Questions and Answers
On Discipline Procedures
Revised June 2009
Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published
in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, 2006.
Additional regulations were published on December 1, 2008, and became effective on December
31, 2008. Since publication of the regulations, the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has
received requests for clarification of some of these regulations. This is one of a series of
question and answer (Q&A) documents prepared by OSERS to address some of the most
important issues raised by requests for clarification on a variety of high-interest topics. Each
Q&A document will be updated to add new questions and answers as important issues arise or to
amend existing questions and answers as needed.
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide guidance on discipline policies enacted for schoolage students to personnel in State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies
(LEAs), and families. This Q&A document represents the Department’s current thinking on this
topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not
impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations.
This Q&A document supersedes the Department’s guidance, entitled Questions and Answers on
Discipline Procedures, issued January 2007.
The 2004 amendments to section 615(k) of the IDEA were intended to address the needs
expressed by school administrators and teachers for flexibility in order to balance school safety
issues with the need to ensure that schools respond appropriately to a child’s behavior that was
caused by, or directly and substantially related to, the child’s disability. The reauthorized IDEA
and its implementing regulations include provisions that address important disciplinary issues
such as: the consideration of unique circumstances when determining the appropriateness of a
disciplinary change in placement; expanded authority for removal of a child from his or her
current placement for not more than 45 school days for inflicting a serious bodily injury at school
or at a school function; the determination on a case-by-case basis as to whether a pattern of
removals constitutes a change of placement; and revised standards and procedures related to the
manifestation determination.
Generally, the questions, and corresponding answers, presented in this Q&A document required
interpretation of the IDEA and its implementing regulations and the answers are not simply a
restatement of the statutory or regulatory requirements. The responses presented in this
document generally are informal guidance representing the interpretation of the Department of
the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the specific facts presented
and are not legally binding. The Q&As in this document are not intended to be a replacement for
careful study of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

regulations, and other important documents related to the IDEA and the regulations are found at
http://IDEA.ed.gov.
If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please e-mail your comments to
OSERSguidancecomments@ed.gov and include Discipline in the subject of your email or write
us at the following address: Patricia Guard, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center
Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW, room 4108, Washington, DC 20202.

PAGE 2

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Table of Contents
A. Safeguards ...................................................................................................................... Page 6
A-1. When the parent(s) of a child and the school personnel are in agreement about the
child’s change of placement after the child has violated a code of student conduct, is it
considered to be a removal under the discipline provision?
A-2. When a parent consents to the initial provision of some, but not all, of the proposed
special education and related services, do the discipline provisions apply if the child
violates the school’s code of student conduct?
A-3. Do the discipline provisions apply if the child violates the school’s code of student
conduct after a parent revokes consent for special education and related services under
§300.300(b)?
A-4. In order to receive the protections for disciplinary purposes in 34 CFR §300.534,
parents who are concerned that their child may need special education and related
services must first express their concerns in writing. How are parents informed of
this requirement?
A-5. Under 34 CFR §300.534(b), a public agency is deemed to have knowledge that a child
is a child with a disability if a parent expressed in writing a concern that his or her
child needs special education and related services. What happens if a parent is unable
to express this concern in writing?
A-6. If a removal is for 10 consecutive school days or less and occurs after a student has
been removed for 10 school days in that same school year, and the public agency
determines, under 34 CFR §300.530(d)(4), that the removal does not constitute a
change of placement, must the agency provide written notice to the parent?
A-7. If a teacher or other school personnel has specific concerns that a child may need
special education and related services due to a child’s pattern of behavior, must such
concerns be submitted in writing to school officials in order for the public agency to be
deemed to have knowledge that the child is a child with a disability?
B. Definitions....................................................................................................................... Page 9
B-1. What options are available for school personnel when a student with a disability
commits a serious crime, such as rape, at school or at a school function?
B-2. What is the definition of “unique circumstances” as used in 34 CFR §300.530(a), which
states that “school personnel may consider any unique circumstances on a case-by-case
basis when determining whether a change in placement, consistent with the other

PAGE 3

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

requirements of this section, is appropriate for a child with a disability who violates a
code of student conduct?”
B-3. May a public agency apply its own definition of “serious bodily injury?”
C. Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) ...................................................... Page 11
C-1. What constitutes an appropriate IAES?
C-2. May a public agency offer “home instruction” as the sole IAES option?
C-3. Do all services in the child’s IEP need to be provided in the IAES for a removal under
34 CFR §300.530(c) or (g)?
D. Hearings ........................................................................................................................ Page 13
D-1. Must a hearing officer make a sufficiency determination under 34 CFR §300.508(d) for
an expedited due process complaint? In other words, does the hearing officer need to
determine if the complaint meets the content standards listed in section 615(b)(7)(A) of
the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.508(b)?
E. Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA) and
Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIP).......................................................................... Page 14
E-1. Was the requirement for a “positive behavioral intervention plan” removed from the
discipline regulations?
E-2. Under what circumstances must an IEP Team use FBAs and BIPs?
E-3. How can an IEP address behavior?
E-4. Is consent required to do an FBA for a child?
E-5. If a parent disagrees with the results of an FBA, may the parent obtain an independent
educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense?
F. Manifestation Determinations .................................................................................... Page 17
F-1. What occurs if there is no agreement on whether a child’s behavior was or was not a
manifestation of his or her disability?
F-2. What recourse does a parent have if he or she disagrees with the determination that his
or her child’s behavior was not a manifestation of the child’s disability?
F-3. Is the IEP Team required to hold a manifestation determination each time that a student

PAGE 4

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

is removed for more than 10 consecutive school days or each time that the public
agency determines that a series of removals constitutes a change of placement?
F-4. Does a school need to conduct a manifestation determination when there is a violation
under 34 CFR §300.530(g), which refers to a removal for weapons, drugs, or serious
bodily injury?
F-5. What disciplinary procedures would apply in the case of a child who has been referred
for a special education evaluation and is removed for a disciplinary infraction prior to
determination of eligibility?
F-6. Is there a conflict between 34 CFR §300.530(c), allowing school personnel, under
certain circumstances, to apply the relevant disciplinary procedures to a child with a
disability in the same manner and for the same duration as would be applied to children
without disabilities, and the provision, at 34 CFR §300.532 (b)(2), that the hearing
officer may order a change in placement for not more than 45 school days if the hearing
officer determines that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially
likely to result in injury to the child or to others?

PAGE 5

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Authority:

The requirements for discipline are found in the regulations at 34 CFR
§§300.530 – 300.536.

A. Safeguards
Question A-1:

When the parent(s) of a child and the school personnel are in agreement
about the child’s change of placement after the child has violated a code of
student conduct, is it considered to be a removal under the discipline
provisions?

Answer:

No, if the parent(s) of a child and the school district agree to a specific
change in the current educational placement of the child.

Question A-2:

When a parent consents to the initial provision of some, but not all, of the
proposed special education and related services, do the discipline
provisions apply if the child violates the school’s code of student conduct?

Answer:

Yes. When a parent consents to the initial provision of some, but not all, of
the proposed special education and related services listed in a child’s initial
individualized education program (IEP), the child has been determined
eligible for services and is entitled to all the protections of the IDEA.

Question A-3:

Do the discipline provisions apply if the child violates the school’s code of
student conduct after a parent revokes consent for special education and
related services under §300.300(b)?

Answer:

No. Under §§ 300.9 and 300.300, parents are permitted to unilaterally
withdraw their children from further receipt of special education and
related services by revoking their consent for the continued provision of
special education and related services to their children. When a parent
revokes consent for special education and related services under
§300.300(b), the parent has refused services as described in
§300.534(c)(1)(ii); therefore, the public agency is not deemed to have
knowledge that the child is a child with a disability and the child will be
subject to the same disciplinary procedures and timelines applicable to
general education students and not entitled to IDEA’s discipline
protections. It is expected that parents will take into account the possible
consequences under the discipline procedures before revoking consent for
the provision of special education and related services. 73 Federal
Register 73012-73013.

PAGE 6

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Question A-4:

In order to receive the protections for disciplinary purposes in 34 CFR
§300.534, parents who are concerned that their child may need special
education and related services must first express their concerns in
writing. How are parents informed of this requirement?

Answer:

Neither the IDEA nor the regulations specifically address this issue.
However, in its child find policies and procedures, a State may choose to
include ways to provide information to the public regarding IDEA’s
protections for disciplinary purposes when a parent has expressed in
writing to school personnel concerns regarding the child’s need for special
education and related services. Examples of ways to provide such
information include making the information available on the State’s Web
site, the LEA’s Web site, or in the State’s Procedural Safeguards Notice or
the school’s student handbook.

Question A-5:

Under 34 CFR §300.534(b), a public agency is deemed to have knowledge
that a child is a child with a disability if a parent expressed in writing a
concern that his or her child needs special education and related services.
What happens if a parent is unable to express this concern in writing?

Answer:

The requirement that a parent express his or her concern in writing is
taken directly from the IDEA. However, there is nothing in the IDEA or
the regulations that would prevent a parent from requesting assistance to
communicate his or her concerns in writing. The Department funds Parent
Training and Information Centers (PTIs) and Community Parent Resource
Centers (CPRCs) to assist parents of students with disabilities.
Information about the PTIs and CPRCs is found at
http://www.taalliance.org/.

