OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Guidance for Common Prior Approval Requests under IDEA Parts B and C
This guidance provides a summary of the approval process and requirements for three common
categories of direct costs for which State agencies must obtain prior approval before using
Federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance), certain items of cost are
unallowable as direct charges except with advanced prior written approval of the Department.
2 C.F.R. § 200.407. OSEP has developed this guidance to assist State Educational Agencies
(SEA) and State Lead Agencies (State LA) in preparing comprehensive, approvable requests
when SEAs and State LAs are using funds under the IDEA Part B 611 Grants to States, Section
619 Preschool Grants and IDEA Part C Grants for Infants and Families. This guidance is specific
to the following three (3) common categories of direct costs for which SEAs and State LAs are
required to obtain prior written approval from OSEP: 1
I.

Equipment expenditures (with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more);

II.

Participant Support Costs (such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel
allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (not
State employees); and

III.

Revision of cost items within budget and program plans (including transfers among
direct cost categories in which the cumulative amount exceeds or is expected to exceed
ten percent of the current total approved budget).

Additionally, this guidance reminds SEAs and LAs of applicable prior approvals granted through
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) October 29, 2019
Frequently Asked Questions on Prior Approval (OSERS 2019 FAQ Memo). 2
All prior approval requests should be submitted to your OSEP State Lead.

For questions specific to other categories of direct costs outside of this guidance (including, but not limited to,
construction or renovation of facilities, rent, occupancy or space maintenance costs), please contact your
OSEP State Lead. This memo also does not address indirect costs.
2
The OSERS 2019 FAQ Memo, granted prior approval for certain participant support costs (PSCs). These include
PSCs that: (1) are for meetings required by IDEA; (2) are incurred as part of the provision of IDEA services;
(3) that do not exceed a total cost of $5,000 per individual participant or trainee per conference training or event;
and (4) incurred by local educational agencies (LEAs) under IDEA Part B for which the SEA has general
supervision responsibilities under IDEA. If the SEA or State LA proposes to incur PSCs that fall outside the scope
of this prior approval, they will need to submit detailed requests for prior approval to OSEP under this guidance.
Additionally, the OSERS 2019 FAQ Memo, granted prior approval for equipment charged to Federal IDEA
Part B and C funds for the delivery of services to eligible children with disabilities to ensure the timely delivery of
those services.
1

Page 1 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

Your OSEP State Lead will work in conjunction with OSEP’s Fiscal Implementation Team in
the review and approval process. 3 In response, OSEP will issue a written response that will
approve, deny, or require additional information based on the completeness of the request and
the reasonableness and necessity of the underlying expenditure(s) for program purposes.
I. Equipment
Authority
The OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 C.F.R. § 200.1 defines equipment as “an article of tangible
personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than
one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization
level established by the non-Federal entity for financial statement purposes, or $5,000.”
Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.718(a) and 303.104(a) of IDEA Parts B and C regulations, if the
Secretary determines that a program authorized under IDEA will be improved by permitting
program funds to be used to acquire appropriate equipment, the Secretary is authorized to allow
the use of those funds for those purposes.
Additionally, the Part B regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 300.14, defines the term “equipment” to
include — (a.) Machinery, utilities, and built-in equipment, and any necessary enclosures or
structures to house such machinery, utilities, or equipment; and (b.) All other items necessary for
the functioning of a particular facility as a facility for the provision of educational services,
including items such as instructional equipment and necessary furniture; printed, published, and
audio-visual instructional materials; telecommunications, sensory, and other technological aids
and devices; and books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials.
SEA and State LA requests to use IDEA Part B or Part C funds to purchase equipment should be
submitted to OSEP within a reasonable amount of time to allow for OSEP’s review of the
request, assurances and supporting documentation prior to the actual expenditure (s). These
requests must address certain compliance requirements, including but not limited to requirements
from Subpart D (Post Federal Award Requirements) and Subpart E (Cost Principles) of the
OMB Uniform Guidance.
Part B — Subrecipient Requests for Equipment
Please note that SEAs will continue to have the authority, as the pass-through entity, to review
and approve LEAs’ requests to use IDEA Part B funds for the purchase of equipment.
2 C.F.R. § 200.439(b) (1)–(3).

3

Please note that prior approval submissions must be submitted to OSEP in final form as OSEP
cannot approve draft requests.
Page 2 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

OSEP also reminds SEAs of their subrecipient monitoring responsibilities to ensure compliance
with the IDEA requirements at 34 C.F.R. § 300.149 and the OMB Uniform Guidance
requirements at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329(a) and 200.332(d). 4
Part C — Subawardee Requests for Equipment, Including Requests from Partner Agencies
and Early Intervention Service (EIS) Providers
All requests, including any requests generated by early intervention service (EIS) providers must
be reviewed, and approved by OSEP prior to the expenditure of IDEA Part C funds for
equipment.
If the State LA subgrants with an EIS provider or other eligible entity, the State LA will have the
authority, as the pass-through entity, to review and approve the use IDEA Part C funds for the
purchase of equipment and ensure compliance with IDEA and the OMB Uniform Guidance at
2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329(a) and 200.332(d) through its subrecipient monitoring responsibilities. 5
Prior approval for certain equipment expenditures under IDEA
OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo grants prior approval for SEAs and State LAs for equipment (defined
generally as $5,000 or more per item of equipment) “that is to be charged to IDEA Part B or Part
C funds and is identified on, or directly related to the implementation of, either individualized
education programs (IEPs) for children and youth with disabilities or individualized family
service plans (IFSPs) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families to ensure the
timely delivery of those services.” This includes services such as assistive technology devices
listed on the IEP or IFSP as well as equipment needed to provide IEP or IFSP services.” 6
If the purchase of equipment falls outside of the scope of the prior approval granted in OSERS
2019 FAQ Memo, the SEA or State LA must submit a prior approval request to OSEP.
Prior approval request for equipment expenditures under IDEA
Requests for prior approval of general-purpose equipment expenditures should support the
reasonableness and necessity of the equipment for the proper and efficient performance of the
IDEA Parts B or C program and establish the extent to which the equipment is assignable to Part
B or Part C of the program (i.e., that the benefit received by the program from the equipment is

Subrecipients of IDEA Part B grants must meet the OMB Uniform Guidance requirements for procurement in
2 C.F.R. §§ 200.318 through 200.327 and the requirements for equipment in 2 C.F.R. § 200.313.
5
The Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2021 and 2022 (Public Laws 116-260 and 117-103, respectively)
provided State LAs with the flexibility to use FFY 2021 and FFY 2022 IDEA Part C funds to “make subgrants to
local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, other public agencies, and private non-profit
organizations to carry out activities authorized by Section 638 of IDEA.” Generally, subrecipients of IDEA Part C
grants must meet the OMB Uniform Guidance requirements for procurement in 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.318 through
200.327 and the requirements for equipment in 2 C.F.R. § 200.313.
6
See, pg. 5, OSEP — Prior Approval for Equipment under IDEA at:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/faq-prior-approval-10-29-2019.pdf.
4

Page 3 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

proportionate to the degree to which the program is paying for the equipment). To do so, those
requests must include:
1. A description of how the equipment purchase will improve Part B and specifically benefit
children with disabilities or improve Part C and specifically benefit infants and toddlers
with disabilities;
2. Supporting documentation (i.e., specifications for the equipment and its capabilities,
purchase requisitions, quotes/price comparison, etc.), as appropriate including the total
amount of IDEA funds the SEA or State LA intends to expend; and
3. A description of how the IDEA Part B or Part C program will secure the equipment and
ensure authorized use (and/or sole use) of the equipment by the program. 7
Additionally, in its request, the SEA or State LA must provide OSEP with evidence such as
documentation or assurances supporting its compliance with the following requirements under
the OMB Uniform Guidance, including its responsibility to:
1. Comply with 2 C.F.R. § 200.317 regarding procurement; and
2.

Managing, maintaining and disposing of equipment as required by the OMB Uniform
Guidance at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.313(a) and (b); and 200.439.

II. Participant Support Costs
Authority
Under 2 C.F.R. § 200.1 of the OMB Uniform Guidance, participant support costs (PSCs) are
defined as direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances,
and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not State employees), in
connection with conferences or training projects.
OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo granted prior approval for several PSCs under IDEA including PSCs
directly related to:

7

•

IDEA Part B State Advisory Panels, for SEAs;

•

IDEA Part C State Interagency Coordinating Councils for State LAs;

•

PSCs incurred during the provision of special education and related services under IEPs
for children and youth with disabilities;

•

PSCs incurred during the provision early intervention services under IFSPs for infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families; and

See. 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.403 (Factors affecting allowability of costs), 200.404 (Reasonable costs) and 200.405
(Allocable costs).

