UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TO:

State Assessment Directors
State Title I Directors
State Special Education Directors

FROM:

Patrick Rooney
Director, School Support and Accountability
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Laurie Vanderploeg
Director, Office Special Education Programs
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

DATE:

June 9, 2020

SUBJECT:

Additional Information Regarding the Requirements to Request a Waiver for the 202021 School Year (SY) from the One Percent Cap on the Percentage of Students With the
Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Who May Be Assessed with an Alternate
Assessment Aligned with Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS)

We understand that State educational agencies (SEAs) are facing unprecedented challenges right now
due to the impacts of the national pandemic caused by the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019, COVID19, and that those challenges will likely continue into the coming school year. We at the U.S.
Department of Education (Department) want to commend you for your efforts to ensure that learning
continues for all students and we appreciate the difficulties you are facing. In this memorandum, we are
providing information regarding the submission of waiver requests for the 1.0 percent cap on AAAAAS participation in the 2020-21 SY, particularly in light of the waivers that were granted this spring
from the requirement to administer statewide assessments in SY 2019-20.
Section 612(a)(16)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that States
have developed and implemented guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in AAAAAS for those children who cannot participate in regular assessments with accommodations as
indicated in their respective individualized education programs (IEPs). Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) requires that only students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities may take an AA-AAAS; it also limits the number of students that a State may
assess with an AA-AAAS to no more than 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed in a State.1
This requirement was first in effect for SY 2017-18. The Department recognizes, however, that most
States were exceeding this percentage prior to SY 2017-18 and that it would likely take several years
1

See http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf.
400 MARYLAND AVE., SW, WASHINGTON, DC 20202
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
for a State to come into compliance with this requirement. As a result, the ESEA permits the
Department to grant a waiver to a State, if it meets certain statutory and regulatory requirements, to
assess more than 1.0 percent of students on an AA-AAAS.
In May 2017, the Department provided information regarding the procedures for a State to apply for
such a waiver.2 In August 2018, the Department published additional information for States that may
wish to apply to extend their existing one-year waiver for an additional year.3 This memorandum
clarified the requirements for such an extension, which include demonstrating substantial progress
towards achieving each component of the prior year’s plan and timeline, to ensure that the State is
making progress towards meeting the 1.0 percent cap and assessing only students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities with an AA-AAAS. The Department has posted all waiver requests
and the Department’s response for SYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at
https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/essa-state-plansassessment-waivers/.
In March 2020, COVID-19 resulted in widespread and extended school closures. As a result, it was not
feasible for most schools to administer annual statewide assessments. The Department invited States to
request a waiver for SY 2019-20 of the assessment requirements in ESEA section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA, the accountability and school identification requirements in ESEA sections 1111(c)(4) and
1111(d)(2)(C)-(D), and related reporting requirements in ESEA section 1111(h). Every State applied
for and received this waiver.
States Applying for a New Waiver
The requirements and procedures to request a waiver from the 1.0 percent cap are unchanged and are
provided in detail in the prior documents from May 2017 and August 2018. States applying for a new
waiver should ensure that their request addresses each requirement detailed in those documents,
including the requirements in section 8401 of the ESEA related to public comment.
The waiver request must include data from the current or previous school year4 to show the number
and percentage of students overall and from each subgroup of students who will take or took the AAAAAS with respect to each subject for which the State seeks a waiver. However, we understand that
most States will not have data for SY 2019-20, so they will not be able to provide AA-AAAS data
from the previous school year.
For that reason, the Department encourages a State to use current year (2020-21) IEP5 or test
registration data to make a credible estimate of the number and percentage of students (including by
subgroup, if possible) who will take the AA-AAAS in SY 2020-21 or who would have taken the AAAAAS in SY 2019-20 if testing had been conducted. States should also provide actual participation
data on this population, overall and by subgroup, from SY 2018-19. An example of such data is
2

See https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/onepercentcapmemo51617.pdf.
See https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/02/ossstateassessmentltr.pdf.
4
For example, a State could have applied for a waiver for SY 2018-19 school year using data from either 2018-19 (current
school year) or 2017-18 (previous school year).
5
In accordance with IDEA, the IEP team determines whether a child shall take an alternate assessment on a particular State
or districtwide assessment of student achievement, and the IEP team must document such a decision in the child’s IEP.
3

Page 3
provided in appendix A of this memorandum. The Department believes that using IEP/test registration
data to create a credible estimate for SY 2019-20 or 2020-21 participation rates may help the State
demonstrate that they are making progress in reducing the percentage of AA-AAAS participation.
As in previous years, the State will also need to provide data to show that the State has assessed the
achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of children with disabilities who are
enrolled in grades for which the assessment is required. This percentage must include all students
assessed with the general assessment and the AA-AAAS for each requested subject. Because States will
not have valid participation data for SY 2019-20, the State will need to rely on participation data from
SY 2018-19.
The State will need to provide evidence that the SEA has verified that each LEA that the State
anticipates will assess more than 1.0 percent of its assessed students in any subject using an AA-AAAS
followed the State’s guidelines for participation in the AA-AAAS6 and will address any
disproportionality in the percentage of students in any subgroup taking an AA-AAAS. This can be
done in SY 2020-21 and must have occurred before submission of the waiver request.
Finally, the State will need to provide a plan and timeline with clear, actionable steps and milestones
that includes:
• A clear description of how the State will improve the implementation of its guidelines for
participation in the AA-AAAS, including by reviewing and, if necessary, revising its definition
of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (see 34 CFR 200.6(d)(1)), so that the
State meets the 1.0 percent cap in each subject for which assessments are administered in future
school years;
• A clear description of how it will monitor and regularly evaluate each LEA to ensure that the
LEA provides sufficient training such that school staff who participate as members of an IEP
team or other placement team understand and implement the guidelines established by the State
for participation in an AA-AAAS so that all students are appropriately assessed; and
• A clear description of how the State will address any disproportionality in the percentage of
students taking an AA-AAAS as identified through the data provided.7
States Applying to Extend a Waiver Granted or Extended in a Prior Year
A State that wishes to request an extension of a waiver that it received in a prior year should provide
updated information regarding each requirement in the previous year’s submission. In preparing a
waiver renewal request, the State must continue to meet each requirement associated with the first
waiver it received from this requirement. Additionally, a State must demonstrate substantial progress
towards achieving each component of the prior year’s plan and timeline. If a State’s plan and
timeline was disrupted due to COVID-19, its waiver request should explain the impact of those
disruptions.
As noted above, the Department encourages the State to use current year IEP or test registration data to
make a credible estimate of the number and percentage of students (including by subgroup, if possible)
who will take the AA-AAAS in SY 2020-21 or who would have taken the AA-AAAS in SY 2019-20 if
6
7