Question A-6:

If a removal is for 10 consecutive school days or less and occurs after a
student has been removed for 10 school days in that same school year, and
the public agency determines, under 34 CFR §300.530(d)(4), that the
removal does not constitute a change of placement, must the agency
provide written notice to the parent?

Answer:

No. Under Part B, a public agency’s determination that a short-term
removal does not constitute a change of placement is not a proposal or
refusal to initiate a change of placement for purposes of determining
services under 34 CFR §300.530(d)(4). Therefore, the agency is not
required to provide written notice to the parent.

PAGE 7

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Question A-7:

If a teacher or other school personnel has specific concerns that a child
may need special education and related services due to a child’s pattern of
behavior, must such concerns be submitted in writing to school officials in
order for the public agency to be deemed to have knowledge that the child
is a child with a disability?

Answer:

No. Under 34 CFR §300.534(b)(3), teachers or other local educational
agency (LEA) personnel are not required to submit a written statement
expressing specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by
the child in order for the public agency to be deemed to have knowledge
that the child is a child with a disability. Although a written statement is
not necessary, the teacher of the child or other LEA personnel must
express their specific concerns directly to the special education director or
other supervisory personnel within the agency. In addition, State child
find policies and procedures may provide guidelines regarding how
teachers and other LEA personnel should communicate their specific
concerns regarding a child’s pattern of behavior. If the State’s or LEA’s
child find or referral procedures do not specify how such communication
should occur, the State or LEA is encouraged to change its guidelines to
provide a method for communicating direct expressions of specific
concerns regarding a child’s pattern of behavior.
71 Federal Register 46727.

PAGE 8

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

B. Definitions
Question B-1:

What options are available for school personnel when a student with a
disability commits a serious crime, such as rape, at school or at a school
function?

Answer:

Under most State and local laws, school personnel must report certain
crimes that occur on school grounds to the appropriate authorities. The
IDEA regulations, under 34 CFR §300.535(a), do not prohibit the school or
public agency from reporting crimes committed by students with
disabilities. In addition, where such crimes constitute a violation of the
school’s code of student conduct, school authorities may use the relevant
discipline provisions related to short-term and long-term removals,
including seeking a hearing to remove the student to an interim alternative
educational placement if maintaining the current placement is substantially
likely to result in injury to the child or others. To the extent that such
criminal acts also result in an injury that meets the definition of “serious
bodily injury,” the removal provisions of 34 CFR §300.530(g) would apply.
The definition referenced in 34 CFR §300.530(i)(3) currently reads:
As defined at 18 U.S.C. 1365(h)(3), the term serious bodily injury
means bodily injury that involves—
1. A substantial risk of death;
2. Extreme physical pain;
3. Protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
4. Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member,
organ, or mental faculty.
Certain Federal cases have held that rape met this definition of serious
bodily injury because the victim suffered protracted impairment of mental
faculties.
The current definition of the term “serious bodily injury” in 18 U.S.C.
1365(h)(3) can be found on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site at
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C65.txt.

Question B-2:

What is the definition of “unique circumstances” as used in 34 CFR
§300.530(a), which states that “school personnel may consider any unique
circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether a change
in placement, consistent with the other requirements of this section, is
appropriate for a child with a disability who violates a code of student
conduct?”

PAGE 9

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Answer:

The Department believes that “unique circumstances” are best determined
at the local level by school personnel who know the individual child and
are familiar with the facts and circumstances regarding a child’s behavior.
“Factors such as a child’s disciplinary history, ability to understand
consequences, expression of remorse, and supports provided … prior to
the violation of a school code [of student conduct] could be unique
circumstances considered by school personnel when determining whether
a disciplinary change in placement is appropriate for a child with a
disability.” 71 Federal Register 46714.

Question B-3:

May a public agency apply its own definition of “serious bodily injury?”

Answer:

No. As specifically set out in the IDEA, the term “serious bodily injury” is
defined at 18 U.S.C. 1365(h)(3) and cannot be altered by States or local
school boards. The definition and a link to the current U.S. Code is
included in the answer to question B-1, and also in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes that accompanied the regulations published on
August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, 2006. 71 Federal
Register 46723.

PAGE 10

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

C.

Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES)
Question C-1:

What constitutes an appropriate IAES?

Answer:

What constitutes an appropriate IAES will depend on the circumstances of
each individual case. An IAES must be selected so as to enable the child
to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in
another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the
child’s IEP. 71 Federal Register 46722.

Question C-2:

May a public agency offer “home instruction” as the sole IAES option?

Answer:

No. For removals under 34 CFR §300.530(c), (d)(5), and (g), the child’s
IEP Team determines the appropriate IAES (34 CFR §300.531). Section
615(k)(1)(D) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.530(d) are clear that an
appropriate IAES must be selected “so as to enable the child to continue to
participate in the general education curriculum, although in another
setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s
IEP.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate for a public agency to limit an
IEP Team to only one option when determining the appropriate IAES. As
noted in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying the
regulations published on August 14, 2006, which became effective on
October 13, 2006, at 71 Federal Register 46722:
Whether a child’s home would be an appropriate interim alternative
educational setting under §300.530 would depend on the particular
circumstances of an individual case such as the length of the
removal, the extent to which the child previously has been removed
from his or her regular placement, and the child’s individual needs
and educational goals. In general, though, because removals under
§§300.530(g) and 300.532 will be for periods of time up to 45 days,
care must be taken to ensure that if home instruction is provided for
a child removed under §300.530, the services that are provided will
satisfy the requirements for services for a removal under
§300.530(d) and section 615(k)(1)(D) of the Act.
Where the removal is for a longer period, such as a 45-day removal under
34 CFR §300.530(g), special care should be taken to ensure that the
services required under 34 CFR §300.530(d) can be properly provided if
the IEP Team determines that a child’s home is the appropriate IAES.

PAGE 11

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

Question C-3:

Do all services in the child’s IEP need to be provided in the IAES for a
removal under 34 CFR §300.530(c) or (g)?

Answer:

It depends on the needs of the child. The LEA is not required to provide
all services in the child’s IEP when a child has been removed to an IAES.
In general, the child’s IEP Team will make an individualized decision for
each child with a disability regarding the type and intensity of services to
be provided in the IAES. 34 CFR §300.530(d)(1) clarifies that a child
with a disability who is removed from his or her current placement for
disciplinary reasons under 34 CFR §300.530(c) or (g) must continue to
receive educational services as provided in 34 CFR §300.101(a), so as to
enable the child to continue to participate in the general education
curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting
his or her IEP goals. For removals that constitute a change of placement,
the child’s IEP Team determines the appropriate services under 34 CFR
§300.530(d)(1). See 34 CFR §300.530(d)(5). If a student whose
placement has been changed under 34 CFR §300.530(c) or (g) is not
progressing toward meeting the IEP goals, then it would be appropriate for
the IEP Team to review and revise the determination of services and/or the
IAES.

PAGE 12

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

D. Hearings
Question D-1:

Must a hearing officer make a sufficiency determination under 34 CFR
§300.508(d) for an expedited due process complaint? In other words, does
the hearing officer need to determine if the complaint meets the content
standards listed in section 615(b)(7)(A) of the IDEA and 34 CFR
§300.508(b)?

Answer:

No. The sufficiency provision does not apply to expedited due process
complaints. See 34 CFR §300.532(a). As noted in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes accompanying the regulations published on
August 14, 2006, which became effective on October 13, 2006 at 71
Federal Register 46725:
In light of the shortened timelines for conducting an expedited due
process hearing under §300.532(c), it is not practical to apply to
the expedited due process hearing the sufficiency provision in
§300.508(d), which requires that the 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 days of receipt of the due process complaint,
that the receiving party believes the due process complaint does
not include all the necessary content of a complaint as required in
§300.508(b).

PAGE 13

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

E. Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs) and
Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs)
Question E-1:

Was the requirement for a “positive behavioral intervention plan”
removed from the discipline regulations?

Answer:

No. Under 34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(i), the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports must be considered in the case of a child whose
behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others. The requirement in
34 CFR §300.530(f) that a child with a disability receive, as appropriate,
an FBA and a BIP and modifications designed to address the child’s
behavior now only applies to students whose behavior is a manifestation
of their disability as determined by the LEA, the parent, and the relevant
members of the child’s IEP Team under 34 CFR §300.530(e). However,
FBAs and BIPs must also be used proactively, if the IEP Team determines
that they would be appropriate for the child. The regulations in 34 CFR
§300.530(d) require that school districts provide FBAs and behavior
intervention services (and modifications) “as appropriate” to students
when the student’s disciplinary change in placement would exceed 10
consecutive school days and the student’s behavior was not a
manifestation of his or her disability. See 34 CFR §300.530(c) and (d).
Please see question E-2 in this section for more information about the use
and development of FBAs and BIPs.

Question E-2:

Under what circumstances must an IEP Team use FBAs and BIPs?

Answer:

As noted above, pursuant to 34 CFR §300.530(f), FBAs and BIPs are
required when the LEA, the parent, and the relevant members of the
child’s IEP Team determine that a student’s conduct was a manifestation
of his or her disability under 34 CFR §300.530(e). If a child’s misconduct
has been found to have a direct and substantial relationship to his or her
disability, the IEP Team will need to conduct an FBA of the child, unless
one has already been conducted. Similarly, the IEP Team must write a
BIP for this child, unless one already exists. If a BIP already exists, then
the IEP Team will need to review the plan and modify it, as necessary, to
address the behavior.
An FBA focuses on identifying the function or purpose behind a child’s
behavior. Typically, the process involves looking closely at a wide range
of child-specific factors (e.g., social, affective, environmental). Knowing
why a child misbehaves is directly helpful to the IEP Team in developing
a BIP that will reduce or eliminate the misbehavior.