Page 4 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA
•

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

Other PSCs that do not exceed $5,000 per individual participant per training/conference.

OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo also grants prior approval for “all PSCs incurred by LEAs under
IDEA Part B given that the SEA has general supervision responsibilities under IDEA and the
OMB Uniform Guidance to review such costs, including the requirement to ensure that all costs
“[b]e necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto
under these principles.” 8
Since the release of OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo, OSEP has experienced a decline in the number
of PSC prior approval requests from SEAs and State LAs. However, there may be instances in
which a PSC falls outside the scope of OSERS 2019 FAQ Memo or exceeds the $5,000 per
participant threshold. In such situations, the SEA or State LA must still submit a prior written
approval request to OSEP.
Prior Approval Requests for Participant Support Costs under IDEA
To obtain prior approval for PSCs that fall outside the scope of OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo, the
SEA or State LA must submit a request to OSEP that supports how the PSCs are reasonable,
necessary, and allocable. Requests must include:
1. A description of how the PSC will improve the IDEA Part B or Part C program,
specifically, how children with disabilities or infants and toddlers with disabilities will
benefit from the costs including the total amount of the cost (s);
2. Supporting documentation including but not limited to a description of the activity the
cost will be used for, elements of the cost (i.e., travel, registration, and individual
participant costs), specific timeframe of the activity, and the role of participant(s) or
trainee(s) related to the IDEA Part B or Part C program; 9 and
3. The total amount of PSCs charged to the IDEA Part B or Part C grant and the Federal
grant award for which the charges are being requested.
PSCs and the IDEA Part C Annual Grant Application
Consistent with the Instruction Sheet for the Part C Annual State Application under IDEA, State
LAs should note any activities or expenses listed under Section III.B that fall outside the scope
of the OSERS’ 2019 FAQ Memo and that require OSEP’s prior approval. As a reminder,
approval of the State’s annual IDEA Part C grant application does not constitute OSEP’s prior

For further information, see pg. 3 #6A at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/faq-prior-approval-10-292019.pdf.
9
OSEP wants to remind the SEA and LA that all applicable statutory requirements, including OMB’s cost
principles must be followed if food and beverage costs will be incurred. Please also refer to guidance issued by the
Department in May 2013 titled “Frequently Asked Questions to Assist U.S. Department of Education Grantees to
Appropriately Use Federal Funds for Conferences and Meetings.”
8

Page 5 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

approval of those expenses unless OSEP notes otherwise. As with other prior approval requests,
supporting documentation must be submitted, reviewed, and formally approved by OSEP.
All other requests for prior written approval must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the event
via electronic mail.
III. Budget
Authority
Under 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(b), the SEA or State LA must obtain approval from OSEP before
making certain IDEA Part B or Part C annual budget related requests. This section addresses the
most common budget related changes that OSEP receives but is not inclusive of all the related
requirements (please see 2 C.F.R. § 200.308 for the complete regulation).
In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(f), the SEA must obtain approval from OSEP if the
cumulative transfers among direct cost categories, or, if applicable, among separately budgeted
programs, projects, functions, or activities which exceed or are expected to exceed ten percent of
the current total approved budget (whenever the award exceeds $100,000) for:
1. IDEA 611 funds transfers between State-level activities in 34 C.F.R. § 300.704; and
2. IDEA 619 fund transfers between State activities, State administration, and other Statelevel activities in 34 C.F.R §§ 300.812–300.814.
Similarly, under Part C of IDEA, the State LA must obtain approval when it makes changes to
Section III of its Annual IDEA Part C Grant Application by making cumulative transfers among
direct cost categories which exceed or are expected to exceed ten percent of the total approved
budget (or ten percent of the total amount of the IDEA Part C grant award).
2 C.F.R. §200.308(f).10
Additionally, under 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(c)(2), OSEP reminds State LAs that notification must be
provided to OSEP when there is a “change in a key person specified in the application or the
Federal award” as listed under Section II.D. of the IDEA Part C Annual Grant Application.
Finally, OSEP reminds its IDEA Part B and Part C grantees that prior approval has been granted
and is no longer required as stated in the OSERS 2019 FAQ Memo, for budget revisions for the
transfer of funds budgeted for PSCs if an OSEP grantee chooses to no longer charge PSCs to
their Federal award after the initial approval as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.308(c)(5)). For all
10

Please note that this provision applies to the cumulative amount. A one-time adjustment may not trigger the need
for prior approval but the total amount of budget changes for the approved Federal fiscal year (FFY) may require
OSEP’s prior approval when the threshold is met or exceeded. Therefore, States should keep track of all budget
adjustments.

Page 6 of 7

OSEP PRIOR APPROVAL GUIDANCE UNDER IDEA

POLICY SUPPORT 22-03

other budget related revisions that consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.308, SEAs and State LAs will
need to submit written documentation to OSEP for review and approval.
IDEA Part B Budget Related Requests
To obtain prior approval, the SEA must submit a request that includes:
1. An explanation of the specific changes requested, including the amount and the FFY the
changes are being requested for, and
2. For IDEA 611 funds, a revised interactive spreadsheet from the State’s IDEA Part B
Application for the FFY in which the changes are being requested, or
3. For IDEA 619 funds, a current use of funds document and a proposed use of funds
document. The State may use its own forms if the forms provide budget details consistent
with State activities, State administration, and other State-level activities in
34 C.F.R. §§ 300.812-300.814.
IDEA Part C Budget Related Requests
To obtain prior approval, the State LA must submit a request that includes:
1. An explanation of the specific changes requested, including the amount and the FFY the
changes are being requested for; and
2. A revised Section III of the State’s IDEA Part C Application for the FFY in which the
changes are being requested.
For budget revisions, OSEP is required to review and notify the SEA or LA if the request has
been approved or is still under consideration. 2 CFR § 200.308(j).
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact your OSEP State Lead or your IDEA
Technical Assistance provider.

Page 7 of 7


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

OSEP Policy Letter 22-06
November 16, 2022
Dr. Jacquelyn Flanigan
Associate Superintendent
Diocese of Orlando – Office of Catholic Schools
Post Office Box 1800
Orlando, Florida 32802-1800
Dear Dr. Flanigan:
Thank you for your July 12, 2022, email inquiry to the U.S. Department of Education
(Department), Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE). Your inquiry was referred to the Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP), a component of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, and in developing a response, OSEP conferred with ONPE to fully
understand the inquiry.
In your initial email, you raised three questions and, based on follow-up conversations, we
understand that you would like a written response to two of your three questions. First, you ask
whether a child who has been identified as a child with a disability under Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but for whom the parent has rejected the
offer of a free appropriate public education, must be counted when calculating the proportionate
share of IDEA Part B funds that a local educational agency (LEA) is required to spend on the
provision of equitable services to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities
enrolled in private schools in the LEA. Second, you ask about a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) that the School Board of Brevard County, Brevard County Public Schools (BCPS), an
LEA in Florida, is requiring schools in the Diocese of Orlando to sign in order for BCPS to
provide equitable services under Part B of the IDEA to parentally-placed private school children
with disabilities. We interpret your second question to be whether it is consistent with IDEA for
BCPS to require a private school to enter into an MOU as a condition of the LEA providing
equitable services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities enrolled at that
school.
Section 607(d) of the IDEA prohibits the Secretary of the Department from issuing policy letters
or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance with, and eligibility
under, IDEA without following the rulemaking requirements of Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based on the requirements of IDEA Section 607(e),
this response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding. It represents an
interpretation by the Department of the requirements of IDEA in the context of the specific facts
presented and does not establish a policy or rule that would apply in all circumstances. Other
than statutory and regulatory requirements included in the document, the contents of this
guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public. This
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under
the law or agency policies. Further, the Department responds to these matters, generally, and not
in the context of any specific due process complaint or State complaint that may be pending or
resolved.
Regarding your first question, the Department recently issued Questions and Answers on Serving
Children with Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools (Feb. 2022). The Q&As
provide additional information regarding the consultation process including filing complaints and
are located on the Department’s website at:
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/QA_on_Private_Schools_02-28-2022.pdf. As addressed in Q&A
N-2 of that document, “[a]ll children who have been evaluated and found eligible for special
education and related services—not solely those children who receive services through an IEP or
services plan—must be included in the count to calculate the proportionate share…” (emphasis
added). Therefore, any student found eligible under IDEA who is enrolled by their parent in a
private elementary or secondary school, 1 whether or not they have a current or prior IEP or
services plan, must be counted when calculating the proportionate share.
In response to your second question, IDEA’s mechanism for private school involvement in the
design and development of equitable services is through timely and meaningful consultation as
described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.134. Consultation is an ongoing process that happens throughout
the school year between the LEA, private school representatives, and representatives of parents
of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. Further, determinations of
equitable services for an individual child, including the anticipated frequency, location, and
duration of the equitable services that the LEA will provide, must be included in a child’s
services plan. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.137-300.139.
The responsibility for providing IDEA equitable services lies with the LEA. Services may be
provided onsite at a child’s private school, or another location as discussed during consultation.
34 C.F.R. § 300.139. IDEA does not require that the private school administer any portion of an
LEA’s equitable services requirements on behalf of the LEA. IDEA also does not require an
LEA to use, or prohibit an LEA from using, an MOU in order to provide equitable services at
either the private school or another location. However, a private school’s declining to sign an
MOU cannot be a basis for an LEA’s denying the provision of equitable services to parentallyplaced private school children with disabilities enrolled at that school who are otherwise eligible
to receive such services.
As a general matter, the Department believes that the terms of any proposed MOU regarding the
provision of equitable services must be consistent with IDEA. For example, an MOU must not
prohibit the private school from filing a complaint with the State educational agency (SEA), as
appropriate. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.136, a private school official has the right to raise
complaints to the SEA regarding the consultation process, including whether it was meaningful
and timely, and whether due consideration was given to the views of the private school official.
1

