parties under IDEA. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f)(1)(A), 1415(f)(2), 1415(f)(3)(A)(D), and 1415(h).
Whenever a due process complaint is received under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 or 300.532, the
parents or the local educational agency involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an
impartial due process hearing, consistent with the procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507, 300.508,

For more information on how the expedited due process hearing timeline is calculated, see OSEP’s Questions and
Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures (see, in particular, Question E-5) and OSEP’s Letter to
Fletcher (August 23, 2018).
2

Page 4 – Perry Zirkel, PhD
and 300.510. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(a). Among the rights IDEA affords parties to any hearing
conducted pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 or §§ 300.530 through 300.534, or an appeal
conducted pursuant to § 300.514, is the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine,
and compel the attendance of witnesses. 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(a)(2).
IDEA does not address procedures for dismissal of due process hearing requests outside of the
context of the sufficiency of the complaint. In other words, the only provision in IDEA or its
implementing regulations that contemplates summary dismissal is when the due process
complaint is insufficient. To the extent any summary proceedings in a hearing on a due process
complaint - other than a sufficiency determination – limit, or conflict with, either party’s rights,
including the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance
of witnesses, we believe such proceedings can be used only when both parties consent to use the
summary process (e.g., cross-motions for summary judgment).
Resolution of IDEA State Complaints
Question 4: When resolving a State complaint filed under IDEA, must the State educational
agency’s (SEA’s) written decision on alleged violations take into consideration consistency with
(1) State guidance documents; and (2) applicable case law? Specifically, you ask whether the
requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b)(1) extend to State guidance documents; and whether the
requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) include case law as applicable standards for any
conclusions of law contained in State complaint decisions?
OSEP Response: It will depend. We interpret the term “guidance” to include restatements of the
requirements of IDEA, its implementing regulations, and related State law, policies, and
procedures; but also, to include interpretations and suggested or best practices and procedures.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(4) and (a)(5), the SEA must review all relevant information and
make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of
IDEA Part B and issue a written decision that addresses each allegation in the complaint and
contains findings of fact and conclusions and the reasons for the SEA’s final decision.
One or more State guidance documents may be relevant if they are intended to address the IDEA
requirements at issue, or a State-imposed mandate needed to implement that IDEA requirement.
For example, if the State issues guidance that sets out specific procedures that must be followed
when responding to a parent’s request for an initial evaluation (e.g., timelines for seeking a
parent’s consent), it would be appropriate for the SEA to determine whether the public agency
followed those procedures. The SEA also should ensure that it makes clear the purpose of any
guidance document that it issues, including any mandates related to proper implementation of
Part B of IDEA.
The IDEA Part B regulations do not specifically address whether and to what extent case law
must be reviewed and considered as part of an SEA’s resolution of a State complaint. However,
there may be times when the SEA must consider a public agency’s compliance with a binding
court ruling or consent decree. For example, a court may set Statewide standards for
implementing an IDEA requirement (e.g., factors that must be considered when determining
whether a child with a disability is eligible for extended school year services, how compensatory
services are determined and awarded to a child with a disability) that may not yet be reflected in

Page 5 – Perry Zirkel, PhD
a State’s rules and procedures. In these circumstances, and to the extent not inconsistent with the
Court’s ruling, the SEA would be required to examine whether the public agency complied with
the standard established under binding case law or consent decree.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the correspondence you sent notifying OSEP of certain States’
policies and procedures that appear to be inconsistent with IDEA requirements. You reported
that some States inappropriately: (1) extend the timeline for expedited due process complaints;
(2) excuse the respondent from submitting the written response required under 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.508(f); (3) require the use of the State’s model form to file State complaints and/or due
process complaints; (4) permit parties to extend hearing timelines, themselves without the
hearing officer’s agreement; and (5) allow districts to withhold reimbursement for past expenses
ordered by a hearing officer. In a July 20, 2021, email to you, Dr. Gregory Corr, Director of the
Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division, stated that OSEP staff will investigate the
procedures you outlined in your email and require any corrective actions deemed appropriate. In
addition, as OSEP implements its Differentiated Monitoring and Support activities, we intend to
continue reviewing and, where appropriate, holding States accountable for complying with
IDEA’s dispute resolution requirements. Finally, OSEP has initiated technical assistance to all
States regarding expectations and requirements for the appropriate implementation of these
important provisions.
We trust the information provided in this letter is responsive to your inquiries.
Sincerely,
/s/
Valerie C. Williams