PAGE 14

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

For a child with a disability whose behavior impedes his or her learning or
that of others, and for whom the IEP Team has decided that a BIP is
appropriate, or for a child with a disability whose violation of the code of
student conduct is a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP Team
must include a BIP in the child’s IEP to address the behavioral needs of
the child.

Question E-3:

How can an IEP address behavior?

Answer:

When a child’s behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, the
IEP Team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and
supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior (34 CFR
§300.324(a)(2)(i)). Additionally, the Team may address the behavior
through annual goals in the IEP (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(i)). The child’s
IEP may include modifications in his or her program, support for his or
her teachers, and any related services necessary to achieve those
behavioral goals (34 CFR §300.320(a)(4)). If the child needs a BIP to
improve learning and socialization, the BIP can be included in the IEP and
aligned with the goals in the IEP.

Question E-4:

Is consent required to do an FBA for a child?

Answer:

Yes. An FBA is generally understood to be an individualized evaluation
of a child in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.301 through 300.311 to assist
in determining whether the child is, or continues to be, a child with a
disability. The FBA process is frequently used to determine the nature
and extent of the special education and related services that the child
needs, including the need for a BIP. As with other individualized
evaluation procedures, and consistent with 34 CFR §300.300(a) and (c),
parental consent is required for an FBA to be conducted as part of the
initial evaluation or a reevaluation.

Question E-5:

If a parent disagrees with the results of an FBA, may the parent obtain an
independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense?

Answer:

Yes. The parent of a child with a disability has the right to request an IEE
of the child, under 34 CFR §300.502, if the parent disagrees with an
evaluation obtained by the public agency. However, the parent’s right to an
IEE at public expense is subject to certain conditions, including the LEA’s
option to request a due process hearing to show that its evaluation is
appropriate. See 34 CFR §300.502(b)(2) through (b)(5). The Department
has clarified previously that an FBA that was not identified as an initial
PAGE 15

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

evaluation, was not included as part of the required triennial reevaluation, or
was not done in response to a disciplinary removal, would nonetheless be
considered a reevaluation or part of a reevaluation under Part B because it
was an individualized evaluation conducted in order to develop an
appropriate IEP for the child. Therefore, a parent who disagrees with an
FBA that is conducted in order to develop an appropriate IEP also is entitled
to request an IEE. Subject to the conditions in 34 CFR §300.502(b)(2)
through (b)(5), the IEE of the child will be at public expense.

PAGE 16

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

F. Manifestation Determinations
Question F-1:

What occurs if there is no agreement on whether a child’s behavior was or
was not a manifestation of his or her disability?

Answer:

If the parents of a child with a disability, the LEA, and the relevant
members of the child’s IEP Team cannot reach consensus or agreement on
whether the child’s behavior was or was not a manifestation of the
disability, the public agency must make the determination and provide the
parent with prior written notice pursuant to 34 CFR §300.503. The parent
of the child with a disability has the right to exercise his or her procedural
safeguards by requesting mediation and/or a due process hearing to
resolve a disagreement about the manifestation determination. 34 CFR
§300.506 and §300.532(a). A parent also has the right to file a State
complaint alleging a violation of Part B related to the manifestation
determination. See 34 CFR §300.153.

Question F-2:

What recourse does a parent have if he or she disagrees with the
determination that his or her child’s behavior was not a manifestation of
the child’s disability?

Answer:

The regulations, in 34 CFR §300.532(a), provide that the parent of a child
with a disability who disagrees with the manifestation determination under
34 CFR §300.530(e) may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. A
parent also has the right to file a State complaint alleging a denial of a free
appropriate public education and to request voluntary mediation under 34
CFR §300.506.

Question F-3:

Is the IEP Team required to hold a manifestation determination each time
that a student is removed for more than 10 consecutive school days or
each time that the public agency determines that a series of removals
constitutes a change of placement?

Answer:

Yes. 34 CFR §300.530(e) requires that “within 10 school days of any
decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a
violation of a code of student conduct” the LEA, the parent, and relevant
members of the child’s IEP Team must conduct a manifestation
determination (emphasis added). Under 34 CFR §300.536, a change of
placement occurs if the removal is for more than 10 consecutive school
days, or if the public agency determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a
pattern of removals constitutes a change of placement because the series
of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year; the child’s

PAGE 17

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

behavior is substantially similar to the behavior that resulted in the
previous removals; and because of such additional factors as the length of
each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed, and
the proximity of the removals to one another.

Question F-4:

Does a school need to conduct a manifestation determination when there is
a violation under 34 CFR §300.530(g), which refers to a removal for
weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury?

Answer:

Yes. Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a
child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct,
the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s IEP Team
conduct the manifestation determination. 34 CFR §300.530(e). However,
when the removal is for weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury under
§300.530(g), the child may remain in an IAES, as determined by the
child’s IEP Team, for not more than 45 school days, regardless of whether
the violation was a manifestation of his or her disability. This type of
removal can occur if the child: carries a weapon to or possesses a weapon
at school, on school premises, or to or at a school function under the
jurisdiction of the State educational agency (SEA) or LEA; knowingly
possesses or uses illegal drugs, or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled
substance, while at school, on school premises, or at a school function
under the jurisdiction of the SEA or LEA; or has inflicted serious bodily
injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a
school function under the jurisdiction of the SEA or LEA.

Question F-5:

What disciplinary procedures would apply in the case of a child who has
been referred for a special education evaluation and is removed for a
disciplinary infraction prior to determination of eligibility?

Answer:

If a child engages in behavior that violates the code of student conduct
prior to a determination of his or her eligibility for special education and
related services and the public agency is deemed to have knowledge of the
child’s disability, the child is entitled to all of the IDEA protections
afforded to a child with a disability, unless a specific exception applies. In
general, once the student is properly referred for an evaluation under Part
B of the IDEA, the public agency would be deemed to have knowledge
that the child is a child with a disability for purposes of the IDEA’s
disciplinary provisions. However, under 34 CFR §300.534(c), the LEA is
considered not to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if
the parent has not allowed the evaluation of the child under Part B of the
IDEA, the parent has refused services, or if the child is evaluated and
determined not to be a child with a disability under Part B of the IDEA. In

PAGE 18

Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures

these instances, the child would be subject to the same disciplinary
measures applicable to children without disabilities.

Question F-6:

Is there a conflict between 34 CFR §300.530(c), allowing school
personnel, under certain circumstances, to apply the relevant disciplinary
procedures to a child with a disability in the same manner and for the same
duration as would be applied to children without disabilities, and the
provision, in 34 CFR §300.532(b)(2), that the hearing officer may order a
change in placement for not more than 45 school days if the hearing
officer determines that maintaining the current placement of the child is
substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others?

Answer:

No, there is no conflict between the two provisions. In addition to the
specific authority set out in 34 CFR §300.532, a hearing officer also has
the authority to uphold a disciplinary change of placement made by school
personnel under 34 CFR §300.530(c). Where the parent brings a due
process hearing to challenge a disciplinary change of placement made by
school personnel under 34 CFR §300.530(c) and the hearing officer
concludes that the disciplinary requirements of Part B have been met, the
hearing officer would properly uphold the disciplinary change of
placement. If the hearing officer concludes that the child’s behavior was a
manifestation of the child’s disability, but also determines that returning
the child to the prior placement is substantially likely to result in injury to
the child or to others, then the hearing officer, under 34 CFR
§300.532(b)(2), may change the placement to an appropriate IAES for not
more than 45 school days.

PAGE 19


Questions and Answers
on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for
Parents and Children with Disabilities
Revised June 2009
Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published
in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, 2006.
Additional regulations were published on December 1, 2008 and became effective on December
31, 2008. Since publication of the regulations, the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has
received requests for clarification of some of these regulations. This is one of a series of
question and answer (Q&A) documents prepared by OSERS to address some of the most
important issues raised by requests for clarification on a variety of high-interest topics. Each
Q&A document will be updated to add new questions and answers as important issues arise or to
amend existing questions and answers as needed.
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide parents, parent training and information centers,
school personnel, State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs),
advocacy organizations, and other interested parties with information to facilitate appropriate
implementation of the IDEA due process procedures. This Q&A document represents the
Department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable
law and regulations.
This Q&A document supersedes the Department’s guidance, entitled Questions and Answers on
Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities
issued in January 2007.
As a result of the 2004 amendments to the IDEA, the Department has made several changes in
the Part B regulations regarding the procedures States must adopt for resolving written
complaints filed with the SEA. These changes include a new requirement to forward a copy of
the State complaint to the public agency serving the child, new content requirements for
complaints, and a revised time period for filing complaints. The regulations expand the
availability of mediation to resolve disputes and include a new provision for the enforcement of
mediation agreements. The regulations also revise due process hearing procedures to: specify a
timeline for filing a due process complaint; require either party to provide notice of the due
process complaint to the other party; provide the parties with the opportunity to resolve the
dispute through a new resolution process with specific timelines whenever a parent files such a
complaint; specify the time period for requesting a due process hearing and bringing a civil
action; and include new guidelines on the substantive or procedural basis of the hearing officer’s
decision concerning the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

Generally, the questions, and corresponding answers, presented in this Q&A document required
an interpretation of the IDEA and its implementing regulations and the answers are not simply a
restatement of the statutory or regulatory requirements. The responses presented in this
document generally are informal guidance representing the interpretation of the Department of
the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the specific facts presented
and are not legally binding. The Q&As in this document are not intended to be a replacement for
careful study of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing
regulations, and other important documents related to the IDEA and the regulations are found at
http://IDEA.ed.gov.
If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please e-mail your comments to
OSERSguidancecomments@ed.gov and include Procedural Safeguards in the subject of your
email or write us at the following address: Patricia Guard, U.S. Department of Education,
Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW, room 4108, Washington, DC 20202.