See Question and Answer A-1 of the above referenced Q&As: “The IDEA Part B regulations define parentallyplaced private school children with disabilities as children with disabilities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.8, enrolled by
their parents in private, including religious, schools or facilities that meet the definition of elementary school in
34 C.F.R. § 300.13 or secondary school in 34 C.F.R. § 300.36.” (internal footnotes omitted).

In the Department’s view, timely and meaningful consultation could include discussion of any
proposed MOU. Any MOU that prohibits or limits a private school official’s right to file a State
complaint under IDEA, or the rights of parentally placed private school children with disabilities
under IDEA, 2 would be inconsistent with IDEA.
We hope that this addresses the questions that you have raised. If you have additional questions,
please feel free to contact Pamela Allen in ONPE at pamela.allen@ed.gov, or, in OSEP, Dwight
Thomas at dwight.thomas@ed.gov, or Travis Bryant at travis.bryant@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Valerie C. Williams
Cc: Victoria Gaitanis, Florida Department of Education
Maureen Dowling, Director, Office of Non-Public Education

2

No parentally placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the
special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.
34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a).


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

OSEP Policy Letter 22-05
November 1, 2022
Virginia Sharpless
Sent via email
Dear Ms. Sharpless:
This letter responds to your email correspondence to Lisa Pagano, Policy Specialist, Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education (Department). In that
email you asked that OSEP clarify the requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) related to the procedures parents must follow when requesting an initial
evaluation to determine their child’s eligibility for special education and related services.
Specifically, you asked the following:
When a parent asks for “testing because I think there might be a problem” (or similar
wording), would this request count as an “oral request for an initial evaluation?” If not,
is the LEA obligated in any way to provide assistance and explain to the parent of their
right to request an initial evaluation? Or, when the parent is having a verbal
conversation with the school and the parent asks a school to “test their child,” can a
school stay silent about the parent’s right to request an initial evaluation?
We sincerely regret the delay in responding to your inquiry and thank you for your patience.
We note that Section 607(d) of the IDEA prohibits the Secretary of the Department from
issuing policy letters or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance
with, and eligibility under, IDEA without following the rulemaking requirements of Section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based on the requirements of IDEA
Section 607(e), this response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding. It
represents an interpretation by the Department of the requirements of IDEA in the context of
the specific facts presented and does not establish a policy or rule that would apply in all
circumstances. Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in the document, the
contents of this guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the
public. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing
requirements under the law or agency policies.
Under IDEA Part B, each eligible child with a disability is entitled to a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the
child’s unique needs and that prepare the child for further education, employment, and
independent living. 34 C.F.R. § 300.101. All States and local educational agencies (LEAs) share
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

Page 2 - Virginia Sharpless
an obligation to make FAPE available to each eligible child, ages 3-21, residing in their
jurisdiction. To meet this obligation, States must adhere to IDEA’s child find requirements in the
Part B regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 300.111. Each State must have in effect policies and procedures
to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State, including children with
disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of the State, and children with disabilities
attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of
special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. 34 C.F.R. §
300.111(a)(1)(i). 1
While IDEA requires every State to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities
who need special education and related services, it does not provide specific requirements
regarding the manner in which a request for an initial evaluation of a child suspected of having a
disability must be made. In the absence of specific provisions, States may develop their own
procedures, provided they are not inconsistent with, and do not substantially limit, a parent’s 2
right to request an initial evaluation under IDEA.
Many States utilize similar practices and procedures for conducting child find activities,
including specific methods for parents to make referrals for an evaluation for special education
and related services under IDEA. We are aware that States and LEAs often require that parents
submit their request for an IDEA initial evaluation in writing. Some States may further require
that parents use a specific form to make an official request. Such procedures are often designed
to provide a simple and consistent format to ensure parental consent, establish the date of the
parent’s request, and for measuring against the evaluation timeline. While States may require
that a parent submit their request for an IDEA evaluation in writing, because some parents may
be unaware of how or when to submit such requests, additional actions may be necessary to
effectively carry out its child find obligations. For example, a parent may need assistance in
understanding or completing the required forms for a variety of reasons, such as lacking
resources such as a computer or internet access or having limited proficiency in English – any of
which could substantially limit their ability to submit their request in writing. 3

1

Child find efforts must include— (1) children who are suspected of being a child with a disability under 34 C.F.R
§ 300.8 and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade; and (2) highly mobile
children, including migrant children. 34 C.F.R § 300.111(c)(1)-(2). While addressed in separate provisions, the
requirements for special education referrals and child find are closely related and need to work in concert.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.30(a), the term “parent” means: (1) a biological or adoptive parent of a child; (2) a foster
parent, unless State law, regulations, or contractual obligations with a State or local entity prohibit a foster parent
from acting as a parent; (3) a guardian generally authorized to act as the child’s parent, or authorized to make
educational decisions for the child (but not the State if the child is a ward of the State); (4) an individual acting in the
place of a biological or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child
lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare; or (5) a surrogate parent who has been
appointed in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.519 or Section 639(a)(5) of the IDEA. Under 34 C.F.R. §
300.520(a)(1)(ii), a State may provide that when a child with a disability reaches the age of majority under State law
that applies to all children (except for a child with a disability who has been determined to be incompetent under
State law), all rights accorded to parents under Part B of the IDEA transfer to the child.

2

States and LEAs have certain communication responsibilities to parents under Federal civil rights laws, including
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which are beyond

3

Page 3 - Virginia Sharpless

IDEA does not directly address whether a State or LEA may completely ignore a verbal request,
because it was not in writing or did not contain specific language, terminology, or “trigger
words,” or because it otherwise fails to meet a specific technical requirement. In the
Department’s view, when these additional steps pose a substantial limitation for certain parents
to access an initial evaluation for their child under IDEA, the failure to provide additional
information or assistance could potentially violate IDEA’s child find obligations. Therefore,
States and LEAs need to properly address a parent’s verbal request that can be reasonably
understood as a request for an initial evaluation under IDEA, but where additional actions are
required under State or local provisions. Examples of reasonable and appropriate responses for
school personnel include: providing the parent with information and assistance such as a copy of
its notice of procedural safeguards required under IDEA; further explaining the right to, and
procedures for, initiating an evaluation under IDEA; and, providing any assistance the parent
requires to submit the request. Because the responsibility for meeting IDEA’s child find
requirements rests with States and LEAs – not with parents – the evaluation referral process must
support, and not undermine, the effectiveness of the child find process.
OSEP encourages all States and LEAs to examine their rules and procedures to determine if
those rules create barriers for a parent to request an evaluation of their child under IDEA. OSEP
further encourages States to determine if their child find procedures offer fair and equitable
opportunities for all parents to request an initial evaluation under IDEA to address their child’s
academic or behavioral needs. 4
We thank you for your interest in ensuring that States and LEAs have appropriate procedures in
place to address a parent’s request for an evaluation of their child under IDEA. We trust that the
information in this letter is responsive to your inquiry. If you have further questions, please
contact Lisa Pagano at 202-245-7413 or by email at Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Valerie C. Williams

the scope of this document. Additional information is available from the Department’s Office for Civil Rights web
site.
This letter only addresses requirements under IDEA. Children with disabilities also have rights under the two civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability referenced in footnote 3.