34 CFR 200.6(d), consistent with section 612(a)(16)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
34 CFR 200.6(c)(4)(iv).

Page 4
testing had been conducted. States should also provide actual participation data, overall and by
subgroup, from SY 2018-19.
States Denied a Waiver in SY 2019-20
States that were denied a 1.0 percent cap waiver in SY 2019-20 will need to follow the instructions for
applying for a new waiver if they wish to seek a waiver in SY 2020-21. States should be sure to
address the concern that led to the denial of their SY 2019-20 waiver request.
States Seeking a Combination New Waiver and an Extension of a Waiver
Some States were denied or did not apply for a waiver in a particular subject area (typically due to
participation rates below 95 percent) but received a waiver in other subject areas. As in previous years,
this will be treated as a combination new/extension waiver request and all of the applicable
requirements apply to each subject area included in the State’s request. That is, for the waivers the
State requested be extended, the State must provide information described in “States Applying to
Extend a Waiver Granted or Extended in a Prior Year.” For the subjects that are new waivers, the State
must provide information described in “States Applying for a New Waiver.”
States with Early Testing Windows
The Department reminds States that a request for a waiver of the 1.0 percent cap requirement, whether
new or extension, must be submitted 90 days before the beginning of the State’s testing window. For a
State that tests throughout the year, this deadline may occur during summer 2020. The State should
follow this requirement even if all of the necessary information is not yet available. The Department
encourages the State to explain in its requests any missing information and provide a clear timeline for
when the data will become available. Once the Department receives the required information, the
waiver will be considered for approval.
States with questions about these waiver requests should contact the Office of School Support and
Accountability’s Assessment Team at ESEA.Assessment@ed.gov. All requests for 1.0 percent cap
waivers should be submitted to ESEA.Assessment@ed.gov. Thank you for your continued commitment
to our nation’s students.

Page 5
Appendix A
Example of Data Display to Support a State’s Waiver Request to Exceed the 1.0 Percent Cap onAAAAAS Participation
(Note: This is sample data only, it does not represent any single State’s data)
Total Children w
# Take State
% Taking State
Total Grades 3Disabilities Grades R/LA AA-AAAS
R/LA AA-AAAS
Group
8 and 10 R/LA
3-8 and 10 R/LA
Gr. 3-8 and 10
Gr. 3-8 and 10
2018-19
2018-19
2018-19
2018-19
1.57%
All students
475,611
78,924
7,453

(=7,453/475,611)

English learners
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Econ. Disadv.

Group

41,232
46,258
95,464
31,956
260,701
172,190
Estimated*
Total Grades 38 and 10 R/LA
2019-20

9,812
9,933
22,163
2,817
57,246
44,725
Estimated*
Total Children w
Disabilities Grades
3-8 and 10 R/LA
2019-20

911
1,116
2,168
432
3,919
4,754
Estimated*
# Take State
R/LA AA-AAAS
Gr. 3-8 and 10
2019-20

All students

476,834

79, 412

7,021

English learners
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Econ. Disadv.

42,491
45,876
96,348
31,123
263,128
178,897

10,011
10,438
23,045
2,790
58,291
45,865

798
986
2,053
401
3,919
4,234

2.21%
2.41%
2.27%
1.35%
1.50%
2.76%
Estimated*
% Taking State
R/LA AA-AAAS
Gr. 3-8 and 10
2019-20
1.47%
(=7,021/476,834)

1.88%
2.15%
2.13%
1.29%
1.49%
2.37%

* Estimates are based on test registration; depending on the availability of State data, this could be 2019-20 or 2020-21 test
registration data.


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

OSERS is committed to acting on and responding to complete waiver requests as quickly as
possible by providing an expedited response to the State educational agency (SEA) that submits
this waiver and provides all necessary information. At the end of this form please click the
submit button to submit this form directly to the IDEAwaiver@ed.gov mailbox.
The Honorable Mark Schultz
Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services Administration
Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
U.S. Department of Education
550 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Mr. Schultz:
I am writing to request a waiver, pursuant to Section 3511 of Division A of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law No. 116-136 (March 27,
2020), of the requirements enumerated below on behalf of the:
and its subgrantees (e.g., local educational agencies (LEA)).
Specifically, I request a waiver of Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA), to extend the period of availability of Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant funds for which the State education agency
participates as the eligible agency, through September 30, 2021. Under this approved waiver,
FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant funds will be available for obligation through September 30,
2021, and for liquidation through December 30, 2021.

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.

Date:
State:

Select a State

Name of SEA:
Please check all that apply:
☐

FFY 2018:

☐

IDEA Part B Grants to States (Section 611)

☐

IDEA Part B Grants to States (Section 619)

In seeking this waiver, I assure that:
☐

The SEA will use, and ensure that its subgrantees will use, funds in accordance
with all applicable statutes, regulations, and program plans, and applications not
subject to these waivers.