PAGE 2

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

Table of Contents
A. State Complaint Procedures ......................................................................................... Page 6
A-1.

May the State complaint procedures, including the remedies outlined in
34 CFR §300.151(b), be used to address the problems of a group of children, i.e., a
complaint alleging systemic noncompliance? If so, please provide an example of a
systemic complaint.

A-2.

What is an SEA’s responsibility to conduct a complaint investigation if the written
complaint submitted to the SEA does not include the content required in
34 CFR §300.153?

A-3.

What is an SEA’s responsibility to conduct a complaint investigation if the
complainant does not provide a copy of the complaint to the public agency/LEA
serving the child at the same time the complaint is filed with the SEA?

A-4.

May an SEA dismiss a complaint alleging systemic noncompliance because the
complainant did not include a proposed resolution to the problem?

A-5.

May a complaint be filed with an SEA over an alleged violation that occurred more
than one year prior to the date of the complaint if the violation is continuing or the
complainant is requesting compensatory services for failure to provide appropriate
services?

A-6.

May an SEA choose to accept written complaints alleging violations of the IDEA that
occurred longer than one year prior to the SEA’s receipt of the written complaint? If
such a procedure is permitted, must the SEA widely disseminate the procedure
pursuant to 34 CFR §300.151(a)(2)?

A-7.

What are the requirements related to extension of the timeline for resolving a State
complaint when the parties are engaged in mediation?

A-8.

If the complainant is a party other than a parent, may the parties use the mediation
process to attempt to resolve the issues in the State complaint?

B. Mediation ...................................................................................................................... Page 10
B-1.

Are discussions that occur in mediation automatically confidential or is the
confidentiality of the mediation session something that must be mediated and
documented as a part of the mediation agreement?

B-2.

Must a written mediation agreement be kept confidential?

PAGE 3

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

B-3.

Do the regulations allow discussions that occur during the mediation process to be
disclosed during the investigation of a State complaint?

C. Due Process Complaints .............................................................................................. Page 11
C-1.

What happens if a parent files a due process complaint with the public agency but
does not forward a copy of the due process complaint to the SEA? When does the
timeline for convening a resolution meeting begin?

C-2.

May a parent file a due process complaint because their child’s teacher is not highly
qualified?

C-3.

May an LEA file a due process complaint when a parent notifies the LEA that the
parent intends to unilaterally place his or her child in a private school because FAPE
is at issue?

C-4.

What steps are available to the complaining party if a hearing officer rules that the
due process complaint is insufficient?

C-5.

If a due process complaint is amended and the 15-day timeline to conduct a resolution
meeting starts over, must the LEA conduct another resolution meeting?

C-6.

May a school district proceed directly to court for a temporary injunction to remove a
student from his or her current educational placement for disciplinary reasons or must
the school district exhaust administrative remedies by first filing a due process
complaint?

C-7.

The regulations do not require a resolution meeting when an LEA files a due process
complaint. 34 CFR §300.510. How does the absence of a resolution period when an
LEA files a due process complaint affect: (1) a parent’s right to challenge the
sufficiency of the due process complaint; and (2) the parent’s responsibility to send to
the LEA a response that specifically addresses the issues raised in the LEA’s due
process complaint?

D. Resolution Process ....................................................................................................... Page 14
D-1.

Does the resolution process under 34 CFR §300.510 apply when a public agency files
a due process complaint? If not, what is the timeline for issuing a hearing decision on
the matter?

D-2.

Why is a resolution meeting not required when an LEA files a due process complaint?

D-3.

Are there any provisions in the IDEA that require discussions that occur in resolution
meetings to remain confidential?

PAGE 4

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

D-4.

Do the regulations allow information discussed at a resolution meeting to be
introduced at a due process hearing?

D-5.

In the event an agreement is not reached during the resolution meeting, must
mediation continue to be available?

D-6.

Does the 30-day resolution period apply if the parties elect to use mediation under
34 CFR §300.506 rather than convene a resolution meeting?

D-7.

Must the LEA continue its attempts to convince a parent to participate in a resolution
meeting throughout the 30-day resolution period?

D-8.

If a party fails to participate in the resolution meeting, must the other party seek the
hearing officer’s intervention?

D-9.

If, at the conclusion of the 30-day resolution period, the LEA and parents wish to
continue the mediation process, must the hearing officer agree to the extension?

D-10. Must the SEA enforce the requirement that the LEA convene a resolution meeting
within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint? If a
resolution meeting is not convened, what action may a parent take?
E. Expedited Due Process Hearings................................................................................ Page 18
E-1.

May the parties mutually agree to extend the resolution period to resolve an expedited
due process complaint?

PAGE 5

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

A. State Complaint Procedures
Authority:

The requirements for State complaint procedures are found in the
regulations at 34 CFR §§300.151 through 300.153.

Question A-1:

May the State complaint procedures, including the remedies outlined in
34 CFR §300.151(b), be used to address the problems of a group of
children, i.e., a complaint alleging systemic noncompliance? If so, please
provide an example of a systemic complaint.

Answer:

Yes. An SEA is required to resolve any complaint that meets the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.153, including a complaint alleging that a
public agency failed to provide FAPE to a group of children with
disabilities. The Department views the State complaint procedures as an
important tool for a State to use to fulfill its general supervision
responsibilities to monitor implementation of the requirements in Part B of
the IDEA by LEAs in the State. These responsibilities extend to both
systemic and child-specific issues.
An example of a complaint alleging systemic noncompliance could
include a complaint alleging that an LEA has a policy, practice, or
procedure that results in not providing occupational therapy to children in
a specific disability category, which if true, would be inconsistent with the
requirements of the IDEA.

Question A-2:

What is an SEA’s responsibility to conduct a complaint investigation if the
written complaint submitted to the SEA does not include the content
required in 34 CFR §300.153?

Answer:

The regulations do not specifically address an SEA’s responsibility when
it receives a complaint that does not include the content required in
34 CFR §300.153. Under that section, a complaint must include a
statement that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the
Act or the regulations; the facts on which the statement is based; and the
signature and contact information for the complainant. If the complaint
alleges a violation with respect to a specific child the complaint also must
include the name and address of the residence of the child; the name of the
school the child is attending; in the case of a homeless child or youth,
available contact information for the child and the name of the school the
child is attending; a description of the problem of the child, including facts
relating to the problem; and a proposed resolution of the problem to the
extent known and available to the party at the time the complaint is filed.
However, in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying the

PAGE 6

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

regulations, the Department indicated that when an SEA receives a
complaint that is not signed or does not include contact information, the
SEA may choose to dismiss the complaint. 71 FR 46540, 46606 (August
14, 2006). In general, an SEA should adopt proper notice procedures for
such situations. For example, an SEA could provide notice indicating that
the complaint will be dismissed for not meeting the content requirements
or that the complaint will not be investigated and timelines not commence
until the missing content is provided.
Question A-3:

What is an SEA’s responsibility to conduct a complaint investigation if the
complainant does not provide a copy of the complaint to the public
agency/LEA serving the child at the same time the complaint is filed with
the SEA?

Answer:

The regulations do not address this specific question. It would be
appropriate for an SEA, when establishing its complaint procedures, to
include the actions that will be taken under such circumstances and
provide proper notice of these procedures. An SEA’s complaint
procedures may address how the complainant’s failure to provide the
required copy to the public agency/LEA will affect the initiation of an
investigation and/or the timeline for completing the investigation.
For example, an SEA could adopt procedures that include advising the
complainant in writing that the investigation will not proceed and the 60day timeline will not begin until the complainant provides the public
agency/LEA with a copy of the complaint as required by the regulations.

Question A-4:

May an SEA dismiss a complaint alleging systemic noncompliance
because the complainant did not include a proposed resolution to the
problem?

Answer:

No. The requirement, in 34 CFR §300.153(b)(4)(v), that the complaint
must include “…a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known
and available to the party at the time the complaint is filed” only applies to
complaints alleging violations with respect to a specific child.

Question A-5:

May a complaint be filed with an SEA over an alleged violation that
occurred more than one year prior to the date of the complaint if the
violation is continuing or the complainant is requesting compensatory
services for failure to provide appropriate services?