4


October 5, 2022
Dear State Directors of Special Education, Local Educational Agency Special Education
Directors, Part B Section 619 Coordinators, Part C Coordinators, and Head Start Grant
Recipients:
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Head Start (OHS) thank you for your
tireless efforts and commitment to serving children and their families. You have worked
incredibly hard to meet the individual needs of all children, including children with disabilities
and their families, during the COVID-19 pandemic. OSEP and OHS acknowledge the
disruptions to program operations and the additional challenges to provide a seamless continuum
of early childhood education services, including for those children with disabilities who receive
preschool special education and related services under section 619 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), during the pandemic. This disruption has impacted the social,
emotional, and academic development and functional performance of many young children. 1 We
also recognize the additional challenges associated with socio-economic factors affecting
children and their families that have occurred during the pandemic.
Young children with disabilities and their families have been disproportionately affected by
service disruptions. 2 As we start this new school year, OSEP and OHS want to emphasize the
importance of providing children with disabilities and their families the services and supports
that they need to thrive. The purpose of our correspondence is threefold. First, we want to remind
you of the requirements under Part B of the IDEA to provide special education and related
services to eligible preschool-aged children with disabilities. Second, we want to emphasize the
importance of ongoing collaboration between the State educational agency (SEA), local
educational agencies (LEAs), and their Head Start program partners to effectively meet IDEA
requirements and ensure the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) 3 to children

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Supporting Child and
Student Social, Emotional, Behavioral, and Mental Health Needs (2021).
2
Center for Translational Neuroscience (2020, December 17). Overloaded: Families with Children Who Have
Special Needs Are Bearing an Especially Heavy Weight, And Support Is Needed. Medium.
https://medium.com/rapid-ec-project/overloaded-families-with-children-who-have-special-needs-are-bearingan-especially-heavy-weight-4e613a7681bd.
3
Free appropriate public education (FAPE) means special education and related services that (1) are provided at
public expense, under public supervision, and without charge; (2) meet the standards of the SEA, including the
requirements of IDEA; (3) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in
the State involved; and (4) are provided in conformity with an individualized education program that meets the
requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 through 300.324.
1

Page 2
with disabilities. Lastly, our letter provides resources that may be helpful under both Parts B and
C of the IDEA as well as Head Start to assist you in implementing high-quality early childhood
programs for all children.
IDEA Part B Requirements, Including Ensuring a Free Appropriate Public Education in
the Least Restrictive Environment
It is the long-standing policy of our Departments that young children with disabilities be
included in high-quality early childhood programs, including Head Start. Expectations and
requirements were outlined in the Departments’ Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with
Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (2015) and in OSEP’s Dear Colleague Letter on
Preschool Least Restrictive Environments (2017). Additionally, the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) released several
Return to School Roadmap documents in 2021 to provide guidance interpreting requirements of
IDEA, including providing FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE), in light of the many
challenges of the pandemic and as schools and programs returned to in-person services. In
January 2020, OHS released an Information Memorandum (IM) on Inclusion of Children with
Disabilities (ACF-IM-HS-20-01) highlighting requirements in the Head Start Program
Performance Standards (HSPPS) related to the inclusion of children with disabilities or suspected
delays, including a list of resources for recipients’ use in implementation efforts. In 2021, OHS
included guidance and resources on the Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center
(ECLKC) website to support programs as they returned to in-person operations, with special
considerations for children with disabilities and suspected delays.
The Departments acknowledge that the pandemic continues to present challenges to
implementing appropriate programs and services for young children. Further, opportunities for
some young children with disabilities to participate in inclusive early childhood settings have
been more limited. However, OSEP and OHS want to emphasize that, notwithstanding these
challenges, children with disabilities retain their rights under IDEA to receive appropriate special
education and related services in accordance with their individualized education programs (IEP).
No IDEA requirements have been waived. However, particularly since the pandemic, both OSEP
and OHS have quantitative data and other information that indicate—
•

Initial evaluations to determine eligibility of children suspected of having a disability are
being delayed;

•

Special education and related services included in IEPs are not being provided timely, or
IEPs are not being fully implemented; and

•

Educational placement decisions for children with disabilities are not being made in
accordance with IDEA’s LRE requirements.

Page 3
SEAs, LEAs, and Head Start programs all have responsibilities for implementing IDEA:
•

SEAs are responsible for establishing and enforcing policies and procedures to ensure full
implementation of child find and other IDEA requirements to ensure that FAPE is made
available to all eligible children with disabilities in the State;

•

LEAs are responsible for identifying, locating, and evaluating children suspected of
having disabilities in a timely fashion and developing and implementing IEPs for eligible
children with disabilities in accordance with the applicable IDEA requirements; and

•

Head Start programs are responsible for referring children and families for IDEA
evaluations as well as supporting implementation of children’s IEPs.

Understanding the roles and responsibilities of each of these partners is imperative to
successfully implement IDEA and ensure FAPE in the LRE is made available for all children
with disabilities in the State. 4
Child Find: The child find requirements in IDEA Part B require SEAs and LEAs to have
policies and procedures in effect to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State
who need special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated, regardless
of the severity of the disability, and consistent with IDEA requirements and the State’s child find
and eligibility standards. It should be noted that OSEP has previously issued guidance making
clear that response to intervention strategies cannot be used to delay or deny a timely evaluation
for a preschool child suspected of having a disability.
OSEP guidance issued throughout the pandemic has consistently communicated that IDEA
requirements, including child find, are not waived and that the appropriate implementation of
these requirements is more important than ever. As part of the IDEA Return to School Roadmap
documents, OSERS issued additional guidance to SEAs, LEAs, parents, and other stakeholders,
including Head Start programs, to reaffirm the importance of appropriate implementation of the
child find obligations under Part B of the IDEA in Child Find Under Part B of the IDEA
(Aug. 24, 2021).
Local Head Start programs are required to complete or obtain a current developmental screening
to identify any concerns regarding a child’s developmental skills within 45 calendar days of
when the child first attends the program to identify children who may need further evaluation.

4

Although not discussed here, other Federal laws protect preschool-aged children with disabilities participating in
public programs: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504) and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA). These laws prohibit discrimination based on
disability. Information about these laws is available on the websites of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office
for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.

Page 4
With parental consent, Head Start personnel are then required to make a referral to the LEA.
45 C.F.R § 1302.33(a)(1).
Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination: LEAs must conduct the initial evaluation
within 60 days from the date parental consent for the evaluation is received, or, if the State
establishes a timeframe within which the initial evaluation must be conducted, within that
timeframe. 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c)(1). Upon completion of the administration of assessments and
other evaluation measures, a group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child must
determine whether the child is a child with a disability as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.8
(i.e., whether the child has a disability and, by reason thereof, needs special education and related
services) and the child’s educational needs. 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(a)(1). If the child is found
eligible as a child with a disability under IDEA, a meeting to develop an IEP must be conducted
within 30 days of the determination that the child needs special education and related services.
34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c)(1). As soon as possible following development of the IEP, special
education and related services must be made available to the child in accordance with the IEP.
34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c)(2).
Development of the IEP: The IEP is a written statement developed by the IEP Team, which
must include the child’s parent, and is intended to guide the educational program of a child with
a disability. The IEP includes a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement
and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement
and progress in the general education curriculum or, in the case of a preschool-aged child, as
appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities. The IEP
also includes a statement of the measurable annual goals that are designed to meet the child’s
needs that result from their disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in
the general education curriculum; and to meet each of the child’s other educational needs that
result from their disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a). The IEP documents the special education and
related services, supplementary aids and services, and program modifications and supports for
school and program personnel that are necessary to enable the child (1) to advance appropriately
toward attaining the annual goals; (2) to be involved in and make progress in the general
education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
(3) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and children without
disabilities in those activities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4). In addition, the IEP must include an
explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with children without
disabilities in the regular class and in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.
34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(5).
Determination of the Educational Placement in the LRE for the Child: After the child’s IEP
has been developed, the placement in which the IEP will be implemented is determined.
Placement decisions for children with disabilities must be made on an individualized basis, based
on the unique needs of each child (as described in the IEP), by a group of persons, including the

Page 5
parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data,
and the placement options. 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(1). The child’s placement must be decided in
conformity with the LRE provisions in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 through 300.118, must be based on
the child’s IEP, and must be determined at least annually. 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(2), (b)(1), and
(b)(2). To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in
public or private institutions or other care facilities, must be educated with children without
disabilities.
The placement group should consider how the child is developing and learning in their current
early childhood program (e.g., Head Start), and must determine whether and what supplementary
aids and services would be needed to enable the education of the child in the regular education
setting to be achieved satisfactorily. 5 The placement group, which always includes the parent
(34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)), may determine that the Head Start classroom is the LRE in which the
child’s IEP can be implemented. In all cases, placement decisions must be individually
determined on the basis of each child’s abilities and needs (which are reflected in the child’s
IEP), and not solely on factors such as category of disability, severity of disability, availability of
special education and related services, configuration of the service delivery system, availability
of space, or administrative convenience. Therefore, provider-related matters such as a shortage
of IDEA personnel or differences in personnel requirements of the preschool program unrelated
to the needs of the child (e.g., vaccination status or masking requirements), may not be factors
considered when determining the educational placement in the LRE for a child with a disability.
Collaboration with Head Start to Support Implementation of IEPs: Head Start programs are
required to design and implement a coordinated approach that ensures the full and effective
participation of all children with disabilities and their families (45 C.F.R. § 1302.101(b)(3)). The
Head Start Disability Services Coordinator serves as a resource for families to help navigate the
special education system and to support the Head Start program’s coordination with the LEA.