☐

The SEA will work to mitigate, and ensure that its subgrantees will work to
mitigate, negative effects, if any, that may occur as a result of the requested
waiver.

☐

This waiver is requested in response to extraordinary circumstances due to the
COVID-19 pandemic for which a national emergency was declared by the
President of the United States under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.

Thank you for your consideration,
Name of Chief State School Officer:
OR
Authorized Representative:
Title:

SUBMIT FORM


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

June 8, 2020

XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXX:
This letter addresses your February 20, 2020, electronic correspondence to me regarding the use
of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B funds to pay hearing officers to
conduct due process hearings under IDEA. Specifically, you ask whether it is permissible for
States to use IDEA Part B funds for this purpose. We regret the delay in responding.
We note that Section 607(d) of IDEA prohibits the Secretary 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. This response represents an interpretation by the
U.S. Department of Education (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.
The answer to your question requires an examination of the requirements that apply to Federal
grants under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (hereafter, Uniform Guidance) as well as IDEA and its
implementing regulations.
Uniform Guidance: Allowability of Costs Charged to Federal Awards
Subpart E of 2 C.F.R Part 200, Cost Principles of the Uniform Guidance, sets out general criteria
that must be met for costs to be allowable under Federal awards. In order to charge a cost to a
Federal award, among other factors, it must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of
the Federal award and be allocable to the Federal grant. 2 C.F.R. § 200.403.
A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred
by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to
incur the cost. The reasonableness of a given cost is determined by applying the considerations in
2 C.F.R. § 200.404, including whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and
necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

the Federal award. A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the
goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in
accordance with the relative benefits received. The requirements for meeting this standard are set
forth in 2 C.F.R. § 200.405.
The Uniform Guidance, at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.420–200.475, sets out “General Provisions for
Selected Items of Cost.” Among the items included are “[c]osts of professional and consultant
services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special
skill, and who are not officers or employees of the non-Federal entity,” which are allowable,
subject to certain conditions. 2 C.F.R. § 200.459(a). The regulation sets out the relevant factors
in determining the allowability of such costs. 2 C.F.R. § 200.459(b).
Part B of IDEA: Ensuring the Opportunity for an Impartial Due Process Hearing
The Department makes grants to States to assist them in providing special education and related
services to children with disabilities in accordance with Part B of IDEA. 20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(1);
34 C.F.R. § 300.700(a). A portion of the State’s allocation may be reserved by the State for the
purpose of administering Part B of IDEA. 20 U.S.C. 1411(e)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.704(a).
In its application for IDEA Part B funds, pursuant to Assurance 6, a State must assure that it has
policies and procedures in place to ensure children with disabilities and their parents are afforded
the procedural safeguards required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.500 through 300.536, and in accordance
with 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.121. These policies and procedures include
ensuring that whenever a due process complaint is received under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 or
300.532, the parents and the local educational agency (LEA) involved in the dispute have an
opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, consistent with the procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§
300.507, 300.508, and 300.510. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(a).
In a one-tier due process system, the State educational agency (SEA) conducts the impartial due
process hearing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(b). Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(c)(1)(i)-(ii), a hearing
officer may not be an employee of the SEA or the LEA that is involved in the education or care
of the child and must have no personal or professional interest that conflicts with the person’s
objectivity at the hearing. Further, an individual who otherwise qualifies as a hearing officer is
not an employee of the SEA or the LEA that is responsible for conducting the hearing solely
because he or she is paid by the agency to serve as a hearing officer. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(c)(2).
Thus, it is not uncommon for the SEA to contract with another entity to conduct impartial due
process hearings. Because the State is required to ensure that parents and LEAs have an
opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, costs of paying hearing officers that conduct
due process hearings in a one-tier State where the SEA is responsible for conducting the hearing,
are allocable to a State’s IDEA Part B grant award, subject to the Uniform Guidance cost
principles described above, and a portion of the Part B funds reserved for State administration in
34 C.F.R. § 300.704(a) may be used for this purpose.
While your letter does not ask about whether LEAs can use their Part B allocations to pay
hearing officers, we also wish to clarify that the expenditure of an LEA’s Part B allocation for
this purpose is also permissible for the reasons described above. In a two-tier due process
system, the public agency directly responsible for the education of the child conducts the
impartial due process hearing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(b). As previously noted by the Department,

nothing in Part B would prevent an LEA from using its Part B allocation for the cost of
conducting these hearings, “so long as the expenditures meet the other applicable requirements
under the Act and regulations.” Assistance to States for the Education of Children with
Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, Final Rule, Analysis of
Comments and Changes, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46624 (Aug. 14, 2006). Just as in a one-tier due
process system where the cost of the hearing officer can be paid for with IDEA Part B funds
reserved for State administration, the costs of the hearing officers are allocable to the LEA’s
IDEA Part B subgrant award, consistent with the Uniform Guidance cost principles summarized
above and at 34 C.F.R. § 300.202(a)(1).
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Walawender of my
staff at 202-245-7399 or by email at Rebecca.Walawender@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING THE CORONAVIRUS
DISEASE 2019 OUTBREAK
MARCH 2020
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responding to an outbreak of
respiratory disease caused by a new coronavirus named coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19). The CDC has issued interim guidance to help administrators of public and
private childcare programs and K–12 schools plan for and prevent the spread of
COVID-19 among students and staff. See Interim Guidance for Administrators of
US Childcare Programs and K–12 Schools to Plan, Prepare, and Respond to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/schools-childcare/guidance-for-schools-h.pdf
This Questions and Answers document outlines states’ responsibilities to infants,
toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families, and to the staff serving these
children. During an outbreak of COVID-19, local educational agencies (LEAs) and early
intervention service (EIS) programs will need to collaborate with their state educational
agency (SEA), Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), or local public health department, as
appropriate, to address questions about how, what, and when services should be
provided to children with disabilities. 1 It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person. This Q & A document does not impose any additional requirements beyond
those included in applicable law and regulations. The responses presented in this
document generally constitute informal guidance representing the interpretation of the
Department of the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the
specific facts presented here and are not legally binding. The Q & As in this document
are not intended to be a replacement for careful study of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504),
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), and their implementing
regulations. The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and other important documents
related to the IDEA can be found at http://sites.ed.gov/idea. For more information on the
requirements of Section 504 and Title II, and their implementing regulations, please consult
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/disabilityoverview.html.
This document does not address when to dismiss a child or close a school or Part C state lead agency
because school officials should work with their local health departments to make those decisions. School
personnel and Part C EIS programs and providers, however, may consult the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s (CDC’s) guidance for recommendations regarding social distancing and school closure.
The CDC’s Web site contains information addressing both state and local public health officials and
school administrators for school (K-12) responses to COVID-19 and resources for child care and early
childhood programs. These documents, along with other recommendations, may be accessed at
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/index.html.
1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