Answer:

No, unless the State chooses to accept and resolve complaints regarding
alleged violations that occurred outside the one-year timeline as described

PAGE 7

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

in Question A-6. The regulations in 34 CFR §300.153(c) stipulate that a
complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than one year
prior to the date that the complaint is received. The Analysis of Comments
and Changes accompanying the regulations notes that the previous
regulations allowed complaints to be filed for continuing violations and
for compensatory services claims using a longer time period. 71 FR
46606. The references to these circumstances were removed from the
current regulations to expedite the resolution of complaints. It is the
Department’s position that limiting a complaint to a violation that
occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is
received will help ensure that problems are raised and addressed promptly
so that children receive FAPE.

Question A-6:

May an SEA choose to accept written complaints alleging violations of the
IDEA that occurred longer than one year prior to the SEA’s receipt of the
written complaint? If such a procedure is permitted, must the SEA widely
disseminate the procedure pursuant to 34 CFR §300.151(a)(2)?

Answer:

As with other procedural protections, a State may elect to provide more
protections for children with disabilities and their parents than those
specifically required by the IDEA. Therefore, an SEA may adopt a policy
or procedure to accept and resolve complaints regarding alleged violations
that occurred outside the one-year timeline set out in 34 CFR §300.153(c),
because this would constitute greater protection for children with
disabilities. Stakeholders, including parents, parent training and
information centers, protection and advocacy agencies, independent living
centers, and other appropriate entities, must be informed of the State’s
complaint resolution procedures pursuant to 34 CFR §300.151(a)(2).
Therefore, if an SEA adopts a policy or procedure to accept complaints
alleging violations that occurred outside of the one-year timeline,
stakeholders must be informed of the policy or procedure so that they will
be able to make informed decisions about how and when they may access
the State complaint procedures. Additionally, pursuant to
34 CFR §300.504(c)(5), an SEA must ensure that the procedural
safeguards notice provided to parents includes a full explanation of the
procedural safeguards, including the time period in which a parent may
file a State complaint and relevant procedures.

Question A-7:

What are the requirements related to extension of the timeline for
resolving a State complaint when the parties are engaged in mediation?

Answer:

As provided in 34 CFR §300.152(b)(1)(ii), the parent (or individual or
organization, if mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution

PAGE 8

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

is available to the individual or organization under State procedures) and
the public agency involved may agree to extend the time limit to engage in
mediation to resolve a complaint.
If the parties involved voluntarily agree to engage in mediation once the
State complaint is filed, and the mediation is not successful in resolving
the dispute, the entity responsible for resolving the complaint at the State
level must ensure that the complaint is resolved within the applicable
timeline in 34 CFR §300.152.

Question A-8:

If the complainant is a party other than a parent, may the parties use the
mediation process to attempt to resolve the issues in the State complaint?

Answer:

The regulations in 34 CFR §300.152(a)(3)(ii) require an SEA to offer the
parent and the public agency the opportunity to voluntarily engage in
mediation (or other alternative methods of dispute resolution if available
in the State to resolve the issues in a State complaint) to resolve the issues
in a State complaint. The regulations do not require an SEA to provide
mediation when an organization or individual other than the child’s parent
files a State complaint.
As set out in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying the
regulations:
[T]he statute does not require that mediation be available to other
parties, and we believe it would be burdensome to expand, through
regulation, new [34 CFR] §300.152(a)(3)(ii) (proposed [34 CFR]
§300.152(a)(3)(B)) to require that States offer mediation to nonparents. Although we do not believe we should regulate to require
that mediation be offered to non-parents, there is nothing in the Act
or these regulations that would preclude an SEA from permitting
the use of mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, if available in the State, to resolve a State complaint
filed by an organization or individual other than a parent, and we
will add language to [34 CFR] §300.152(b)(1)(ii) to permit
extensions of the timeline if the parties are voluntarily engaged in
any of these dispute resolution procedures. In fact, we encourage
SEAs and their public agencies to consider alternative means of
resolving disputes between the public agency and organizations or
other individuals, at the local level, consistent with State law and
administrative procedures. It is up to each State, however, to
determine whether non-parents can use mediation or other
alternative means of dispute resolution.
71 FR 46604.

PAGE 9

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

B. Mediation
Authority:

The requirements for mediation are found in the regulations at
34 CFR §300.506.

Question B-1:

Are discussions that occur in mediation automatically confidential or is the
confidentiality of the mediation session something that must be mediated
and documented as a part of the mediation agreement?

Answer:

Discussions that occur during the mediation process pursuant to
34 CFR §300.506(b)(8) are automatically confidential and may not be
used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing or civil
proceeding of any Federal court or State court of a State receiving
assistance under Part B of the IDEA regardless of whether the parties
resolve a dispute. If the parties resolve a dispute through the mediation
process, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement that includes
a statement that all discussions that occurred during the mediation process
will remain confidential, as stated in 34 CFR §300.506(b)(6)(i).

Question B-2:

Must a written mediation agreement be kept confidential?

Answer:

Neither the IDEA nor the regulations specifically address whether the
mediation agreement, itself, must remain confidential. However, the
confidentiality provisions in the Part B regulations in 34 CFR §300.610
and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and its
regulations apply. Further, there is nothing in the IDEA or the regulations
that would prohibit the parties from agreeing voluntarily to include in their
mediation agreement a provision that limits disclosure of the mediation
agreement, in whole or in part, to third parties.

Question B-3:

Do the regulations allow discussions that occur during the mediation
process to be disclosed during the investigation of a State complaint?

Answer:

No. As noted above, the regulations require that discussions that occur
during the mediation process must remain confidential.
34 CFR §300.506(b)(8). Neither the IDEA nor the regulations specifically
address exceptions to the confidentiality requirement for mediation
discussions when the State conducts a complaint investigation.

PAGE 10

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

C. Due Process Complaints
Authority:

The requirements for due process complaints are found in the regulations
at 34 CFR §§300.507 through 300.509.

Question C-1:

What happens if a parent files a due process complaint with the public
agency but does not forward a copy of the due process complaint to the
SEA? When does the timeline for convening a resolution meeting begin?

Answer:

The regulations do not address this specific question. When establishing
its procedures for administering the due process complaint system, a State
may address how the failure to provide the required copy to the public
agency/LEA and SEA will affect the resolution process and impartial
hearing timeline. However, such procedures must be consistent with the
due process requirements of Part B of the IDEA.
For example, a State could adopt procedures that include a requirement
that an LEA or SEA, as appropriate, advise the parent in writing that the
timeline for starting the resolution process will not begin until the
complainant provides the LEA and SEA with a copy of the due process
complaint as required by the regulations.

Question C-2:

May a parent file a due process complaint because their child’s teacher is
not highly qualified?

Answer:

No. The regulations in 34 CFR §300.18(f) state that there is no right of
action on behalf of an individual student or class of students for the failure
of a particular SEA or LEA employee to be highly qualified. However, a
parent may file a State complaint about staff qualifications with the SEA.

Question C-3:

May an LEA file a due process complaint when a parent notifies the LEA
that the parent intends to unilaterally place his or her child in a private
school because FAPE is at issue?

Answer:

Yes. The regulations in 34 CFR §300.507 provide that a public agency
may file a due process complaint on matters relating to the identification,
evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability or the
provision of FAPE to the child. This question was addressed in at least
one Federal court case, Yates v. Charles County, 212 F. Supp. 2d 470 (D.
Md. 2002). In that case, the court determined that the public agency had

PAGE 11

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

the right to initiate a hearing to demonstrate that the public agency’s
proposed program offered the child FAPE.

Question C-4:

What steps are available to the complaining party if a hearing officer rules
that the due process complaint is insufficient?

Answer:

As set out in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying the
regulations:
If the hearing officer determines the notice [complaint] is not sufficient,
the hearing officer’s decision will identify how the notice is insufficient,
so that the filing party can amend the notice, if appropriate. 71 FR 46698.
A party may amend its due process complaint only if the other party
consents in writing to the amendment and is given the opportunity to
resolve the due process complaint through a meeting held pursuant to
34 CFR §300.510 (i.e., resolution meeting or if the parties choose to use
mediation); or the hearing officer grants permission to amend the
complaint at any time not later than five days before the due process
hearing begins. 34 CFR §300.508(d)(3). If a party files an amended due
process complaint, the timelines for the resolution meeting and resolution
period begin again with the filing of the amended due process complaint.
34 CFR §300.508(d)(4). If the hearing officer determines that the
complaint is insufficient and the complaint is not amended, the complaint
may be dismissed. 71 FR 46698.
A party may re-file a due process complaint if the complaint remains
within the applicable timelines for filing under 34 CFR §§300.507(a)(2)
and 300.511(f) -- generally, within two years or an explicit timeline
established under State law, unless an exception applies.

Question C-5:

If a due process complaint is amended and the 15-day timeline to conduct
a resolution meeting starts over, must the LEA conduct another resolution
meeting?

Answer:

Yes. As set out in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying
the regulations:
Section 300.508(d)(3) [of the regulations] and section 615(c)(2)(E)
of the Act allow the party filing the due process complaint an
opportunity to amend the complaint to ensure that the complaint
accurately sets out their differences with the other party. The
complaint can be amended only if the parties mutually agree in
PAGE 12

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

writing to the amendment and are given the opportunity for a
resolution meeting (emphasis added), or the hearing officer grants
permission to amend the complaint at any time not later than five
days before the due process hearing begins. This process ensures
that the parties involved understand and agree on the nature of the
complaint before the hearing begins…. Section 300.508(d)(4) [of
the regulations] and section 615(c)(2)(E)(ii) of the Act provide that
when a due process complaint is amended, the timelines for the
resolution meeting and the time period for resolving the complaint
begin again with the filing of the amended due process complaint.
71 FR 46698.