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

OSEP Policy Letter 22-03
April 7, 2022
Garth Tymeson, PhD
Center on Disability Health and Adapted Physical Activity
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
1725 State Street
108 Mitchell Hall
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
Dear Dr. Tymeson:
This letter responds to your September 2, 2021, correspondence addressed to Dr. David
Cantrell, then Acting Director of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S.
Department of Education (Department). We regret the delay in responding. In that letter, you
asked that OSEP clarify requirements related to the provision of physical education, including
adapted physical education and the least restrictive environment, to children with disabilities
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, you asked that
OSEP provide guidance in the form of a “Policy Letter of Clarification” regarding the
following:
1. Is it inconsistent with IDEA to offer specially designed instruction to children with
disabilities in content areas such as adapted aquatics or biking skills if the same
curriculum content is not offered to children without disabilities at the same grade level?
2. Do all students – children with disabilities and children without disabilities – need to
receive the same educational content or should instructional content for a child with a
disability be based on what has been agreed to in the child’s individualized education
program (IEP)?
3. Does the continuum of educational placements required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.115 extend
to required content, such as specially designed instruction in physical education? Does
all physical education instruction for children with disabilities need to take place in the
general education setting with their nondisabled peers?
4. Can a local educational agency or an IEP Team, against a parent’s wishes, remove
specially designed physical education services from a child’s IEP because a school does

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.

Page 2 - Garth Tymeson, PhD
not have a comparable program or content for children without disabilities at the same
grade level?
5. Would the removal of a child with a disability from an adapted physical education
instructional setting be considered a change of placement, and therefore require that an
IEP Team meeting be convened? 1
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.
The crux of your questions has previously been addressed with you and other constituents in
prior correspondence, as identified below.
Please see our informal guidance provided to you on July 31, 2013, in which we state:
The Part B regulations, at 34 C.F.R. § 300.108, address the requirements of
school districts to provide physical education services to students with disabilities.
Section 300.108(a) requires schools to provide physical education to all children
receiving a free appropriate public education unless the school does not provide
physical education to children without disabilities in the same grades. That
exception, however, only relieves schools of the 34 C.F.R. § 300.108(a)
requirement to provide general physical education to all students with disabilities
regardless of the unique needs of any given student and regardless of any
student’s IEP. Section 300.108(a) does not relieve schools of the duty to provide
physical education to those students who have unique needs requiring physical
education and have IEPs setting out physical education as part of that student’s
special education and related services.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.108(c), “[i]f specially designed physical education is
prescribed in a child’s IEP, the public agency responsible for the education of that

Your letter references an example where the school district decided to discontinue adapted aquatics and biking
instruction and suggested the child with a disability would no longer participate in a small group, adapted physical
education class of 7-10 students and instead, receive instruction in a general education class of possibly 40 students
to achieve the district’s full inclusion goal.

1

Page 3 - Garth Tymeson, PhD
child must provide the services directly or make arrangements for those services
to be provided through other public or private programs.” Thus, under Part B, “if
physical education is specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a
disability and is set out in that child’s IEP, those services must be provided
whether or not they are provided to other children in the agency.” Analysis of
Comments and Changes of the final Part B regulations, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540,
46583 (August 14, 2006).
Under IDEA, each eligible child with a disability is entitled to a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the
child’s unique needs and that prepare the child for further education, employment, and
independent living. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The primary vehicle for providing FAPE under
IDEA is through an appropriately developed IEP, which must include, among other things, a
statement of the special education and related services, and supplementary aids, services, and
other supports that are needed to meet each child’s unique needs in order for the child to: (1)
advance appropriately towards attaining the annual goals; (2) be involved in and make progress
in the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic
activities; and (3) be educated and participate in such activities with other children with
disabilities and nondisabled children. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.17, 300.320. The Department’s IDEA
web site, which brings together IDEA information and resources from the Department and our
grantees, provides additional specific information related to your inquiry. Please see the
information contained in the topic areas under “Free Appropriate Public Education” and
“Individualized Education Program” for information already disseminated by OSEP that will
further address your question.
IDEA requires that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in these
programs and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. Under 34
C.F.R. § 300.117, the public agency must ensure that each child with a disability has the
supplementary aids and services determined by the child’s IEP Team to be appropriate and
necessary for the child to participate in nonacademic settings. As noted above, physical
education services, specially designed, if necessary, must be made available to every child with
a disability receiving FAPE, unless the public agency enrolls children without disabilities and
does not provide physical education to children without disabilities in the same grades. Each
child with a disability must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the regular physical
education program available to nondisabled children unless the child is enrolled full time in a
separate facility; or the child needs specially designed physical education, as prescribed in the
child’s IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.108(b). Furthermore, the public agency responsible for the
education of a child with a disability who is enrolled in a separate facility must ensure that the
child receives appropriate physical education services. 34 C.F.R. § 300.108(d). Each public
agency must take steps to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities,
including athletics, in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal
opportunity for participation in those services and activities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.107. See OSEP
Report on Creating Equal Opportunities for Children and Youth with Disabilities to Participate
in Physical Education and Extracurricular Athletics (August 2011).
Please see our informal guidance provided to you on May 12, 2021, in which we state:

Page 4 - Garth Tymeson, PhD
Generally, OSEP does not opine on whether the scenarios set forth in policy
inquiries constitute a change in a child’s educational placement. Determinations
about whether a revision to a child’s program results in a change in placement
are made based on the facts and circumstances of the specific child, examining a
number of factors. To help guide that decision-making process, OSEP set out
several factors to consider in its Letter to Fisher, 21 IDELR 992 (July 6, 1994):
In determining whether a “change in educational placement” has occurred, the
public agency responsible for educating the child must determine whether the
proposed change would substantially or materially alter the child’s educational
program. In making such a determination, the effect of the change in location on
the following factors must be examined: whether the educational program set out
in the child’s IEP has been revised; whether the child will be able to be educated
with nondisabled children to the same extent; whether the child will have the
same opportunities to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services;
and whether the new placement option is the same option on the continuum of
alternative placements.
Both 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.114 describe IDEA’s requirements for
ensuring children with disabilities are educated in their least restrictive environment.
Specifically, 34 C.F.R. §300.114(a)(2) states that:
Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with
children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if 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.
We thank you for your continued commitment to ensuring children with disabilities have access
to appropriate instruction to meet their unique physical education needs and trust that the
information in this letter is responsive to your inquiry. If you have further questions, please
contact Lisa Pagano at 202-245-7413 or by email at Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Valerie C. Williams


THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20202

March 24, 2022
Dear Educators and Parents 1:
Thank you for all you have done to provide unwavering support to students over the past two
years and help get students safely back to school in person, where they learn best. I am writing
today with some updates and resources to aid in your efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19
in schools and ensure all students can safely learn in person, to the maximum extent possible.
This letter addresses the needs of students with disabilities as we move into a new phase in our
response to the pandemic.
Keeping all students safe in person at school 2 remains a top priority of the Biden-Harris
Administration. Thanks to the unprecedented resources provided through the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 (ARP Act) and prior relief packages, schools have resources to remain open,
keep students and staff safe, and address the impact of the pandemic on student learning and
mental health. Today, more than 99 percent of all schools are fully open, up from about 46
percent in early 2021.
In late February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released an updated
framework for how we understand and respond to the risks and impacts of COVID-19 in our
communities. CDC’s new recommendations reflect the latest data and evolving science
surrounding COVID-19, identifying COVID-19 Community Levels that account for severity of
disease and the capacity of our healthcare systems to respond. We are now in a better position
than ever before to fight COVID-19 – including to prevent medically significant illness,
minimize the burden on our healthcare system, and protect individuals at increased risk for
severe illness – including older adults, people with disabilities, people with medical conditions,
and pregnant individuals – in our communities through vaccines, treatments, and layered
prevention strategies. To find the COVID-19 Community Level in your community, please visit
CDC’s website.
The Department recognizes the difficulties many families have experienced as they strived to
balance the need to ensure their child’s physical safety and their child’s need for in-person
learning. As we enter this next phase of pandemic response, we urge schools to lead with equity
and inclusion to ensure all students have access to in-person learning alongside their peers. For
nearly two years, educators and staff across the country have provided services and supports to
students with disabilities in ways never anticipated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the
Administration is committed to ensuring that students with disabilities continue to receive the
services and supports they are entitled to so that they have successful educational experiences.
As you know, CDC recognizes that COVID-19 poses a heightened risk of severe complications

Parent has the meaning given in IDEA regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 300.30, which includes guardians and individuals
acting in the place of a biological parent or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent or other relative)
with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare.
2
In addition, please refer to the Office of Head Start website for requirements specific to Head Start.
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/about-us/coronavirus/ohs-covid-19-updates
1

Page 2 — Dear Educators and Parents
to many people with disabilities – including (but not limited to)3 those who are
immunocompromised or with complex medical conditions. These students may need additional
protections to ensure they can remain safe in the classroom.
It is important to remember that State and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) are
bound by Federal laws, including Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) to ensure the inclusion of students with disabilities, including those
experiencing Long COVID, 4 in our nation’s schools.
This document is intended to help educators, staff, and families thoughtfully design learning
experiences for all students – including students with disabilities. It reviews some important
strategies for doing so and reiterates key rights afforded to students with disabilities to make sure
they can maintain equal access to in-person instruction and receive a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Consistent with Federal civil rights
laws, this must be done so that students with disabilities do not face risk to their school-related
health needs. 5 It builds on previously released guidance and includes both policy guidance and
examples of processes to help deliver safe, in-person learning.
Extra precautions may be needed to protect our students, friends, neighbors, and loved ones who
are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. CDC recommends that people who are at
increased risk of severe illness – and family, friends, and coworkers who spend time with them –
should consider taking extra precautions even when the COVID-19 Community Level is low.
When the COVID-19 Community Level is medium or high, these precautions can include
properly wearing well-fitting masks and getting tested before gathering.
We hope this document serves as a helpful resource and source of information for educators,
families, and school communities on how to effectively include students with disabilities in inperson learning. We encourage school personnel who have questions to take advantage of the
resources developed by the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-funded
In addition to immunocompromised individuals and those with complex medical conditions, the CDC published
updated guidance that outlines People with Disabilities who are at-risk of severe complications from COVID-19.
4
For additional resources on Long COVID, please refer to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Long COVID under
Section 504 and the IDEA: A Resource to Support Children, Students, Educators, Schools, Service Providers, and
Families.
5
For purposes of this document, a “student with a disability” includes both “child with a disability” as that term is
defined in IDEA, 34 C.F.R. § 300.8, and “individual with a disability” as that term is defined in the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), (20)(B). All children with disabilities who are eligible for special education and
related services under IDEA are protected by Section 504, but the inverse is not true; not all students protected by
Section 504 are IDEA-eligible.
The term “free appropriate public education” is used in both IDEA and Section 504 regulations, although it has a
slightly different meaning for students protected only by Section 504 but not IDEA. The term “least restrictive
environment” is drawn from IDEA and is analogous to the Section 504 regulatory requirement that a student with
a disability be provided an education with students who are not disabled “to the maximum extent appropriate to
the needs of the” student with a disability. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a). Although these requirements are not identical,
for purposes of this document, references to “least restrictive environment” encompass both requirements for ease
of reading. For a fuller discussion of the similarities and differences of IDEA and Section 504, see Office for Civil
Rights, Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools 40-44
(Dec. 2016).
3