A. Implementing Part B of the IDEA and Section 504 during a
COVID-19 outbreak
Question A-1: Is an LEA required to continue to provide a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) to students with disabilities during a school closure
caused by a COVID-19 outbreak?
Answer:

The IDEA, Section 504, and Title II of the ADA do not specifically
address a situation in which elementary and secondary schools are
closed for an extended period of time (generally more than 10
consecutive days) because of exceptional circumstances, such as an
outbreak of a particular disease.
If an LEA closes its schools to slow or stop the spread of COVID-19, and
does not provide any educational services to the general student
population, then an LEA would not be required to provide services to
students with disabilities during that same period of time. Once school
resumes, the LEA must make every effort to provide special education
and related services to the child in accordance with the child’s
individualized education program (IEP) or, for students entitled to FAPE
under Section 504, consistent with a plan developed to meet the
requirements of Section 504. The Department understands there may be
exceptional circumstances that could affect how a particular service is
provided. In addition, an IEP Team and, as appropriate to an individual
student with a disability, the personnel responsible for ensuring FAPE to a
student for the purposes of Section 504, would be required to make an
individualized determination as to whether compensatory services are
needed under applicable standards and requirements.
If an LEA continues to provide educational opportunities to the general
student population during a school closure, the school must ensure
that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same
opportunities, including the provision of FAPE. (34 CFR §§ 104.4,
104.33 (Section 504) and 28 CFR § 35.130 (Title II of the ADA)). SEAs,
LEAs, and schools must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible,
each student with a disability can be provided the special education
and related services identified in the student’s IEP developed under
IDEA, or a plan developed under Section 504. (34 CFR §§ 300.101
and 300.201 (IDEA), and 34 CFR § 104.33 (Section 504)).

2

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

Question A-2: Must an LEA provide special education and related services to a child
with a disability who is absent for an extended period of time because
the child is infected with COVID-19, while the schools remain open?
Answer:

Yes. It has long been the Department’s position that when a child with
a disability is classified as needing homebound instruction because of
a medical problem, as ordered by a physician, and is home for an
extended period of time (generally more than 10 consecutive school
days), an individualized education program (IEP) meeting is
necessary to change the child’s placement and the contents of the
child’s IEP, if warranted. Further, if the IEP goals will remain the same
and only the time in special education will change, then the IEP Team
may add an amendment to the IEP stating specifically the amount of
time to be spent in special education. If a child with a disability is
absent for an extended period of time because of a COVID-19
infection and the school remains open, then the IEP Team must
determine whether the child is available for instruction and could
benefit from homebound services such as online or virtual instruction,
instructional telephone calls, and other curriculum-based instructional
activities, to the extent available. In so doing, school personnel
should follow appropriate health guidelines to assess and address the
risk of transmission in the provision of such services. The Department
understands there may be exceptional circumstances that could
affect how a particular service is provided.
If a child does not receive services after an extended period of time, a
school must make an individualized determination whether and to what
extent compensatory services may be needed, consistent with
applicable requirements, including to make up for any skills that may
have been lost.

Question A-3: What services must an LEA provide if a public school for children with
disabilities is selectively closed due to the possibility of severe
complications from a COVID-19 outbreak?
Answer:

If a public school for children with disabilities is closed solely because
the children are at high risk of severe illness and death, the LEA must
determine whether each dismissed child could benefit from online or
virtual instruction, instructional telephone calls, and other curriculumbased instructional activities, to the extent available. In so doing,
3

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

school personnel should follow appropriate health guidelines to assess
and address the risk of transmission in the provision of such services.
The Department understands there may be exceptional circumstances
that could affect how a particular service is provided.
If a child does not receive services during a closure, a child’s IEP team
(or appropriate personnel under Section 504) must make an
individualized determination whether and to what extent compensatory
services may be needed, consistent with applicable requirements,
including to make up for any skills that may have been lost.
_____________________________________________________________________
Question A-4: If a child with a disability at high risk of severe medical complications is
excluded from school during an outbreak of COVID-19 and the child’s
school remains open, is the exclusion considered a change in
educational placement subject to the protections of 34 CFR §§ 300.115
and 300.116 and 34 CFR §§ 104.35 and 104.36.
Answer:

If the exclusion is a temporary emergency measure (generally 10
consecutive school days or less), the provision of services such as
online or virtual instruction, instructional telephone calls, and other
curriculum-based instructional activities, to the extent available, is not
considered a change in placement. During this time period, a child’s
parent or other IEP team member may request an IEP meeting to
discuss the potential need for services if the exclusion is likely to be of
long duration (generally more than 10 consecutive school days). For
long-term exclusions, an LEA must consider placement decisions
under the IDEA’s procedural protections of 34 CFR §§ 300.115 –
300.116, regarding the continuum of alternative placements and the
determination of placements.
Under 34 CFR § 300.116, a change in placement decision must be
made by a group of persons, including the parents and other persons
knowledgeable about the child and the placement options. If the
placement group determines that the child meets established high-risk
criteria and, due to safety and health concerns, the child’s needs could
be met through homebound instruction, then under 34 CFR
§300.503(a)(1), the public agency must issue a prior written notice
proposing the change in placement. A parent who disagrees with this

4

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

prior written notice retains all of the due process rights included in
34 CFR §§ 300.500-300.520.
For children with disabilities protected by Section 504 who are
dismissed from school during an outbreak of COVID-19 because they
are at high risk for health complications, compliance with the
procedures described above and completion of any necessary
evaluations of the child satisfy the evaluation, placement and
procedural requirements of 34 CFR §§ 104.35 and 104.36. The
decision to dismiss a child based on his or her high risk for medical
complications must be based on the individual needs of the child and
not on perceptions of the child’s needs based merely on stereotypes or
generalizations regarding his or her disability.
Question A-5: May an IEP Team consider a distance learning plan in a child’s IEP as
a contingency plan in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak that requires
the school’s closure?
Answer:

Yes. IEP teams may, but are not required to, include distance learning
plans in a child’s IEP that could be triggered and implemented during a
selective closure due to a COVID-19 outbreak. Such contingent
provisions may include the provision of special education and related
services at an alternate location or the provision of online or virtual
instruction, instructional telephone calls, and other curriculum-based
instructional activities, and may identify which special education and
related services, if any, could be provided at the child’s home.
Creating a contingency plan before a COVID-19 outbreak occurs gives
the child’s service providers and the child’s parents an opportunity to
reach agreement as to what circumstances would trigger the use of the
child’s distance learning plan and the services that would be provided
during the dismissal.

Question A-6: What activities other than special education and related services may
and may not be provided with IDEA Part B funds both prior to and
during a COVID-19 outbreak?
Answer:

IDEA Part B funds may be used for activities that directly relate to
providing, and ensuring the continuity of, special education and related
services to children with disabilities. For example, an LEA may use
5

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

IDEA Part B funds to disseminate health and COVID-19 information
that is specifically related to children with disabilities, to develop
emergency plans for children with disabilities, or to provide other
information (e.g., guidance on coordination of the provision of services
in alternate locations as described in Question A-5) to parties who may
need such information, including school staff responsible for
implementing IEPs, parents of eligible children, and staff in alternate
locations where special education and related services may be
provided. LEAs, however, may not use IDEA Part B funds to develop
or distribute general COVID-19 guidance or to carry out activities that
are not specific to children with disabilities (e.g., general COVID-19
activities for all children and staff). Additionally, LEAs may not use
IDEA Part B funds to administer future COVID-19 vaccinations to any
children, including children with disabilities.

6

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

B. IDEA Part C and COVID-19
Question B-1: Must a state lead agency continue to provide early intervention
services to infants and toddlers with disabilities during a COVID-19
outbreak if the offices are closed?
Answer:

If the offices of the state lead agency or the EIS program or provider
are closed, then Part C services would not need to be provided to
infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families during that
period of time. If the lead agency’s offices are open but the offices of
the EIS program or provider in a specific geographical area are closed
due to public health and safety concerns as a result of a COVID-19
outbreak in that area, the EIS program or provider would not be
required to provide services during the closure. If the offices remain
open, but Part C services cannot be provided in a particular location
(such as in the child’s home), by a particular EIS provider, or to a
particular child who is infected with COVID-19, then the lead agency
must ensure the continuity of services by, for example, providing
services in an alternate location, by using a different EIS provider, or
through alternate means, such as consultative services to the parent.
Additionally, once the offices re-open, the service coordinator and EIS
providers for each child must determine if the child’s service needs
have changed and determine whether the individualized family service
plan (IFSP) team needs to meet to review the child’s IFSP to determine
whether any changes are needed. If offices are closed for an extended
period and services are not provided for an extended period, the IFSP
team must meet under 34 CFR § 303.342(b)(1) to determine if
changes are needed to the IFSP and to determine whether
compensatory services are needed to address the infant or toddler’s
developmental delay.

Question B-2: What should a state lead agency or EIS program provider do to
provide Part C services if its offices are open, but it cannot provide
services in accordance with an infant’s or toddler’s IFSP during a
COVID-19 outbreak?
Answer:

If the offices remain open, but Part C services cannot be provided in a
particular location (such as in the child’s home), by a particular EIS
provider, or to a particular child who is infected with COVID-19, then
7

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

the lead agency must ensure the continuity of services, on a case-bycase basis and consistent with protecting the health and safety of the
student and those providing services to the student. As an example,
the lead agency may consider providing services in an alternate
location, by using a different EIS provider, or through alternate means,
such as consultative service to the parent. Once services are fully
resumed, the service coordinator and EIS providers for each child must
assess the child to determine if the child’s service needs have changed
and to determine whether the IFSP Team needs to meet to review the
child’s IFSP to identify whether changes to the IFSP are needed. If the
offices are closed and services are not provided for an extended
period, the IFSP Team must meet under 34 CFR § 303.342(b)(1) to
determine if changes are needed to the IFSP and to determine
whether compensatory services are needed.
If an EIS provider cannot provide Part C services in the child’s home
during a COVID-19 outbreak, but the EIS program or provider
determines that it is safe to provide face-to-face Part C services in
another environment such as a hospital or medical clinic, then the child
could receive temporary services at the hospital or clinic. Additionally, if
the lead agency or EIS provider determines that face-to-face Part C
services should not be provided for a period of time, then the EIS
provider or service coordinator may consult with the parent through a
teleconference or other alternative method (such as e-mail or video
conference), consistent with privacy interests, to provide consultative
services, guidance, and advice as needed. However, determining how
to provide Part C services in a manner that is consistent with the most
updated public health and safety guidance is left to the discretion of the
lead agency and the EIS program and provider serving a particular
child and family.
Question B-3: What activities other than service provision may and may not be
provided with IDEA Part C funds both prior to and during a potential
COVID-19 outbreak?
Answer:

IDEA Part C funds may be used for activities that directly relate to
providing, and ensuring the continuity of, Part C services to eligible
children and their families. The state may use IDEA Part C funds to
disseminate health and COVID-19 information to relevant parties,
develop emergency plans to support the provision and continuity of
8

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DURING A
COVID-19 OUTBREAK

Part C services, or provide other information (e.g., how the lead
agency staff or EIS programs or providers may provide alternate
services or services in alternate locations as described in Question B2) to relevant parties who need this information. Relevant parties may
include parents of eligible children, childcare centers, staff in other
locations where early intervention services are provided, EIS programs
and providers, and primary referral sources. Other activities that relate
to service provision, including the provision of service coordination,
evaluations, and assessments, may also be funded. The state may not,
however, use IDEA Part C funds to administer future COVID-19
vaccinations as it is a medical service under 34 CFR §303.13(c)(3).

9


PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE
SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE EL BROTE
DE CORONAVIRUS 2019
MARZO DE 2020
Los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, CDC) están respondiendo a un brote de enfermedad
respiratoria provocado por un nuevo coronavirus llamado enfermedad por coronavirus
2019 (COVID-19). Los CDC han publicado una guía provisional para ayudar a los
administradores de los programas de cuidado infantil públicos y privados y las escuelas
de jardín de infantes a 12.° grado a planificar y prevenir la propagación de la COVID-19
entre los estudiantes y el personal. Consulte Interim Guidance for Administrators of
US Childcare Programs and K–12 Schools to Plan, Prepare, and Respond to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Guía provisional para administradores de programas de
cuidado infantil de EE. UU. y escuelas de jardín de infantes a 12.° grado para planificar,
prepararse y responder a la enfermedad del coronavirus 2019) disponible en:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/guidance-for-schools.html.
Este documento de Preguntas y respuestas describe las responsabilidades de los
estados con los bebés, niños pequeños y niños con discapacidades y sus familias, y
con el personal que los atiende. Durante un brote de COVID-19, las agencias
educativas locales (Local Educational Agencies, LEA) y los programas de servicios de
intervención temprana (Early Intervention Services, EIS) deberán colaborar con su
agencia educativa estatal (State Educational Agency, SEA), la Oficina de Educación
Indígena (Bureau of Indian Education, BIE), o el departamento de salud pública local,
según corresponda, para abordar preguntas sobre cómo, qué y cuándo se deben
prestar servicios a los niños con discapacidades.1 Esto no crea ni confiere ningún
derecho a ninguna persona. Este documento de Preguntas y Respuestas no impone
ningún requisito adicional más allá de los incluidos en las leyes y regulaciones
aplicables. Las respuestas presentadas en este documento constituyen, en general,
una guía informal que representa la interpretación del Departamento de los requisitos

1 Este documento no aborda cuándo despide a un niño o cierra una escuela o una agencia principal

estatal de la Parte C porque los funcionarios escolares deben trabajar con sus departamentos de salud
locales para tomar esas decisiones. Sin embargo, el personal escolar y los programas y proveedores de
EIS de la Parte C pueden consultar la guía de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de
Enfermedades (CDC) para obtener recomendaciones sobre el distanciamiento social y el cierre de
escuelas. El sitio web de los CDC contiene información para funcionarios de salud pública y
administradores escolares estatales y locales sobre las respuestas de las escuelas (jardín de infantes a
12.° grado) a la COVID-19 y los recursos para el cuidado infantil y los programas para la primera
infancia. Se puede acceder a estos documentos, junto con otras recomendaciones, en
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/index.html.

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

legales o reglamentarios aplicables en el contexto de los hechos específicos
presentados aquí y no son legalmente vinculantes. Las preguntas y respuestas
incluidas en este documento no pretenden reemplazar el estudio cuidadoso de la Ley
de Educación para Personas con Discapacidades (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA), la Sección 504 de la Ley de Rehabilitación (Rehabilitation Act) de
1973 (Sección 504), el Título II de la Ley para Estadounidenses con Discapacidades
(Americans with Disabilities Act) de 1990 (Título II), y sus regulaciones de
implementación. La Ley IDEA, sus regulaciones de implementación y otros documentos
importantes relacionados con la Ley IDEA se encuentran en: http://sites.ed.gov/idea.
Para obtener más información sobre los requisitos de la Sección 504 y el Título II, y sus
reglamentos de implementación, consulte
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/disabilityoverview.html.

2

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

A.

IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE LA PARTE B DE LA LEY IDEA Y LA
SECCIÓN 504 DURANTE UN BROTE DE COVID-19

Pregunta A-1: ¿Se requiere que una LEA continúe proporcionando una educación
pública apropiada y gratuita (Free Appropriate Public Education,
FAPE) a los estudiantes con discapacidades durante el cierre de una
escuela causado por un brote de COVID-19?
Respuesta:

La Ley IDEA, la Sección 504 y el Título II de la ADA no abordan
específicamente una situación en la que las escuelas primarias y
secundarias estén cerradas por un período prolongado (generalmente
más de 10 días consecutivos) debido a circunstancias excepcionales,
como un brote de una enfermedad en particular.
Si una LEA cierra sus escuelas para desacelerar o detener la
propagación de COVID-19, y no brinda ningún servicio educativo a la
población estudiantil en general, entonces no se requerirá que la LEA
brinde servicios a los estudiantes con discapacidades durante ese
mismo período de tiempo. Una vez que se reanuden las clases, la LEA
debe hacer todo lo posible para proporcionar educación especial y
servicios relacionados al niño de acuerdo con su programa de
educación individualizado (Individualized education program, IEP) o,
en el caso de los estudiantes con derecho a FAPE según la Sección
504, de acuerdo con un plan desarrollado para cumplir con los
requisitos de la Sección 504. El Departamento entiende que puede
haber circunstancias excepcionales que podrían afectar la forma en
que se proporciona un servicio en particular. Además, los equipos del
IEP y, según corresponda a un estudiante individual con una
discapacidad, el personal responsable de garantizar la FAPE para un
estudiante a los efectos de la Sección 504, deberían tomar una
determinación individualizada sobre si se necesitan servicios
compensatorios conforme a los estándares y requisitos aplicables.
Si una LEA continúa ofreciendo oportunidades educativas a la
población estudiantil en general durante el cierre de una escuela, la
escuela debe garantizar que los estudiantes con discapacidades
también tengan el mismo acceso a las mismas oportunidades, incluida
la provisión de FAPE. (Título 34 §§ 104.4, 104.33 del CFR [Sección
504] y Título 28 § 35.130 del CFR [Título II de la Ley ADA]). Las SEA,
las LEA y las escuelas deben garantizar que, en la mayor medida
posible, cada estudiante con una discapacidad pueda recibir la
3

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

educación especial y los servicios relacionados identificados en el IEP
del estudiante desarrollado en virtud de la Ley IDEA, o un plan
desarrollado conforme a la Sección 504. (Título 34 §§ 300.101 y
300.201 del CFR [IDEA], y Título 34 § 104.33 del CFR [Sección 504]).
Pregunta A-2: ¿Debe una LEA brindar educación especial y servicios relacionados a
un niño con una discapacidad que se ausenta por un período
prolongado debido a que el niño está infectado con COVID-19,
mientras las escuelas permanecen abiertas?
Respuesta:

Sí. Durante mucho tiempo, la posición del Departamento ha sido que
cuando se clasifica a un niño con una discapacidad como que necesita
instrucción en el hogar debido a un problema médico, según lo
ordenado por un médico, y está en casa por un período prolongado
(generalmente más de 10 días escolares consecutivos), es necesaria
una reunión del programa de educación individualizada (IEP) para
cambiar la colocación del niño y el contenido del IEP del niño, si se
justifica. Además, si las metas del IEP seguirán siendo las mismas y
solo cambiará el tiempo en educación especial, entonces el equipo del
IEP puede agregar una enmienda al IEP indicando específicamente la
cantidad de tiempo que se dedicará a la educación especial. Si un
niño con una discapacidad está ausente por un período prolongado
debido a una infección por COVID-19 y la escuela permanece abierta,
entonces el equipo del IEP debe determinar si el niño está disponible
para recibir enseñanza y podría beneficiarse de los servicios en el
hogar, como educación en línea o instrucción virtual, llamadas
telefónicas instructivas y otras actividades educativas basadas en el
plan de estudios, en la medida de lo posible. Al hacerlo, el personal
escolar debe seguir las pautas de salud adecuadas para evaluar y
abordar el riesgo de transmisión en la prestación de dichos servicios.
El Departamento entiende que puede haber circunstancias
excepcionales que podrían afectar la forma en que se proporciona un
servicio en particular.
Si un niño no recibe servicios durante un período de tiempo
prolongado, la escuela debe tomar una determinación individualizada
acerca de si pueden ser necesarios servicios compensatorios, y en
qué medida, de acuerdo con los requisitos aplicables, incluso para
compensar las habilidades que se hayan perdido.

4

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

Pregunta A-3: ¿Qué servicios debe proporcionar una LEA si una escuela pública
para niños con discapacidades se cierra selectivamente debido a la
posibilidad de complicaciones graves por un brote de COVID-19?
Respuesta:

Si una escuela pública para niños con discapacidades se cierra
únicamente porque los niños corren un alto riesgo de enfermedad
grave y muerte, la LEA debe determinar si cada niño retirado podría
beneficiarse de la instrucción en línea o virtual, las llamadas
telefónicas educativas y otras actividades educativas basadas en el
plan de estudios, en la medida en que estén disponibles. Al hacerlo, el
personal escolar debe seguir las pautas de salud adecuadas para
evaluar y abordar el riesgo de transmisión en la prestación de dichos
servicios. El Departamento entiende que puede haber circunstancias
excepcionales que podrían afectar la forma en que se proporciona un
servicio en particular.
Si un niño no recibe servicios durante un cierre, el equipo del IEP del
niño (o el personal apropiado en virtud de la Sección 504) debe tomar
una determinación individualizada acerca de si pueden ser necesarios
servicios compensatorios, y en qué medida, de acuerdo con los
requisitos aplicables, incluso para compensar las habilidades que se
hayan perdido.