5

IDEA also requires that, if the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that education in regular classes
cannot be achieved satisfactorily, even with the provision of supplementary aids and services, the placement group
could then determine the child’s placement in a setting other than the regular educational environment.
45 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2). The LEA must make available the full continuum of alternative placements, including
instruction in regular classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions, to meet
the needs of all children with disabilities for special education and related services. 45 34 C.F.R. § 300.115. If there is
an LEA public preschool program available, the LEA may choose to make FAPE available to a preschool child with
a disability in the LEA’s public preschool program. If the LEA does not offer, or offers only a limited range of, public
preschool programs, the LEA must explore alternative methods to ensure that the LRE requirements are met for each
preschool child with a disability. These methods may include: (1) providing opportunities for the participation of
preschool children with disabilities in preschool programs operated by public agencies other than the LEA (e.g.,
Head Start or community-based childcare); (2) enrolling preschool children with disabilities in private preschool
programs for nondisabled preschool children; (3) locating classes for preschool children with disabilities in regular
public elementary schools; or (4) providing home-based services.

Page 6
The Disability Services Coordinator works in collaboration with Head Start program staff to
ensure services are provided with appropriate facilities, program materials, curriculum,
instruction, staffing, supervision, and partnerships, at a minimum, consistent with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The IDEA Return to School Roadmap guidance documents, including Development and
Implementation of Individualized Education Programs in the Least Restrictive Environment
under the IDEA (Sept. 30, 2021), clarify that, regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the
mode of instruction, children with disabilities are entitled to FAPE. The document provides
guidance on topics that include meeting timelines, ensuring implementation of initial evaluation
and reevaluation procedures, determining eligibility for special education and related services,
and providing the full array of special education and related services that children with
disabilities need in order to receive FAPE, as well as the implications of delayed evaluations
and/or provision of special education and related services as identified on a child’s IEP.
Resolving Disagreements
If a parent disagrees with an IEP Team decision or believes a public agency (e.g., LEA) has not
followed IDEA requirements (e.g., initial evaluations are not completed timely or are not
sufficiently comprehensive, special education and related services are not being provided in
accordance with their child’s IEP), IDEA provides a mechanism to file formal complaints —
State complaints pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153 and due process complaints
pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.518 — and to request mediation pursuant to
34 C.F.R. § 300.506. Additional information is available in OSEP’s Questions and Answers on
IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures (Jul. 23, 2013 and Jun. 22, 2020). The Center for
Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP-funded technical
assistance provider, has developed a series of guides and videos for parents and family members
to use as companion resources 6 to OSEP’s guidance documents.
The State complaint procedures in the IDEA implementing regulations provide for compensatory
services as an available remedy when the SEA has found a failure or inability to provide
appropriate services under IDEA in order to address the needs of the child
(34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b)(1)). Similarly, courts have ordered such services to address the child’s

6

This document contains examples of resources that are provided for the user’s convenience. The inclusion of these
resources is not intended to reflect their importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products
or services offered, by these entities. These resources may include materials that contain the views and
recommendations of various subject-matter experts as well as hypertext links, contact addresses, and websites to
information created and maintained by other public and private organizations. The opinions expressed in any of
these materials do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S.
Department of Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of
any outside information included in the materials that may be provided by these resources.

Page 7
needs after a failure or inability to provide FAPE over a given period of time. For further
information about compensatory services, see, in particular, Section D of Development and
Implementation of Individualized Education Programs in the Least Restrictive Environment
under the IDEA.
Collaboration Between Partners
The IEP Team, with Head Start personnel, are encouraged to collaboratively strategize ways to
ensure each child’s IEP is implemented in the LRE as required by IDEA. For example, if there is
a shortage of available special education and related services providers, the IEP Team may
consider whether delivering the service virtually while the child is in the Head Start program is
an appropriate methodology to meet the child’s needs for the service identified on the child’s
IEP. The IEP Team may also consider if providing virtual coaching and consultation to Head
Start personnel is an appropriate way to meet the child’s needs for the service identified on the
child’s IEP. In addition, the IEP Team may consider using paraprofessionals and assistants who
are appropriately trained and supervised in accordance with State law, regulation, or written
policy, to assist in the provision of special education and related services to the child.
OSEP and OHS strongly encourage SEAs, LEAs, and Head Start programs to prioritize building
and maintaining collaborative relationships to ensure that young children with disabilities
eligible under IDEA Part B and enrolled in Head Start programs receive FAPE in the LRE.
Collaborative relationships require effort during normal operations. During challenging
circumstances such as the pandemic, collaboration must be more intentional to ensure effective
communication and coordination, particularly when programs have differing policies and
procedures. The companion document, Guidance on Creating an Effective Memorandum of
Understanding to Support High Quality Inclusive Early Childhood Systems (2022), provides
strategies and considerations to effectively formalize working partnerships.
Additionally, our Departments and affiliated technical assistance centers have developed
multiple resources to support programs in carrying out the requirements of IDEA and the
program requirements of Head Start and implementing high-quality inclusive early childhood
programming. The list attached to the end of this letter provides links to many resources that
address important topics such as implementing IDEA child find requirements under both Parts B
and C of the IDEA, development, and implementation of IEPs, making sound placement
decisions, supporting children’s social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs, and tools
to develop and sustain high-quality inclusive early childhood systems at the State, community,
program, and classroom levels. We encourage you to use this information as you collaborate to
educate young children with disabilities in your State and local communities.
We value your continued partnerships to provide special education and related services while
maintaining the health and safety of young children with disabilities enrolled in Head Start

Page 8
programs. On behalf of our Departments, thank you for your hard work and dedication during
these ever-changing times.
Sincerely,
/s/
Valerie C. Williams
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education

/s/
Katie Hamm
Acting Director
Office of Head Start
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services

Page 9

RESOURCES
General Information
• Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education
•

Center for Parent Information and Resources

•

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Office of Head Start (OHS)
• Children with Disabilities
•

COVID-19 & the Head Start Community: OHS COVID-19 Updates

•

COVID-19 & the Head Start Community: Operating In-Person Services in Head Start

•

Inclusion of Children with Disabilities ACF-IM-HS-20-01

U.S. Department of Education (ED)
• COVID-19 Resources for Schools, Students, and Families: Special Education &
Rehabilitative Services
•

Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive Environments

•

Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students

•

Letter to Educators and Parents Regarding New CDC Recommendations and Their
Impact on Children with Disabilities

•

Return to School Roadmap: Child Find Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act

•

Return to School Roadmap: Development and Implementation of Individualized
Education Programs

•

Supporting Child and Student Social, Emotional, Behavioral and Mental Health Needs

Joint Guidance/Policy Statements/Letters
• Guidance on Creating an Effective Memorandum of Understanding to Support High
Quality Inclusive Early Childhood Systems (2022)
•

Letter on Pediatric Vaccination Efforts

•

Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA)
• Considerations for Developing State Policy and Guidance on Inclusion of Children with
Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs
•

Guiding Questions for Discussing Services in the LRE

•

Indicators of High-Quality Inclusion


GUIDANCE ON CREATING AN EFFECTIVE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING TO SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY INCLUSIVE
EARLY CHILDHOOD SYSTEMS
Vision:
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Office of Head Start (OHS) envision
a seamless system of early care and education with a coordinated approach to service delivery
for infants, toddlers, and preschool children (young children) with disabilities and their families.
This requires heightened and sustained levels of ongoing collaboration between the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C early intervention and Part B, Section 619
preschool special education programs and Head Start 1 programs. This may also include other
early childhood programs such as childcare and State preschool programs.