Question C-6:

May a school district proceed directly to court for a temporary injunction
to remove a student from his or her current educational placement for
disciplinary reasons or must the school district exhaust administrative
remedies by first filing a due process complaint?

Answer:

While this situation is not addressed specifically by the regulations, the
Department’s position, in the context of discipline, continues to be that a
school district may seek judicial relief through measures such as a
temporary restraining order when necessary and legally appropriate. In
addition, there is extensive case law addressing circumstances where
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required or where the failure
to exhaust administrative remedies may be excused.

Question C-7:

The regulations do not require a resolution meeting when an LEA files a
due process complaint. 34 CFR §300.510. How does the absence of a
resolution period when an LEA files a due process complaint affect: (1) a
parent’s right to challenge the sufficiency of the due process complaint;
and (2) the parent’s responsibility to send to the LEA a response that
specifically addresses the issues raised in the LEA’s due process
complaint?

Answer:

A parent’s rights and obligations, as outlined above, are not affected by
the absence of a resolution meeting time period when an LEA files a due
process complaint. In such situations the parent retains the right to
challenge the sufficiency of the due process complaint within 15 days of
receipt of the complaint, consistent with 34 CFR §300.508(d), and the
parent remains obligated to send a response to the LEA that addresses the
issues raised in the due process complaint within 10 days of receiving the
complaint under 34 CFR §300.508(f).

PAGE 13

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

D. Resolution Process
Authority:

The requirements for the resolution process are found in the regulations at
34 CFR §300.510.

Question D-1:

Does the resolution process under 34 CFR §300.510 apply when a public
agency files a due process complaint? If not, what is the timeline for
issuing a hearing decision on the matter?

Answer:

The IDEA and the regulations do not require a public agency to convene a
resolution meeting when the public agency files a due process complaint.
However, the public agency and parent may choose to voluntarily engage in
mediation to resolve the issue. Since the resolution process is not required
under the regulations when a public agency files a complaint, the 45-day
timeline for issuing a written decision begins the day after the public
agency’s due process complaint is received by the other party and the SEA.
If the complaint is determined to be insufficient under 34 CFR
§300.508(d)(2) and is not amended, the complaint could be dismissed.

Question D-2:

Why is a resolution meeting not required when an LEA files a due process
complaint?

Answer:

The IDEA does not require a resolution meeting in this situation. The
resolution meeting provides an opportunity for the parents of the child to
discuss their complaint and the facts that form the basis of the complaint,
so that the LEA has an opportunity to resolve the complaint. The
Department expects that LEAs will attempt to resolve disputes with
parents prior to filing a due process complaint. This includes
communicating with a parent about the disagreement and convening an
IEP Team meeting, as appropriate, to discuss the matter and attempt to
reach a solution.

Question D-3:

Are there any provisions in the IDEA that require discussions that occur in
resolution meetings to remain confidential?

Answer:

In general, no. Unlike mediation, the IDEA and the regulations do not
prohibit or require discussions that occur during a resolution meeting to
remain confidential. However, the confidentiality provisions in the Part B
regulations at 34 CFR §300.610 and FERPA and its regulations apply.

PAGE 14

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

Question D-4:

Do the regulations allow information discussed at a resolution meeting to
be introduced at a due process hearing?

Answer:

In general, yes. Unlike mediation, the IDEA and the regulations do not
require that discussions in resolution meetings remain confidential.
Therefore, absent an agreement by the parties to the contrary, either party
may, at a due process hearing, introduce information discussed during the
resolution meeting when presenting evidence and confronting or crossexamining witnesses consistent with 34 CFR §300.512(a)(2). Nothing in
the IDEA or the regulations would prevent the parties from voluntarily
agreeing that the resolution meeting discussions will remain confidential,
including prohibiting the introduction of those discussions at any
subsequent due process hearing. However, neither an SEA nor an LEA
can require the parties to enter into such an agreement as a condition of
participation in the resolution meeting. 71 FR 46704.

Question D-5:

In the event an agreement is not reached during the resolution meeting,
must mediation continue to be available?

Answer:

Yes. The regulations at 34 CFR §300.506 require that the public agency
ensure mediation is available “to allow parties to disputes involving any
matter under this part, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due
process complaint, to resolve disputes through a mediation process.” It is
important to note that mediation is voluntary and must be agreed to by
both parties.

Question D-6:

Does the 30-day resolution period apply if the parties elect to use
mediation under 34 CFR §300.506 rather than convene a resolution
meeting?

Answer:

Yes. If the parties choose to use mediation rather than participate in a
resolution meeting, the 30-day resolution period is still applicable. Under
34 CFR §300.510(c), the resolution period applies to the use of mediation
after the filing of a complaint requesting a due process hearing.

Question D-7:

Must the LEA continue its attempts to convince a parent to participate in a
resolution meeting throughout the 30-day resolution period?

Answer:

Yes. If a parent fails to participate in a resolution meeting, an LEA must
continue to make reasonable efforts throughout the remainder of the 30day resolution period to convince the parent to participate in a resolution
meeting. The regulations permit an LEA, at the conclusion of the 30-day
PAGE 15

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

resolution period, to request that a hearing officer dismiss the complaint
when an LEA is unable to obtain the participation of a parent in a
resolution meeting despite making reasonable efforts to do so and has
documented its efforts using the procedures in 34 CFR §300.322(d).

Question D-8:

If a party fails to participate in the resolution meeting, must the other party
seek the hearing officer’s intervention?

Answer:

Yes. The regulations at 34 CFR §300.510(b)(4) provide that an LEA may
request a hearing officer to dismiss a complaint when the LEA has been
unable to obtain the participation of the parent in a resolution meeting
despite making reasonable efforts to do so. Under 34 CFR §300.510(b)(5),
if an LEA fails to hold a resolution meeting within the required timelines
or fails to participate in a resolution meeting, the parent may seek the
intervention of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline.
The hearing officer’s intervention will be necessary to either dismiss the
complaint or to commence the hearing, depending on the circumstances.

Question D-9:

If, at the conclusion of the 30-day resolution period, the LEA and parents
wish to continue the mediation process, must the hearing officer agree to
the extension?

Answer:

In general, no. The regulations contemplate that the parties may agree in
writing to continue the mediation at the end of the 30-day resolution
period pursuant to 34 CFR §300.510(c)(3). Therefore, such agreements
would not require hearing officer involvement or approval.
Under 34 CFR §300.515, each hearing and review involving oral
arguments must be conducted at a time and place that is reasonably
convenient to the parents and child involved, and a hearing officer may
grant specific extensions of time at the request of either party. Therefore,
to the extent that the hearing officer already has established a hearing
schedule that is inconsistent with the extension agreed upon by the parties,
it would be appropriate to notify the hearing officer of the agreement and
any scheduling conflicts in order to revise the hearing schedule.

PAGE 16

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

Question D-10:

Must the SEA enforce the requirement that the LEA convene a resolution
meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process
complaint? If a resolution meeting is not convened, what action may a
parent take?

Answer:

Yes. Where the LEA fails to convene resolution meetings as required
under 34 CFR §300.510(a)(1), and the failure is not the result of an
agreement by the parties to use mediation or a written agreement by the
parties to waive the meeting, consistent with §300.510(a)(3), the SEA
must enforce the requirement and may use appropriate enforcement
actions consistent with its general supervisory responsibilities under
34 CFR §§300.600 and 300.608 to ensure that the LEA complies.
Additionally, if the LEA fails to hold the resolution meeting within 15
days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint or fails to
participate in the resolution meeting, the parent may seek the intervention
of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline.

PAGE 17

Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities

E. Expedited Due Process Hearings
Authority:

The requirements for expedited due process hearings are found in the
regulations at 34 CFR §300.532.

Question E-1:

May the parties mutually agree to extend the resolution period to resolve
an expedited due process complaint?

Answer:

No. The regulations for expedited due process hearings, in
34 CFR §300.532(c), do not specifically provide for adjustments to the 15day resolution period. The purpose of expediting the due process hearing
related to a disciplinary decision is to ensure that the matter is resolved
promptly and that the child’s educational program is not adversely
affected by undue delays. Therefore, when the parties have participated in
a resolution meeting or mediation and the dispute has not been resolved to
the satisfaction of both parties within 15 days of the receipt of the due
process complaint, the due process hearing may proceed.
34 CFR §300.532(c)(3)(ii).