Page 3 — Dear Educators and Parents
technical assistance centers. Additionally, parents, guardians and other caregivers may find their
local parent training and information center here and reach out for direct assistance and referrals
to other organizations, as well as gain skills to effectively participate in the education and
development of their children.
I. Leveraging the IEP or Section 504 Processes to Ensure Protections are In Place to
Protect In-Person Learning
Although not identical in their scope, both IDEA and Section 504 rely on a team approach to
decide the appropriate individualized education and services for a student with a disability,
including school-related health services required to ensure the provision of FAPE to the student.
Under IDEA, this group is called the individualized education program (IEP) Team and includes
key individuals, including the general education teacher, special education teacher or provider,
the child’s parent, and any other person that the parent or school determines may have
knowledge or special expertise about the child; under Section 504, the team has no formal name,
but is usually referred to as a Section 504 team. 6
IDEA requires schools to address the school-related health needs of eligible students with
disabilities who are at increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2. State or local laws,
rules, regulations, or policies that have the effect of improperly limiting the ability of the IEP
Team to address the school-related health needs of a student with a disability, or the ability of the
placement team to appropriately place a student with a disability who has school-related health
needs in the LRE, violate IDEA. 7, The same is true under Section 504. 8
Likewise, the group of knowledgeable individuals making placement decisions under IDEA 9 or
Section 504 is responsible for proposing an appropriate educational placement in the LRE that
meets the student’s school-related health needs. Such individuals may include a person who
knows about the health needs of the student, including whether COVID-19 prevention and risk
prevention strategies may be needed. The team could include individuals such as school health
service staff, school nurses, and the student’s healthcare professional(s), as appropriate, if they
may have knowledge or special expertise regarding the student. Because eligible students with
disabilities who need school-related health services are entitled to them as part of FAPE, teams
should consider school-related health or medical information for students with disabilities who
receive services under IDEA or are eligible for Section 504 services.
As with eligible students with disabilities who have severe food allergies, health plans may be
included as part of the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan 10 to ensure that the health and safety of
the student in the school environment is properly addressed, with appropriate privacy protections
in place. For example, for some students with disabilities, the provision of FAPE in the LRE may
34 C.F.R. § 300.321; 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c).
See Questions C-7 through C-11 of the Department’s Return to School Roadmap: Development and
Implementation of Individualized Education Programs (Sept. 30, 2021).
8
See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Disability Rights South Carolina v. McMaster (4th Cir. Nov. 30,
2021).
9
34 C.F.R. § 300.116
10
Though not explicitly required by the Department’s Section 504 regulations, school districts often document the
elements of an individual student’s FAPE under Section 504 in a document, typically referred to as a Section 504
Plan. In general, a Section 504 Plan describes the regular or special education and related aids and services a
student needs and the appropriate setting in which to receive those services.
6
7