Objective:
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of factors to consider when developing,
implementing, and sustaining memoranda of understanding (MOUs) 2 at the State level to create
a coordinated approach to service delivery to improve outcomes for young children who are at
risk for or have a developmental delay or disability. While this document focuses on IDEA and
Head Start programs, States may wish to consider whether MOUs with the relevant early care
and education partners may be helpful to provide seamless services to young children with
disabilities and their families.
There are at least four potential purposes that the MOU can serve under Parts B and C of the
IDEA. If an MOU or interagency agreement is needed for the delivery of IDEA services, an
interagency agreement may serve as a method under IDEA sections 612 and 640. As a method
under 34 CFR 303.511, the MOU must include appropriate service provision and dispute
resolution provisions. A second purpose under both IDEA Parts B and C is the IDEA child find
mandate under 34 CFR 300.111 and 303.115, which many States codify through an interagency
agreement.

Head Start, as referenced in this document, includes all Head Start program types: Head Start, Early Head Start
(EHS), Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Head Start.
2
How this agreement is labeled will vary from State to State, as some States may refer to these agreements as a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), or inter-/intra-agency agreement.
For the purposes of this document, the term MOU will be used to refer to any agreement that is established
between agencies to facilitate the provision of special education and related services in Head Start or other early
childhood program settings.
1

Page 2
The IDEA Part C mandates for child find and seamless transitions for children are the bases for
the very specific coordination required between IDEA Part C and Head Start
(see 34 CFR 303.118(a)(3) (personnel development), 303.210 (collaboration),
303.302(c)(1)(ii)(E) (coordination and Advisory Panel) and 303.601(8) (SICC). Additionally, an
early childhood transition intra-agency or interagency agreement is required under IDEA section
637(a)(9) and 34 CFR 303.209(a)(3), which may include the Head Start program. Finally, a
fourth purpose of the MOU may be to permit data sharing--whether in the aggregate
(deidentified) or individually (with parental consent where required and/or through an MOU that
utilizes a specific exception under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that
is codified separately under the IDEA Part B and Part C privacy regulations in 34 CFR 300.622
and 303.414). 3 Thinking through which of these four purposes that the MOU will serve is critical
to ensuring that it both meets applicable legal requirements and serves to improve coordination
and delivery of services to young children with disabilities and their families.
The intended audience for this document includes:
•

IDEA Part C State and local level staff;

•

IDEA Part B, Section 619 (preschool) State and local level staff;

•

Head Start State Collaboration Directors;

•

Head Start Disability Services Coordinators;

•

OHS’s Program Specialists;

•

OSEP- and OHS-funded Training and Technical Assistance Centers and Providers; and

•

State and local level leadership of other early care and education programs

Rationale
Early intervention and early childhood special education can support young children with
disabilities in meeting high expectations and enhancing their developmental and learning
outcomes. The earlier children receive services and support, the greater the opportunity to
minimize the potential of developmental delays. Research identifies the benefits of providing these
services and supports in high-quality inclusive learning environments. 4 However, there has been
little change in national inclusion data over the last 40 years. The percentage of preschool children
with disabilities attending regular early childhood programs and receiving the majority of their
3

The IDEA confidentiality/privacy regulations are codified in 34 CFR Part 300 (for the 2006 IDEA Part B
regulations) and 34 CFR Part 303 (for the IDEA Part C regulations). The FERPA statute is at 20 U.S.C. 1232g
and the FERPA regulations are in 34 CFR Part 99. IDEA contains provisions that are broader than, and
incorporate provisions of, FERPA and must be reviewed first before reviewing the applicable FERPA provisions.
See, also IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk.

4

U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with
Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (2015).

Page 3
special education services in those settings has remained at an almost constant level of around
50 percent. This data and additional State and national data about young children with disabilities
who receive early intervention, special education, or related services under the IDEA, collected
through the U.S. Department of Education, can be found on the OSEP Fast Facts website.
Additionally, families and providers continue to express concern and frustration with delays and
inconsistencies in identification and evaluation processes, service delivery in inclusive programs,
and transition into different services, as well as the expectations programs have for their child. The
data, combined with reports from families, providers, and programs, highlight the need for State
and local leaders to prioritize developing MOUs to formalize the collaborative efforts needed to
build a seamless and coordinated inclusive system for all young children and their families.
Through the work of the National Early Childhood Inclusion Indicators Initiative, a cross-sector
partnership of early childhood stakeholders, led by the OSEP-funded Early Childhood Technical
Assistance Center (ECTA) and the National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations (NCPMI),
four sets of indicators were developed to support improved and increased inclusive opportunities
for young children with disabilities and their families. The indicators address system and practice
refinements at every level: State, Community, Local Program, and Early Care and Education
Environments. Formal agreements are one of the elements identified as critical to support
inclusive opportunities.
A comprehensive MOU is an agreement that can help form the foundation of a State’s integrated
early childhood system for young children who are at risk for or have a developmental delay or
disability. It is a document that includes shared understanding, plans, and responsibilities
between programs regarding the common goal of identifying young children with disabilities and
promoting increased access to, and meaningful participation in, early childhood programs for
young children who are at risk for or have a developmental delay or disability. Finally, an MOU
can define and operationalize implementation of best and recommended practices that support
meeting the requirements that infants and toddlers with disabilities be provided, to the maximum
extent appropriate, services in natural environments and preschool children with disabilities be
provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, services in the least restrictive environment.

Program Requirements
The development of strong, effective partnerships can be challenging. One barrier can be the lack
of understanding of each early childhood program’s requirements. The IDEA statute and
regulations and the Head Start Performance Standards include specific requirements related to
collaboration, identifying young children who may have or be at risk for disabilities, and the
provision of services in inclusive environments. These requirements can be found at:
•

IDEA Part C — Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

Page 4
•

IDEA Part B (Section 619, Preschool) — Assistance to States for the Education of
Children with Disabilities

•

Head Start Program Performance Standards — Coordination and collaboration with the
local agency responsible for implementing IDEA.

Additionally, State and local leaders can review other documents that provide guidance and
define expectations for the provision of IDEA Part C and Part B, Section 619 services in
inclusive early childhood programs. The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human
Services released the Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early
Childhood Programs and the Policy Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Polices in Early
Childhood Settings. OSEP released the Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive
Environment.
The interagency coordination provisions and natural and least restrictive environments
requirements included in Part C and Part B, Section 619 of IDEA and their implementing
regulations, the Head Start Performance Standards, and the relevant policy and position
statements provide the necessary policy framework to build and sustain statewide infrastructure
that supports an integrated early care and education system. State and local leaders should
reference the appropriate regulations in the development of MOUs.

Development of MOUs
Who: The first step in developing an MOU or revising an existing MOU, at any level, is to

identify members of a leadership team across agencies to work on the document and to then
oversee its implementation. It is important to ensure membership includes representation from
diverse perspectives, areas of expertise, and responsibilities (e.g., director, provider, family
member, fiscal manager) as well as those with the authority to make decisions. This supports
agreements that are well-informed and have a greater chance of successful implementation. For
example, at the State level, the team would, at a minimum, include the: Head Start Collaboration
Director, IDEA Part C and Part B Section 619 coordinators, monitoring, and legal personnel
from both the State educational agency and State lead agency, local program leaders and service
providers, other partner agencies, family members, and pertinent stakeholders from the State and
regional levels.
Why: When developing relationships to establish an MOU, it is critical to review the benefits of
having a formalized agreement and have shared values and understanding of the collective
purpose, for example, to:
1. Create an equitable and coordinated early childhood system.
Equity in early childhood education is providing all children high-quality equitable
services that allow them to grow and succeed. The provision of early care and education
that meets the unique needs of each and every young child requires coordination among

Page 5
multiple State systems. When State agencies that serve young children come together and
define each other’s roles in providing services to young children who are at risk for or
have a developmental delay or disability and their families, they are better able to create a
more coordinated system.
2. Improve relationships across agencies and staff.
IDEA programs, Head Start and other early care and education agencies, and their
respective staff should connect regularly and intentionally about serving young children
who are at risk for or have a developmental delay or disability and their families.
Outlining how often agencies will regularly meet and what collaborative efforts they are
working to improve (e.g., child find, delivery of services, resource allocations, and MOU
development and revisions) will help them build their partnerships.
3. Maximize resources, including fiscal resources.
IDEA programs, Head Start and other early care and education agencies should share
resources to promote a coordinated approach to delivering services to young children who
are at risk for or have a developmental delay or disability and their families. Fiscal
resources may be blended, braided, and layered to the extent allowable under applicable
laws. Agencies can more efficiently use their resources by outlining relevant resources each
agency can share, including space, staff time, data, professional development, and funding.
4. Improve child and family outcomes.
IDEA programs require that State agencies report child and family outcomes data. Head
Start is encouraged to share data from the Program Information Report (PIR) at the State
and local levels to complement data collected from IDEA partners. A cohesive approach
to improving services for young children who are at risk for or have a developmental
delay or disability and families, requires that agencies outline child and family outcome
data points collected by each agency and include steps each agency will take toward
supporting the improvement of those data.
5. Identify young children with disabilities as early as possible.
Many early care and education agencies have requirements for screening and identifying
children with suspected developmental delays or disabilities. Outlining their child find
processes in the MOU may help agencies identify ways in which they could improve
their child find efforts.
6. Increase IDEA services in the natural environment and in inclusive settings.
IDEA programs require that eligible young children are provided services in a natural
setting where a child would be educated if they were not identified with a disability. Head
Start programs must ensure enrolled children with disabilities, including but not limited
to those who are eligible for services under IDEA, and their families receive all
applicable program services delivered in inclusive environments and that they fully