PAGE 18


UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENT
OFEDUCATION
OFFICEFORCIVIL RIGHTS
THEASSISTANTSECRETARY

DEC26 2007
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to adviseyou of an issueinvolving studentswith disabilitiesseekingenrollmentin
challengingacademicprograms,suchas AdvancedPlacementand InternationalBaccalaureate
classesor programs(acceleratedprograms). Specifically,it hasbeenreportedthat someschools
and school districtshave refusedto allow qualified studentswith disabilitiesto participatein
suchprograms. Similarly, we are informed of schoolsand schooldistrictsthat, as a condition of
participationin suchprograms,have requiredqualified studentswith disabilitiesto give up the
servicesthat have beendesignedto meet their individual needs. Thesepracticesare inconsistent
with Federallaw, and the Office for Civil Rights(OCR) in the U.S. Departmentof Education
will continueto act promptly to remedy suchviolationswhere they occur.
As you know, OCR is responsiblefor enforcingtwo Federallaws that protect qualified
individuals with disabilitiesfrom discrimination.OCR enforcesSection504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973(Section504) and its implementingregulationsat 34 CFR Part 104,which prohibit
discriminationon the basisof disability in programsor activitiesreceiving Federalfinancial
assistance.OCR is also responsible,in the educationcontext,for enforcing Title II of the
Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990(Title II) andits implementingregulationsat 28 CFR
Part35, which prohibit discriminationon the basisof disabilityby entitiesof Stateand local
government.Although this letter discussesaspectsof the Section504 regulation,Title II
providesno lesserprotectionsthan doesSection504. Also relevantare the requirementsof the
Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA), which is administeredby the Department's
Office of SpecialEducationPrograms(OSEP). The IDEA providesfundsto Statesand school
districtsin order to assistthem in providing specialeducationand relatedservicesto eligible
children with disabilities. The IDEA's implementingregulationsarelocatedat 34 CFR Part 300.
OCR consultedwith OSEPin drafting this letter.'
As an initial matter, I want to commend the efforts so many of you have made to ensurethat
placementdecisionsfor all studentsarebasedon eachstudent'sindividual academicabilities
regardlessof the presence,n ature,or severityof a disability. I want to ensurethat all of you are
awareof the Federalcivil rights requirementsdiscussedbelow.

' You may contact OSEP to addressany issuesthat relate specifically to the requirements of IDEA. Contact
information for OSEP is available online at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/state-contact
list.html.
4OOMARYLANDAVE.,S.W.,WASHINGTON,
DC 2O2O2.ITOO
www.ed.gov
Our missionis to ensureequal accessto education and to prontote educational excellencethroughout the nation.

Page2

DearColleague
L etter: Accessby Students
with Disabilitiesto Challenging
AcademicPrograms

Prohibition Against Disability-Based Discrimination in Accelerated Programs
The practice of denying, on the basis of disability, a qualified studentwith a disability the
opportunity to participate in an acceleratedprogram violates both Section 504 and Title II.
Discriminationprohibitedby theselaws includes,on the basisof disability, denying a qualified
individual with a disability the opportunity to participatein or benefit from the recipient's aids,
benefits, or services,and affording a qualified individual with a disability with an opportunity to
participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service in a manner that is not equal to that
offered to individuals without disabilities. 34 CFR 104.4(a),( bxlXi), (bX1)(ii); 28 CFR
35.I 30(a),( b)(1Xi),(bXlXii).
Under Section 504 and Title II, a recipient may not utilize criteria or methods of administration
that have the effect of subjectingqualifiedindividualswith disabilitiesto discriminationon the
basisof disability. 34 CFR 104.4(bX4)a nd28 CFR 35.130(bX3).A public entity alsomay not
impose or apply eligibility criteria that screenout or tend to screenout an individual with a
disability or any classof individualswith disabilitiesfrom fully and equally enjoyingany
service,program,or activity, unlesssuchcriteria can be shown to be necessaryfor the provision
of the service,program,or activity being offered. 28 CFR 35.130(bX8). Public school students
with disabilitieswho require specialeducationand/orrelatedservicesreceivethem either
throughimplementationof an individualizededucationprogram(IEP) developedin accordance
with Part B of the IDEA or a plan developedunder Section 504. 34 CFR 104.33. It is unlawful
to deny a studentwith a disability admissionto an acceleratedclassor programsolely becauseof
that student'sneedfor specialeducationor relatedaids and services',or becausethat studenthas
an IEP or a plan under Section504. The practiceof conditioningparticipationin an accelerated
classor program by a qualified studentwith a disability on the forfeiture of special education or
of relatedaids and servicesto which the studentis legally entitledalsoviolatesthe Section504
and Title II requirementsstatedabove.
Pleasenote that nothing in Section504 or Title II requiresschoolsto admit into accelerated
classesor programsstudentswith disabilitieswho would not otherwisebe qualified for these
classesor programs. Generally,under Section 504,an elementaryor secondaryschool student
with a disability is a qualified individual with a disability if the studentis of compulsoryschool
age. However, schoolsmay employ appropriateeligibility requirementsor criteria in
determining whether to admit students,including studentswith disabilities, into accelerated
programsor classes.Section504 and Title II requirethat qualified studentswith disabilitiesbe
given the sameopportunities to competefor and benefit from acceleratedprogramsand classes
as aregiven to studentswithout disabilities. 34 CFR 104.4(bx1)(ii)and 28 CFR

3s.13O(bxlxii).
Furthermore,a recipient'sprovision of necessaryspecialeducationand relatedaids and services
to qualified studentswith disabilitiesin acceleratedclassesor programsmust be consistentwith
the Section 504 and Title II requirementsregarding free appropriatepublic education(FAPE).

' The term "related aids and services" as used here is intended to include both the Section 504 requirementsat
34 CFR 10a.33(c) and the equivalent requirementsunder the IDEA, i.e. related services,supplementaryaids and
services,p rogrammodifrcationsand supportsfor schoolpersorurel.See34 CFR 300.34,300.42,and 300.320(a)(4).

Page3

DearColleague
L etter: Accessby Students
with Disabilitiesto Challenging
AcademicProsrams

Free Appropriate Public Education
In general,conditioning participation in acceleratedclassesor programsby qualified students
with disabilities on the forfeiture of necessaryspecial educationor related aids and services
amountsto a denial of FAPE under both Part B of the IDEA and Section 504.
Section 504 requires a recipient that operatesa public elementaryor secondaryeducation
programor activity to provide FAPE to eachqualified personwith a disability who is in the
recipient'sjurisdiction, regardlessof the natureor severityof the person'sdisability. 34 CFR
104.33(a).Under Section504,the provision of an appropriateeducationis the provision of
regular or special educationand related aids and servicesthat satisfy certain procedural
requirementsand that are designedto meet the individual educationneedsof personswith
disabilitiesas adequatelyasthe needsof personswithout disabilitiesare met. 34 CFR
104.33(bX1)(i). Schooldistrictsmay createa plan or other documentto provide studentswith
disabilitieswith FAPE pursuantto Section504. The Section504 FAPE requirementmay also be
met through the implementation of an IEP developedin accordancewith Part B of the IDEA.
34 CFR 104.33(bX2).
Part B of the IDEA requires that FAPE be made available to eligible studentswith disabilities in
certain age ranges. The IDEA defines FAPE as special educationand related servicesthat: are
provided free of charge;meet Statestandards;includean appropriatepreschool,elementary
school,or secondaryschool education;and are providedin conformity with a properly developed
IEP. 20 USC $ 1a01(a)(9);
34 CFR 300.17.'
Participationby a studentwith a disability in an acceleratedclassor program generallywould be
consideredpart ofthe regular educationor the regular classesreferencedin the Section504 and
the IDEA regulations. Thus, if a qualified studentwith a disability requires related aids and
servicesto participate in a regular educationclass or program, then a school cannot deny that
studentthe neededrelatedaids and servicesin an acceleratedclassor program. For example,if a
student'sIEP or plan underSection504 providesfor Braille materialsin order to participatein
the regular educationprogram and she enrolls in an acceleratedor advancedhistory class,then
she also must receiveBraille materialsfor that class. The samewould be true for other needed
relatedaids and servicessuchas extendedtime on testsor the use of a computerto take notes.
Conditioning enrollment in an advancedclass or program on the forfeiture of neededspecial
education or related aids and servicesis also inconsistentwith the principle of individualized
determinations,w hich is a key procedurala spectof the IDEA, Section504 and Title II. As noted
above,under Section504, the provision of FAPE is basedon the student'sindividual education
t

Among other things, an IEP must contain a statementof the specialeducation and related servicesand
supplementaryaids and servicesto be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statementof the program
modifications or supports for school personnelthat will be provided to enable the child to advanceappropriately
toward attaining the annual goals; to be involved in and make progressin the generaleducation curriculum and to
participate in extracurricular and other nonacademicactivities; and to be educatedand participate with other children
with disabilities and those without disabilities. An IEP also must contain an explanation of the extent, if any, to
which the child will not participate with children without disabilities in the regular class and in these activities.

34CFR300.320(a)(a)-(s).

Page4

DearColleague
L etter: Accessby Students
w ith Disabilitiesto Challenging
AcademicPrograms

needsas determinedthrough specific procedures--generally,an evaluation in accordancewith
Section504 requirements.34 CFR 104.35. An individualizeddeterminationmay result in a
decision that a qualified studentwith a disability requires related aids and servicesfor some or all
of his regular educationclassesor his program. Likewise, the IDEA contains specific procedures
for evaluationsand for the developmentof IEPs that require individualized determinations. See
34 CFR 300.301through 300.328. The requirementfor individualizeddeterminationsis violated
when schools ignore the student's individual needs and automatically deny a qualified student
with a disability neededrelatedaids and servicesin an acceleratedclassor program.
I urge you to use the information provided in this letter to continue to evaluatewhether your
school district is in compliancewith theseanti-discriminationrequirements.OCR remains
willing to continuesupportingyou in theseefforts. We provide technicalassistanceto entities
that requestassistancein voluntarily complying with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces. If
you needadditionalinformation or assistance
on theseor other matters,pleasedo not hesitateto
contact the OCR enforcementoffice that servesyour stateor territory. The contact information
for eachoffice is availableonline at: http://wdcrobcolp0l.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm.
I thank you in advancefor your cooperationand assistancein this important matter.