Page 4 — Dear Educators and Parents
require that the IEP or Section 504 Plan addresses appropriate preventive and risk-reducing
strategies, such as sanitizing or avoiding shared use of personal and classroom items. IEP,
placement, and Section 504 teams can address continuation of school-wide layered prevention
strategies recommended by CDC to address the special circumstances of the student and ensure
that the student with a disability can receive FAPE in the LRE.
II. Continuing Use of Layered Prevention Strategies to Keep School Communities Safe
As part of CDC’s new recommendations, masking for school, preschool, and early intervention
settings now follow the same recommendations for the community in which they are located.
Based on the latest data, in areas where the COVID-19 Community Level is high, CDC
recommends universal masking for schools, preschool, and early intervention settings, and on
school buses and vans. At any COVID-19 Community Level, individuals – including those at
higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 – may choose to mask at any time. In addition,
people who spend time with individuals at increased risk of severe illness should consider taking
extra precautions even when the COVID-19 Community Level is low. At any level, people with
or around those with higher risk for serious illness, people with symptoms of COVID-19 or
individuals who are not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccinations who had exposure to someone
with COVID-19, or a positive test should take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.
This includes quarantining for 5 days and properly wearing a well-fitting mask around others for
10 days.
School districts, schools, early childhood centers and homes, and classrooms may still choose to
implement masking requirements at any COVID-19 Community Level depending on their
community’s needs – and especially keeping in mind those for whom these prevention strategies
provide critical protection for in-person learning. Implementing layered prevention strategies
(using multiple prevention strategies together) in schools can protect the rights of students with
disabilities by ensuring their continued access to safe in-person learning.
Schools must continue to take action to preserve safe in-person learning opportunities for
students with disabilities, including those at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. To
comply with their Federal non-discrimination obligations under Section 504, school districts
must make reasonable modifications when necessary to ensure equal access for their students
with disabilities, absent a showing that the modifications would constitute a fundamental
alteration or undue administrative burden to the program. 11 In addition, if a parent or other
member of the IEP or Section 504 team believes that particular COVID-19 prevention strategies
are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the student, the team must consider whether, and to
what extent, such measures are necessary, based on student-specific information, which may
include medical or health records, diagnostic or other evaluative data, or information
documented by medical or health professionals. If the IEP or Section 504 team determines that
COVID-19 prevention and risk reduction measures are necessary in order for a student with a
disability to receive FAPE – where the prevention measures constitute special education, related
services, supplementary aids and services under IDEA, related aids and services under Section

11

See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).

Page 5 — Dear Educators and Parents
504, or program modifications and supports for school personnel – the team must include these
in the child’s IEP or Section 504 Plan. 12
Over the past two years, schools have demonstrated expansive abilities in implementing layered
prevention strategies recommended by CDC to help keep students safe while attending schools
in person. Implementing layered prevention strategies can help protect students, educators, staff,
and other members of their households, and supports in-person learning for all students.
Continued use of these strategies may help to ensure that all students can continue to safely
receive instruction and services in person. These strategies can be implemented using ARP Act
funds, which provided unprecedented resources for schools and communities to keep schools
open and safe for in-person instruction.
Importantly, schools have taken great care to communicate prevention strategies to families,
work to foster a culture of prevention, and ensure they are answering questions and alleviating
concerns families may have. Schools can find additional resources on how to communicate about
prevention strategies – including sample letters and language – on CDC’s website.
Vaccination: COVID-19 vaccination among all eligible students, as well as educators, staff, and
their respective household members is the most critical strategy to help schools safely maintain
full-time, in-person instruction for all students. Vaccination is the leading public health strategy
to prevent severe disease and complications from COVID-19. People who have completed
the primary series (and a booster when eligible) are at substantially reduced risk of severe illness
and death from COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated people. 13
Schools should encourage eligible students, educators, staff, and families, including extended
family members who have frequent contact with students, to get vaccinated as soon as they can.
Schools should also consider partnering with state or local public health authorities to host
COVID-19 vaccination clinics and work with local healthcare providers and community-based
organizations, including school-based health centers. Individuals may visit vaccines.gov to find
out where educators, staff, students, and their families can get vaccinated against COVID-19 in
their community. People who are moderately or severely immunocompromised have specific
COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for the primary series and booster dose due to their
different immune response following COVID-19 vaccination.
Masking: As a reminder, school districts, schools, early childhood centers and homes, and
classrooms may still choose to implement masking at any COVID-19 Community Level
depending on their community’s needs, and individuals – including those at higher risk of severe
outcomes from COVID-19 – located in communities at any COVID-19 Community Level may
choose to mask at any time.
Federal civil rights laws stipulate that schools must consider the health and safety needs of their
students in order to safely attend in-person. This includes expectations around masking in
If the IEP Team or group of knowledgeable persons making a placement decision is unable or unwilling to
address the school-related health needs of an eligible child with a disability who is at increased risk of severe
illness from COVID-19, the parent may utilize IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures and mechanisms or Section
504’s procedural safeguards. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-300.153, 300.506, and 300.507-300.516; 34 C.F.R. § 104.36.
13
COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without
Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–
December 25, 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)
12