Page 6
participate in all program activities. Agencies can review the range of settings that
services are currently being provided in to identify areas that do not have inclusive
settings and develop steps to expand the number of inclusive settings.
7. Increase cross-fertilization of ideas among interagency members.
IDEA programs, Head Start and early care and education agencies should share and
consider how they can support one another in implementing innovative solutions or
approaches to providing services to young children who are at risk for or have a
developmental delay or disability and their families.
8. Increase understanding and implementation of transdisciplinary practices.
IDEA programs, Head Start and early care and education agencies should promote
practices that include coaching and the implementation of cross-disciplinary team support
that improves service delivery of early childhood services. Being clear on the services
each agency provides will allow the agencies to identify gaps in services and plan for
increasing transdisciplinary practices to improve child and family outcomes.
9. Increase staff collaboration skills.
IDEA programs, Head Start and early care and education agency staff members require
an understanding of each other’s work to support young children who are at risk for or
have a developmental delay or disability and their families. Identifying strategies to bring
staff together and ensuring time where they can work together can help them build their
collaboration skills.
10. Increase cross-sector professional development opportunities.
IDEA programs, Head Start and early care and education agencies can provide
professional development and technical assistance that staff from other agencies can
access. Establishing areas for joint professional development and trainings can support
the mission and shared values of the MOU.
11. Define roles and share responsibilities across agencies.
The roles of IDEA programs, Head Start, and early care and education agencies in
serving young children with disabilities and their families should be clearly stated. In
instances where service areas overlap, the expectations for collaboration and oversight
should be described. An MOU can help each agency clearly define its role, which will
assist with maintaining the group’s focus on improving child and family outcomes.
12. Share data and information to strengthen services to young children with disabilities
and their families.
IDEA programs, Head Start, and early care and education agencies collect data that can
enhance service delivery for young children with disabilities and their families. Data
sharing may be done in the aggregate (on a deidentified basis) or individually (with
parental consent where required and/or through an MOU that utilizes a specific exception

Page 7
under the IDEA privacy regulations in 34 CFR 300.622 and 303.414). It is critical to
include legal review to ensure that the IDEA Part C and Part B confidentiality and
privacy requirements are met. 5 The development of the MOU may reveal additional areas
for data collection and analysis across systems.
13. Meet requirements of IDEA and Head Start.
Under IDEA Part C, to the maximum extent appropriate, infants and toddlers with disabilities
must receive early intervention services in the natural environment. Under IDEA Part B, to
the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with children
without disabilities. Under Head Start program requirements, HS programs must ensure
enrolled children with disabilities, including but not limited to those who are eligible for
services under IDEA, and their families receive all applicable program services delivered in
the least restrictive possible environment and that they fully participate in all program
activities. An MOU that ensures services across programs supports implementation of these
and other requirements of the applicable laws and regulations and should improve outcomes
for young children with disabilities and their families.

What: In order to effect system changes, States need time to consider factors across the

implementation components (leadership, organization, and capacity-personnel & program) that
make up their infrastructure. For example, MOUs might address leadership components through
agreed upon commitments and community awareness strategies. Organization components
include policies, procedures, data, funding, quality assurance, early learning and program
standards, family engagement, and the systems to support and sustain these organization
components. Capacity components include looking across programs to align early childhood
personnel standards, preservice preparation, credential and licensing requirements, and ongoing
cross-sector professional development, teaming, and coaching. The Early Childhood Indicators
of High Quality Inclusion offer specific focus areas at each system level for States to consider
including in their MOUs.
At the State and local levels, discussions should also consider each agency’s role and
responsibilities to address the successful implementation of IDEA requirements within Head
Start programs at each major point of the service delivery continuum:

5

•

Child find and referral;

•

Evaluation and eligibility;

•

Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)/Individualized Education Program (IEP)
development and reviews;

The IDEA/FERPA cross-walk provides a helpful comparison of IDEA and FERPA requirements. Also helpful is
the Early Childhood FAQs at Understanding the Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early
Childhood Programs FAQs Oct. 2016.

Page 8
•

Child and family outcomes;

•

Placement decisions;

•

IFSP/IEP implementation;

•

Ongoing service delivery;

•

Collaborative teaming, coaching, communication;

•

Transition from IDEA Part C to IDEA Part B, Section 619 programs, and to kindergarten;
and

•

Contingency plans for national, State, or local emergencies.

The Head Start Disabilities Services Coordinator Orientation Guide Appendix A: Building an
Interagency MOU provides additional details to consider in developing State and local level
agreements. Also, the Service Delivery Component Considerations for Effective Early
Childhood Memorandums of Understanding (attached Table A) offers examples of collaborative
practices throughout service delivery to stimulate thoughts and discussions as MOUs are
developed and reviewed.
An MOU should be written so that it is clearly understood. The language of an MOU should be
simple and straightforward. A good approach is to use language that makes all parties feel
important and vital to the relationship, keeping in mind that the written document should reflect
what has been negotiated and agreed upon.
There is no standard MOU format. A common-sense approach should guide both the
development of the instrument and the decisions regarding inclusions and exclusions.

Where: Many States and local programs have existing MOUs. In this case it is important to

look at where the MOU is located, who has access to the MOU, how often it is reviewed, and
who from each agency is responsible for updating the MOU. State-level MOUs should be in
place and shared with local programs as a model to develop local agreements that detail more
day-to-day service delivery process collaborations.
When: Specify an annual review schedule for the agreement to ensure that it is of high
quality. Once the MOU has been written and signed by the agencies involved, the next steps are
to implement and sustain the agreement. There are several strategies to help successfully
implement and sustain the MOU:
•

Maintain an open dialogue between the agencies involved as this will facilitate the
ongoing development and evolution of the agreement;

•

Establish a regular (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually, annually) schedule of formal meetings
or workgroups to discuss the progress of the implementation of the MOU and potential
areas of change to consider;

•

Address potential conflicts and resolve in a respectful and professional manner;

Page 9
•

Maintain intentional and purposeful collaboration;

•

Provide training and orientation on the collaboration for all new staff at each agency
involved;

•

Provide a centralized file location or repository for MOU documentation and meeting
notes to be accessible by all involved; and

•

Determine timelines for revisions, updates and overall schedules of MOU reoccurring
activities, including revisions based on needs, leadership and staff changes, natural
disasters, or health emergencies.

These strategies may serve as the foundation for successful collaborative work and to increase
partnerships and joint activities to strengthen inclusive services for young children with
disabilities and their families.

Resources and Support
OSEP- and OHS-funded technical assistance centers have a wealth of tools and resources to
promote collaboration within and across agencies and programs at the State and local levels.
States are highly encouraged to engage in technical assistance activities and utilize resources to
support the development and implementation of effective MOUs to build and sustain highquality inclusive systems of early care and education for young children with disabilities and
their families.

Additional Resources:
•

A System Framework for Building High-Quality Early Intervention and Preschool
Special Education Programs (ECTA)

•

Early Childhood Indicators of High Quality Inclusion (ECTA)

•

DEC Recommended Practices: Practice Improvement Tools (ECTA) (ECTA)

•

IDEA Privacy/Confidentiality Resources
o IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk
o Understanding the Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early
Childhood Programs FAQs Oct. 2016
o Technical assistance centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education
(PTAC and DaSy)

•

Head Start Disabilities Coordinator Orientation Guide
o Appendix A: Building an Interagency MOU

•

TA Center Inclusion Landing Pages:
o ECLKC: Children with Disabilities in Head Start
o ECTA Center
o NCPMI

Page 10

Table A: Service Delivery Component Considerations for Effective Early Childhood Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs)
An effective MOU describes what each agency will do within each component of the service delivery continuum to ensure an equitable,
coordinated, family-centered approach and the efficient use of all agency resources (e.g., time, personnel, fiscal), within the parameters of all
applicable local, State, and federal requirements. The chart below provides examples of collaborative practices for consideration. MOU
development teams are encouraged to be creative and innovative when thinking about coordinated responsibilities during different processes
and procedures.
TABLE NOTE: * with parental consent

Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Outreach/
Referral
Process

All programs have requirements
to identify children with
disabilities, including timelines
once referred.