StephanieJ. Monroe
AssistantSecretaryfor Civil Riehts


UNITED STATES UEPARTNIENTOIF EDUCATION
OHM (W SE'! •, t iAi . F1 14 AVON ANO r '

A.tIILI r .-vrly a SER ICI -i

I)r . am! \tassanan
[vlo_intain Plains Regional Resource enter
( tnh State hi iversity
1 78) North Research Parkway, Suite 1 1 2
1 og_tn, UT 84341
f)ea_• Dr . Massanari :
1 his l tter is in response to your August 6, 2007, electronic mail (email) inquiry on behalf of the
Wvotinutt Department of Education, in which you request clarification of all issue addressed in
]ie echnical assistance document "Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI)
am: Early Intervening Services (P151 " released in January 2007 by the t)fPce of Special
E ucaltion Proerarns (OSE-P) to Who, the final Part t? re ulatiot~s implementing the 2004
I- Ca,
of tits inc h% ideals with Disabilities Educatiolt Act (Il)l \) .
Yot ask Mhiether or not th ere night be a vt :ty to "held test" niocedures lilt using data from R I I
as Mart of the identidciitloll ofspeeitlc learn)
disabilities (SI_D), You pose a second part to
yogi- Question re- Bell[' rile differences hetwceir eleiiientar s sc:{tools an (i Secondary Schools . You
asik, "Would it be I>ossihle that the I :1) etetctniination at till : elenientarv level world be band on
dtt_~ usin : the RTI urocess %` pile the middle and hich school levels would continue to use a
dtscrcpanc v process'! .,
In its letter to

dated July ?7 . 201)7 . and attaeiiec , t)SEl' states that if the use ol - a

process hand on the child's response to selenliheo rose rch-b artt i nterventions . i n ldentil"ving

chil .irei? with SID is reouircd Iby the local educational agcilc5! (l PA)] . then all children
suss eeted of having an SLD, in all schools in the I EA, would be required to be involved in the
process . However, [as stated ill the Ccniosia letter) research indicates that implementation of
any process, across any system, is most effective when accomplished systematically, in an
incremental manner, over time . [fail LEA chose to ` - scale up'' the implementation of the RTI
illoc el gradually, over time, as would be reasonable, the LEA could not require the use ofR .I'!
fig . Inrpose_s of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fully implemented in the I_T A .
Therefore, it is till rise to require the usc of a process based on the child's response to scientific,
res arch-based intervention before iniplenleniation of that process has been successfully scaled
up .
On 11e oilier hand, f the use of a irocess based on the child's response to scientific, researchb is d intervcnttott, is not rec~ttn - ec . but i s uermitted hw the I FA, a school would not have to wail
until
101 is sully implemented in all schools in the LEA before using R fl as part of the
idci .tilication of SlA) . f hat is, ifthc IT A is aiiowing . but not t'cciiuiriqg the use of R"n, and a
particular school, using the criterm adopted by the State Or dew-m? ring whether the child has an
SLI) is in ittibed under 34 CI-R § Tot) S(e)t'(1}, is inlplcmentuig an RTI process consistent wall

sill1 MARYLAND AVF, , S Vd U'AUiilN(1l't>N ii c -'(12) ;2
www Yd gm ,
arr_~ w r. to fo tnSIrrt {vt ;,,0 u -ri

f' (5 (

(( t~ . . rmd !' t n (t ,re r~(

i wnu!

It,'rtc', Ot r Sgt;ritt6 ti- N<dton. .

e - Carol Massa sari
the LEA's guidelines, it would not have to wait until RTI is implemented in all schools in the
LEA before it could use information from an RTT process as part of the identification of children
with SLI? .
Regarding the second part of your question, the differences between elementary school children
ant secondary school children, the final Part 13 regulations do not make such a distinction
iecirdint the identification of children with SID . However, under 34 CFR ti300 . 307(a)( I)-(3) . a
Stage must adopt, consistent with 34 (I=R 4300 .309, criteria for determining \vhcther ai child has
an SLI) as defined n 34 ('FR 4300 .5(c)( 1 A . '1ho criteria adopted by the State : I ) must not
iec ;,!ire the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achieven,ent finde emi ning whether a child has an SLD (2) nlrist permit the use of a process based on the
scientific, research-based intervention ; and (3) may pcrn1it the use ref other
( . it, d' s response to
ali: :rnative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has an SL1) . A public
agency, including an LEA, must use the State criteria in deternrinuig whether a child has an
S! At Nothing in the final Part 13 regulations would prohibit an 1 . EA, ii' consistent with tile State
ci it 'ria, 'from using multiple methods of identifying a chill with an SLD, a part of a full and
iat(iividual evaluation, or reevaluation, across schools or across levels elementary school,
t3mih;dle school or high school) .
Loved on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided it','
informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U .S .
I- ii (meat of I : dueition of the IDEA in the context of the specific foc ,. s presented .
We hope you find this information responsive to your request . Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have further eluestions or if I can be of any further assistance .
Sincerely,

7 ctiia, C,ltaid
Acting Director
(."1T ;e of Special Education
Programs
cc : Peg Brown-'lark
John Copenhaver
Enclosure

"'.1lich VGU

;Isnmamc

and My IMwvm§ngServwe;j !IS
SPWA! Edu c-'Itio(I I-" ' .tram
I Io
ir

a

lNu g " c h n cyq w n o f
_ .!!!'l AflLIN fin R?wsf

11115 'cftM I , in '~'VOP.3 _ M votur 111aOf Apr(l

ar tube adAvacd

SiOSEII

r

final PAri P.

EdKim" Aa 1
Voil a5'4

"41

d"? 1a C111 a lor'll CAACIT

MFAI

W%

(in a

_,c of

an R H nadd Aw pwjKm i WotbAp y hw qxc ih, l C,Vn-ig dj,M,h j ,,, q 1)}? ;j ;lr3i LEA €
RTI MW'UjM ' as %-V')OW4 Q a so Or'liwMpam" rlmk', 10 dormnine
t5
L

M

Ibr SPOCnd CdUCWjn;i ;T$ .j Child kk Win a SLD '

in 'Vc

K .1 2) nse the RTI atudol l m SLI) Mig
gibility docaninaii-m)s 1fcno any

arc lhacpro%isiom W Mm IDEA thalwouk'

TI in IlVC IE A

allow i Siaicrind ;n, an LEA to

i!l'.' Shit,: or L("A?

1-13C of a pniccas bris.-I On r! e cIi[&c ~ is pie o 9c ;n6fiv rtnamh Mad immmmin In
with Si, O a rwwicJ .ihcv all clutdrcn

haA !Iu aSLI) . Inal ,

n-, (he 1 F A, %Wd h' rvqoir ,,d to ii vok'M in thr pTpcs'- Hot* vcst--:irvb

11) ph -'nie fit I! i+w W- :'71y PTt)7ess ' acro5s am
'ystenialical yc

I ti rife . ; . -I f*.'C' I

in M ifucrmlerttil Inalincr, ox et iia .z,
of to IM nicidd e

could f" : rcyt a c

tl :~- n

11 ii I F A
I

=tow of RTI foK Tnapo'4c~

al ..

IIIt- t-L- A

U) w'~ I WR

win LEA
QM

MqWMI

0

1AMOK

that

Yvan hub"" ti-.`-_. " Afrwywnwi irp
On th't OlLher In -l", if &C UM Ofa Iinnew Wed to OW ChJd'~ tesp-'orm:
ini ,,-r-%

is not rcqu4od lai is periminal b ) the t FA, a c+te ! --coiihl nn! Nivc io `a ;w
of --Al ~wllrvit44Lt ; :
:qtI F-A'
if ih: LEA it, qllwyft9

W" q1t:~Lo

RV 2- a pan of
ill

y aw "two moral by MC Rxic P n W'Pil~ .V'
'hfid flos
sk 1) as no^'i' . W :n Or&= Tq ) SUR W 1 iniplenwag mi R 71 pmvy~ znrvAw . ~
QAA em&hwn it 4s ,,tEtl its} . Nw%~ to wail wil RTI is PmpNP=nkj W A! whools & W I EPA
En lC3~ it -'ol!"d U',' 11110rianca Rurn an RTI process as Pwt of It o

nli

Rasod o-t SCctioit t?i c) ai tfar SDP L we ate ntft?rtrang you Mal our re'", i ;tnvtdk-d u4
it.fcirm2' ail : %l=src wht :a O, iczxtt\° h pout , t5ttt tcp,,:scr!5 a iti crpn t t(irp hv. -live L;
Dcpsrmrent of Fdi2rats(iit of d-x IDEA ,n the t- ntexi of- be spniIiic facts p-c~ct : .t ci.
14e use y it find dus in&rrniaty ri ttcrhite sct Jstut caq~tc t I'Fra t do t of h
# it t ttn 3 r q 4: tics . sf I CWi be erf arty f tfitl*T as`i 4a c,!
rite i f
lit)i`ael ,

P°nlriti 1. Gtir-ic!
AcTh Dtrrctor
Off tre of Spmif4 Itdulcmton
frovtnts

a

to

tttaet