Page 6 — Dear Educators and Parents
schools on a case-by-case basis in order to comply with schools’ obligation to make reasonable
modifications for particular students with disabilities under federal law. Depending on the
circumstances, a school could decide that some degree of masking of students and staff is
necessary as a reasonable modification to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access
to in-person learning without incurring an elevated risk of hospitalization or death due to
COVID-19. In addition to deciding that an individual student with specific circumstances or
needs must wear a mask or a modified mask such as with a clear front, a school may determine it
is also necessary for other individuals in school settings to wear masks, depending on the specific
circumstances of the student with a disability and in consideration of relevant health guidance.
The Federal government has made high-quality masks available to Americans for free, as well as
provided schools with several avenues to access masks at low or no cost. We encourage schools
to reach out to their state emergency management agency to receive masks or use their ARP Act
funding to purchase masks from American-made manufacturers.
Testing: Testing identifies infected people, including those with or without symptoms (or before
development of symptoms) who may be contagious, so that measures can be taken to prevent
further transmission. More frequent testing can be an efficient way to promptly identify and
isolate cases, initiate quarantine, and identify clusters to help reduce the risk to in-person
education. As the use of masks decreases, schools may want to increase their use of testing as a
core safety and prevention strategy.
One approach to increased testing in school is through Test to Stay approaches. Test to Stay
combines contact tracing and serial testing (i.e., testing that is repeated at least twice during a
seven-day period after last close contact with a person with COVID-19) to allow some students,
educators, and staff who would otherwise need to quarantine to continue in-person learning or
teaching. People who are not up-to-date on their vaccines, or who have not had COVID-19 in the
previous 90 days, do need to quarantine and are therefore eligible for Test to Stay. Test to Stay
participants should get tested at least upon notification of their close contact and again 5-7 days
after their last close contact with someone with COVID-19. CDC continues to recommend Test
to Stay as an important strategy schools should consider in order to support in-person learning
when the COVID Community Level is at medium.
The ARP Act has provided significant funding to implement testing in K-12 schools. This
includes $10 billion provided through the Epidemiology Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Reopening
Schools award administered by CDC to support screening and diagnostic testing, $650 million
through Operation Expanded Testing to implement lab-based testing, and $122 billion through
the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund that can be used to
cover the cost of COVID-19 tests for students and school staff in whole or in part. CDC is also
making 5 million point-of-care rapid tests available to schools each month for free, which may
be requested through your state or territorial health department. Please visit the above links to
access these supports and launch testing programs.
Ventilation: Proper ventilation is a key prevention strategy for maintaining healthy environments
and, along with other preventive actions, can reduce the likelihood of spreading disease. CDC
and the Environmental Protection Agency outline ways that schools can improve ventilation,
including bringing in as much outdoor air as safely possible; using heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) settings to maximize ventilation; ensuring exhaust fans in restrooms and
kitchens are working properly and are in use; filtering the air with filters that have minimum

Page 7 — Dear Educators and Parents
efficiency reporting value (MERV)-13 rating or the highest MERV rating a building’s ventilation
system can accommodate; and using portable air cleaning devices with high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters.
LEAs can use ARP Act funds for all of these efforts to improve indoor air quality for in-person
instruction, including inspection, testing, and maintenance of current ventilation systems and
approaches; purchasing portable air filtration units and HEPA filters; purchasing MERV-13 (or
higher) filters for a school’s HVAC systems or stand-alone air conditioners; repairing windows
and/or doors so that they can safely open to let fresh air in; and servicing or upgrading HVAC
systems consistent with industry standards. 14
Additional prevention strategies to layer into the school community: CDC continues to
recommend additional prevention strategies to help students remain safely in-person at school.
Continued use of these prevention strategies can help promote the health and safety of all
students, especially those at higher risk of severe outcomes due to COVID-19. These strategies
include physical distancing, handwashing and respiratory etiquette; staying home when sick and
getting tested; and cleaning and disinfection.
III. Ensuring Students Receive Education and Services in the Least Restrictive
Environment
In adopting practical, layered strategies to serve all students, schools must refrain from placing
all students with disabilities, or all students with disabilities at high risk of severe outcomes from
COVID-19, in a segregated setting away from their peers without disabilities as the only means
to deliver FAPE safely. Both IDEA and Section 504 presume that all students with disabilities
should be educated alongside their peers without disabilities unless the educational goals for the
student cannot be successfully met in that setting. Similarly, schools should be cautious about
singling out or identifying students with disabilities as the cause of any perceived burden to
avoid stigma and the risk of bullying and must take steps to address any bullying that does occur.
When health plans are included in the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan, it is especially
important that the IEP or Section 504 Plan be made available to each regular education teacher,
special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is
responsible for its implementation. Further, school staff responsible for implementing any aspect
of the student’s IEP or 504 Plan must be informed of the relevant content and requirements,
including the specific supplementary aids and services, accommodations, modifications, and
other supports to be provided for, or on behalf of, the student.
IEP and Section 504 Teams should be careful to consider how their decisions about services and
service delivery impact placement in the LRE. It is important to keep in mind that every IDEAeligible student’s program is the sum of their access to, and progress in, the general education
curriculum along with progress on their individual functional goals. The two are linked, and both
must be prioritized. It is important for teams to be creative and make decisions promoting
maximum and appropriate inclusivity, rather than more separate or restrictive programs. In
14

Purchasing of equipment by LEAs using ARP Act funds requires prior approval by the SEA. See 2 C.F.R. §
200.407 (i.e., Uniform Guidance). For more information, see B-7 and B-8 of the Department’s Frequently Asked
Questions on Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs and Governor’s Emergency
Education Relief Programs (May 2021).