(IDEA Part C)

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

Head Start (HS)

LEAs accept EI / HS
screening information* and
do not duplicate or repeat to
determine the need for
evaluation to determine
eligibility.

HS screening information is
shared* with EI programs and
LEAs when making referrals.

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)

Personnel should understand
eligibility criteria for different
agencies for appropriate referrals.
States and local programs should
develop relationships with the
contact people that work on
eligibility across programs.
Consider responsibilities based on
which program first comes in
contact with the family and child.

Evaluation,
Assessment,
and Eligibility

Early Intervention (EI)

EI programs and LEAs have
required timelines for conducting
evaluations to determine
eligibility. Information from other

Early intervention service
(EIS) providers accept HS
screening information* and do
not duplicate or repeat to
determine the need for
evaluation to determine
eligibility.
[EIS providers have 45 days
from the date of referral to
determine eligibility and hold
an initial meeting to develop
the individualized family
services plan (IFSP)
(34 CFR 303.310).]

[LEAs have 60 days from the
time parental consent is
received (or, if the State
establishes a timeframe within
which the evaluation must be
conducted, within that
timeframe) to complete the
initial evaluation
(34 CFR 300.301(c)(1))).]

EIS providers gather
information* from HS
providers during the

LEAs observe children in HS
classrooms* during the
evaluation process to develop

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)

[HS programs are required to
complete a developmental
screening with all children and
identify children who may
need further evaluation.
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/po
licy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-33child-screenings-assessments]

HS providers share
information* with EI
programs/LEAs during
assessment activities.

Page 11
Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

Head Start (HS)

assessment process to develop
functional IFSPs.

functional individualized
education programs (IEPs).

[EIS providers have 45 days
from the date of referral to
determine eligibility and hold
the initial IFSP meeting
(34 CFR 303.310).]

[LEAs must conduct a meeting
to develop an IEP for a child
within 30 days of a
determination that the child
needs special education and
related services; and, as soon
as possible following
development of the IEP,
special education and related
services must be made
available to the child in
accordance with the IEP
(34 CFR 300.323(c)).]

[HS programs must complete
or obtain a current
developmental screening to
identify concerns regarding a
child’s developmental skills
within 45 calendar days of
when the child first attends the
program or, for the home-based
program option, receives a
home visit.
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/po
licy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-33child-screenings-assessments]

EIS providers consider HS
family plans and goals when
developing IFSPs. HS
providers are invited* to IFSP
meetings.

IEP Teams consider the child’s
functioning in HS classrooms
when developing goals and
when making placement
decisions.

[The IFSP must include a
description of the child’s
present levels of development
and information about the
family’s resources, priorities,
and concerns
(34 CFR 303.344).]

[The IEP must include a
description of the child’s
present levels of academic
achievement and functional
performance (including how
the disability affects the child’s
participation in appropriate
activities) and measurable
annual goals (including
academic and functional goals)
designed to meet the child’s

(IDEA Part C)

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)
adults who know the child and
family is valuable in that process.

IFSP/IEP
Development

Early Intervention (EI)

EI programs, LEAs, and HS have
requirements for individualized
service plans. Consider meeting
with families* to simultaneously
develop the program-specific
plans to ensure the process is
family-friendly and support
coordinated service delivery.

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)

HS providers contribute to
IFSP/IEP development by
sharing a child’s program
plan* and information about
the child’s knowledge, skills,
and behaviors.
[HS programs must participate
in the development of the IFSP
or IEP if requested by the child’s
parents, and the implementation
of the IFSP or IEP
(https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/p
olicy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-63coordination-collaborationlocal-agency-responsibleimplementing-idea)]

Page 12
Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Early Intervention (EI)
(IDEA Part C)

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)

Head Start (HS)

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)

needs resulting from their
disability to enable the child to
be involved in and make
progress in the general
education curriculum, and
meet each of the child’s other
educational needs resulting
from their disability
(34 CFR 300.320).]

Child
Outcome
Ratings

EIS providers and LEAs use data
from three early childhood
outcomes to measure results and
improve systems and services.

IFSP Teams use information
from all sources, including HS
observations and reports, to
determine child outcomes
ratings.

IEP Teams use information
from all sources, including HS
observations and reports, to
determine child outcomes
ratings.

HS providers contribute
information and participate in
child outcomes rating
discussions.

Service
Delivery

EI and special education and
related services support the child’s
meaningful participation in
everyday routines and activities in
home, classroom, and community
settings.

IFSP Teams consider the
frequency of HS home visiting
requirements to determine
when and how often IFSP
services are provided,
including planning joint visits*
when appropriate.

IEP services are planned with
HS teachers and provided
within HS classroom routines
and activities.

HS providers support families
in implementing IFSP
strategies during HS home
visits.

[IEP services must be provided
in the least restrictive
environment to the maximum
extent appropriate
(34 CFR 300.114(a).]

HS teachers integrate IFSP/IEP
strategies throughout
classroom routines and
activities.

IFSP and IEP Teams have
flexibility when identifying
services, including the frequency
and duration, based on individual
child (and family) needs and
resources. HS has service
frequency requirements.

[IFSP services must be
provided in the child’s natural
environments to the maximum
extent appropriate
(34 CFR 303.126).]

[HS programs must ensure
enrolled children with
disabilities, including but not
limited to those who are
eligible for services under
IDEA, and their families
receive all applicable program
services delivered in the least

Page 13
Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Early Intervention (EI)
(IDEA Part C)

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)

Head Start (HS)

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)
restrictive possible
environment and that they fully
participate in all program
activities.
(https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/p
olicy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-60full-participation-programservices-activities)]

IFSP/IEP
Reviews

All programs have requirements
for reviewing children’s
individualized plans. Coordinating
reviews and sharing information*
supports robust and functional
plans and service delivery.

IFSP Teams may invite* HS
providers (with parental
consent where needed) to IFSP
meetings and align IFSPs to
HS family service plans.

IEP meetings include HS
providers* and use
information in annual
evaluations to determine goals
and services.

HS providers actively
participate in IFSP/IEP
meetings*, including aligning
HS child program plans with
the same/similar goals.

[IFSPs must be reviewed not
less than every 6 months
(34 CFR 303.342(b)(1)).]

[IEPs must be reviewed at
least annually
(34 CFR 300.324(b)(1)(i)).]

[HS programs must participate
in meetings with the local
agency responsible for
implementing IDEA to develop
or review an IEP or IFSP for a
child being considered for HS
enrollment, a currently enrolled
child, or a child transitioning
from a program.
(https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/p
olicy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-63coordination-collaborationlocal-agency-responsibleimplementing-idea)]

Page 14
Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Transition
Planning and
Process

Smooth and seamless transitions
are important for child, family,
and program success. Everyone
involved should understand their
roles and responsibilities, and
families need enough information
to make informed decisions.

Early Intervention (EI)
(IDEA Part C)

Head Start (HS)

IEP Teams provide information
to families transitioning from
Part C to Part B services,
including how IEP services
might be provided in HS
classrooms.

EHS providers facilitate
discussions with Part C
families and HS programs.

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)
IFSP Teams invite HS and LEA
personnel to transition
meetings to provide
information about options for
parents.
IFSP providers support family
visits to different program
options.
[Transition planning meetings
must occur no later than 90
days before the child’s 3rd
birthday
(34 CFR 303.209(c)).]

Training and
Technical
Assistance

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

Joint professional development
across programs builds shared
understanding of program
requirements, knowledge of
integrated child development, and

EI programs invite HS
personnel to coaching
meetings, regular trainings,
and special workshops and
conferences.

[LEA personnel must
participate in transition
planning conferences
(34 CFR 300.124).]

LEAs invite HS personnel to
coaching meetings, regular
trainings, and special
workshops and conferences.

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)

HS providers attend transition
meetings to describe program
options, including services for
children with disabilities
available in HS classrooms.
[HS programs must work to
develop interagency
agreements with the local
agency responsible for
implementing IDEA to
improve service delivery to
children eligible for services
under IDEA, including
transition services as children
move from services provided
under Part C of IDEA to
services provided under Part B
of IDEA and from preschool to
kindergarten.
(https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/p
olicy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-71transitions-head-startkindergarten)]
HS programs invite EI and
LEA personnel to coaching
meetings, regular trainings,
and special workshops and
conferences.

Page 15
Service
Delivery
Component

Key Points

Early Intervention (EI)
(IDEA Part C)

Local Educational
Agency (LEA)

(IDEA Part B Section 619 —
Preschool)
the capacity to implement
evidence-based practices with
fidelity. It also contributes to
raising the early childhood
profession and building
comprehensive and coordinated
early childhood systems.

Head Start (HS)

(Inclusive of Early Head Start,
Head Start, Migrant Head
Start, and American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start)