Page 8 — Dear Educators and Parents
addition, where remote learning or other alternatives may still be required, schools should
continue best practices to ensure all students remain engaged and connected to learning.
Schools may consider whether providing smaller cohorts of group instruction with peers without
disabilities can minimize a student’s health risks while maintaining the obligation to provide
FAPE in the LRE based on the individual needs of the student with a disability. The TIES Center
is the OSEP-funded national technical assistance center on inclusive practices and policies. It
works with States, districts, and schools to support the movement of students with disabilities
from less inclusive to more inclusive environments. It has developed a model IEP that can be
used to create an inclusive program for students with disabilities.
Students learn best in person and all children with disabilities must continue to receive FAPE
and must have the chance to meet challenging objectives. Students are better able to engage with
rigorous instruction and access services and supports tailored to their needs when they are
learning alongside their peers. The Biden-Harris Administration has made learning in person a
top priority for all students, including students with disabilities. As we learn to safely engage
with our communities and navigate the current state of the pandemic, the Department will
continue to provide guidance and resources to school communities to ensure we support the
ability of students with disabilities to learn in person. To learn more, visit the disability rights
section on ed.gov/coronavirus. Thank you for being our partner in this effort.
Sincerely,

Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D.


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

OSEP Policy Letter 22-02

March 2, 2022
Denise Marshall
Chief Executive Officer
The Council of Parent Attorneys and
Advocates, Inc.
Post Office Box 6767
Towson, Maryland 21285
Sent via email: denise@copaa.org
Dear Ms. Marshall:
Thank you for your May 13, 2021, letter to Secretary Cardona regarding the significant
disproportionality requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In your
letter, you raised a series of issues regarding the implementation of the December 19, 2016, Equity
in IDEA regulation. Your questions were forwarded to the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) for a response. Subsequently, you met with David Cantrell, Gregg
Corr, Rebecca Walawender, and Kabrillen Jones of my staff on June 2, 2021. Each of the issues you
raised in your letter and in the follow-up conversation is addressed below.
In your letter, you inquired about the Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form that is included
in the IDEA Part B State grant application package. You note that the form was created as an
electronic submission form and is not posted for public review and comment with each State’s
application consistent with the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA). You have requested that
the Department compile all States’ information submitted via the Significant Disproportionality
Reporting Form and post the information on the IDEA website, as well as instruct States to post the
Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form on the State educational agency’s (SEA’s) website.
The Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form was initially submitted with each State’s Federal
fiscal year (FFY) 2020 IDEA Part B application, and subsequently updated as necessary. The State
application is a mechanism for collecting the information required at 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(7) and
in section 618(a)(3) of IDEA, but submission of the Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form
is not required as a condition of eligibility for a State’s Part B grant award under section 612 of
IDEA. Therefore, States are not required to post the form for public comment under the public
participation requirements at 34 C.F.R. § 300.165 or in section 441(b)(7) of GEPA (20 U.S.C.
1232d(b)(7)). However, as the Department previously stated in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes to the final Equity in IDEA regulation, publicly reporting this data provides increased
transparency that allows States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and stakeholders to monitor
significant disproportionality and reinforces the review and revision of risk ratio thresholds, cell
sizes, and n-sizes as an iterative public process within each State. 81 Fed. Reg. 92376, 92389-90
(Dec. 19, 2016). Therefore, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will take appropriate
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600
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.

steps for posting the data collected in the Significant Disproportionality Reporting Form on the
Department’s IDEA website. Consistent with prior practices used for other data submission
activities, States will be notified of OSEP’s plan to publish the data and will be given the
opportunity to clarify and resubmit their data in the upcoming FFY 2022 IDEA Part B Grant
Application, which is due May 27, 2022. OSEP approximates that this data will be posted during
the fourth quarter of the 2022 calendar year.
You also requested clarification regarding the effective date when States must begin using the new
standard methodology for LEA determinations of significant disproportionality as well as the
Department’s process and timeline to monitor implementation of the new methodology. It is the
Department’s expectation that States are implementing the new standard methodology, as the
Department stated in the April 4, 2019 press release following the March 7, 2019 judicial decision
in COPAA v. DeVos. OSERS also made this expectation clear during a Section VB webinar in
February 2020 outlining the significant disproportionality reporting requirements.
Regarding your question about the Department’s process for monitoring implementation of the new
standard methodology, we will engage in several activities that are related to this work. First, as a
key component of Results Driven Accountability (RDA), OSEP monitors States through its
Differentiated Monitoring and Support system known as DMS. Under DMS, OSEP focuses on both
compliance and improving results for children with disabilities and differentiates its approach for
each State based on the State’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs. While the
Department has not conducted on-site monitoring activities since the pandemic began, it has
continued to monitor and enforce State implementation of IDEA. In October 2020, OSEP
announced a change to its DMS process and began implementation of DMS 2.0 for monitoring
States’ general supervision systems as described in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 303.700 1. Under
DMS 2.0, all States will be monitored on their general supervision systems in five Cohorts. General
supervision encompasses the State’s responsibility to ensure that it and its subgrantees and
contractors meet the requirements of IDEA, which includes: 1) Improving educational results and
functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities; and 2) Ensuring
that public agencies meet the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for
infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
While DMS monitoring focuses on the elements of general supervision, OSEP’s monitoring process
also addresses equity under both Part B and Part C of IDEA through examination of topics
including, but not limited to significant disproportionality, disproportionate representation,
discipline, child find, and evaluations. OSEP continues to partner with States toward improvement
of outcomes for children with disabilities through technical assistance and, when appropriate,
findings and correction of noncompliance. Technical assistance will continue to include addressing
any questions or concerns raised after review of the significant disproportionality data and
information that States submitted or updated with their grant applications.
In addition to the DMS process, each year OSEP reviews the LEA maintenance of effort and
coordinated early intervening services (LEA MOE/CEIS) data collection, in which States identify

Sec. 300.149 SEA responsibility for general supervision - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and
Sec. 303.700 State monitoring and enforcement - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
1

whether each LEA was required to reserve funds for comprehensive coordinated early intervening
services (CCEIS) due to being identified as having significant disproportionality under 34 C.F.R. §
300.646(d) or whether each LEA reserved funds voluntarily under 34 C.F.R. § 300.226 for CEIS.
Following review of this information, OSEP follows up with States on any data discrepancies and
issues letters to States regarding their monitoring responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600.
Through this review and technical assistance, OSEP has observed the quality of the LEA
MOE/CEIS data collection improve over time.
OSEP provides technical assistance to States in a variety of ways, including past webinars as well as
technical assistance that results from the DMS process and the review of the LEA MOE/CEIS data.
The IDEA Data Center also has several resources and offers technical assistance to States regarding
significant disproportionality. Additionally, in its recent return to school guidance, the Department
prioritized the inclusion of equity in each guidance document to ensure that equity is consistently
included in educational decisions regarding children with disabilities.
Finally, you asked about the status of the Significant Disproportionality State Survey that was
announced in May 2019, as well as information regarding the technical assistance being provided to
States to assist in implementation of the new standard methodology. The Significant
Disproportionality State Survey was published in the Federal Register for both a 60-day and 30-day
comment period. It was approved by the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
March 12, 2020 and assigned Information Collection number 1820-0697. It was set to expire on
March 31, 2023. The Department has reviewed the approved information collection and, as
discussed below, we believe that the Significant Disproportionality State Survey is no longer
necessary. As initially proposed, the survey was intended to collect information on each State’s
implementation of the new standard methodology and the information required under 34 C.F.R §§
300.647(b)(7) and 300.647(d)(2). However, upon full implementation of the Equity in IDEA
regulation in 2019, the Department revised its Information Collection 1820-0030 (Annual State
Application Under Part B of IDEA) to collect the information required by 34 C.F.R. §§
300.647(b)(7) and 300.647(d)(2), and pursuant to the authority established in IDEA section
618(a)(3), also collect the number of years of data each State uses in making annual determinations
of significant disproportionality.
The Department then made substantive changes to proposed Information Collection 1820-0697 as a
result of comments received during the 60-day comment period and because some of the
information in proposed 1820-0697 was duplicative of the information collected under 1820-0030.
The stated purpose of the revised Information Collection 1820-0697 published 30-day comment
period was to provide States with a voluntary opportunity to submit information on the States’ need
for technical assistance in implementing the standard methodology for measuring significant
disproportionality in States and LEAs pursuant to the 2016 regulation. Most comments received
during the 30-day comment period did not support the proposed Information Collection 1820-0697.
The collection was finalized and published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2020. No State has
requested to complete the survey and additional distribution has not occurred.
The Department believes that the survey, as approved, is no longer necessary to assess a State's
need for assistance in implementing the standard methodology for measuring significant
disproportionality in States and LEAs because the Department provided extensive universal
technical assistance to all States to ensure timely and accurate submission of the required
information through Information Collection 1820-0030. The information collected under 1820-0030
is a one-time submission and must only be resubmitted if a State revises its standard methodology.
Because the Department is prepared to continue to provide technical assistance on the Equity in

IDEA reporting requirements, both generally and as needed by specific States, the Department
requested and received approval from OMB to discontinue Information Collection 1820-0697
(Significant Disproportionality State Survey) effective February 28, 2022.
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your commitment and work in supporting children with
disabilities.
Sincerely,
/s/
Katherine Neas
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Delegated the authority to perform
the functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services