_____________________________________________________________________
Pregunta A-4: Si un niño con una discapacidad con alto riesgo de complicaciones
médicas graves es excluido de la escuela durante un brote de COVID19 y la escuela del niño permanece abierta, ¿se considera la exclusión
un cambio en la colocación educativa sujeto a las protecciones del
Título 34 §§ 300.115 y 300.116 del CFR y el Título 34 §§ 104.35 y
104.36 del CFR?
Respuesta:

Si la exclusión es una medida de emergencia temporal (generalmente
10 días escolares consecutivos o menos), la prestación de servicios
tales como instrucción en línea o virtual, llamadas telefónicas
educativas y otras actividades educativas basadas en el plan de
estudios, en la medida en que estén disponibles, no se considera un
cambio en la colocación. Durante este período de tiempo, los padres
de un niño u otro miembro del equipo del IEP pueden solicitar una
reunión del IEP para analizar la posible necesidad de servicios en
caso de que sea probable que la exclusión sea de larga duración
5

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

(generalmente más de 10 días escolares consecutivos). Para las
exclusiones a largo plazo, una LEA debe considerar las decisiones de
colocación conforme a las protecciones procesales de la Ley IDEA
que constan en el Título 34 §§ 300.115 a 300.116 del CFR, con
respecto a la continuidad de las colocaciones alternativas y la
determinación de las colocaciones.
Según el Título 34 § 300.116 del CFR, un grupo de personas que
incluya a los padres y otras personas con conocimientos sobre el niño
y las opciones de colocación, debe tomar una decisión sobre el
cambio de colocación. Si el grupo de colocación determina que el niño
cumple con los criterios establecidos de alto riesgo y, debido a
inquietudes de seguridad y salud, las necesidades del niño podrían
satisfacerse a través de la instrucción en el hogar, entonces, según el
Título 34 §300.503(a)(1) del CFR, la agencia pública debe emitir una
notificación previa por escrito proponiendo el cambio de colocación.
Los padres que no estén de acuerdo con esta notificación previa por
escrito mantienen todos los derechos al debido proceso incluidos en el
Título 34 §§ 300.500-300.520 del CFR.
En el caso de los niños con discapacidades protegidos por la Sección
504 que son enviados a casa durante un brote de COVID-19 porque
corren un alto riesgo de sufrir complicaciones de salud, el
cumplimiento de los procedimientos descritos anteriormente y la
realización de las evaluaciones necesarias del niño satisfacen los
requisitos de evaluación, colocación y procedimiento del Título 34 §§
104.35 y 104.36 del CFR. La decisión de enviar a un niño a casa en
función de su alto riesgo de complicaciones médicas debe basarse en
las necesidades individuales del niño y no en las percepciones de las
necesidades del niño basadas simplemente en estereotipos o
generalizaciones con respecto a su discapacidad.
Pregunta A-5: ¿Puede un equipo del IEP considerar un plan de aprendizaje a
distancia en el IEP de un niño como un plan de contingencia en caso
de un brote de COVID-19 que requiera el cierre de la escuela?
Respuesta:

Sí. Los equipos del IEP pueden, sin ninguna obligación, incluir planes
de aprendizaje a distancia en el IEP de un niño, que podrían activarse
e implementarse durante un cierre selectivo debido a un brote de
COVID-19. Dichas disposiciones de contingencia pueden incluir la
6

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

provisión de educación especial y servicios relacionados en una
ubicación alternativa o la provisión de instrucción en línea o virtual,
llamadas telefónicas educativas y otras actividades educativas
basadas en el plan de estudios, y pueden identificar qué servicios de
educación especial y servicios relacionados, si corresponde, podrían
proporcionarse en el hogar del niño.
La creación de un plan de contingencia antes de que ocurra un brote
de COVID-19 brinda a los proveedores de servicios y a los padres del
niño la oportunidad de llegar a un acuerdo sobre qué circunstancias
desencadenarían el uso del plan de aprendizaje a distancia del niño y
los servicios que se proporcionarían durante este período.
Pregunta A-6: ¿Qué otras actividades además de la educación especial y los
servicios relacionados pueden y no pueden proporcionarse con los
fondos de la Parte B de la Ley IDEA antes y durante un brote de
COVID-19?
Respuesta:

Los fondos de la Parte B de la Ley IDEA se pueden usar para
actividades que se relacionen directamente con proporcionar y
garantizar la continuidad de la educación especial y los servicios
relacionados para niños con discapacidades. Por ejemplo, una LEA
puede usar los fondos de la Parte B de la Ley IDEA para difundir
información sobre salud y COVID-19 que esté específicamente
relacionada con niños con discapacidades, para desarrollar planes de
emergencia para niños con discapacidades o para proporcionar otra
información (p. ej., orientación sobre la coordinación de la prestación
de servicios en lugares alternativos como se describe en la Pregunta
A-5) a las partes que puedan necesitar dicha información, incluido el
personal escolar responsable de implementar los IEP, los padres de
niños elegibles y el personal en lugares alternativos donde se puede
proporcionar educación especial y servicios relacionados. Sin
embargo, las LEA no pueden usar los fondos de la Parte B de la Ley
IDEA para desarrollar o distribuir orientación general sobre la COVID19 o para llevar a cabo actividades que no sean específicas para niños
con discapacidades (p. ej., actividades generales sobre la COVID-19
para todos los niños y el personal). Además, las LEA no pueden usar
los fondos de la Parte B de la Ley IDEA para administrar futuras
vacunas contra la COVID-19 a ningún niño, incluidos los niños con
discapacidades.
7

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

B.

LA PARTE C DE LA LEY IDEA Y LA COVID-19

Pregunta B-1: ¿Deben las agencias principales estatales continuar prestando
servicios de intervención temprana a bebés y niños pequeños con
discapacidades durante un brote de COVID-19 si las oficinas están
cerradas?
Respuesta:

Si las oficinas de la agencia principal estatal o el programa o
proveedor de EIS están cerradas, no será necesario prestar los
servicios de la Parte C a los bebés y niños pequeños con
discapacidades y sus familias durante ese período de tiempo. Si las
oficinas de la agencia principal están abiertas pero las oficinas del
programa o proveedor de EIS en un área geográfica específica están
cerradas debido a inquietudes de salud y seguridad pública como
resultado de un brote de COVID-19 en esa área, el programa o
proveedor de EIS no estará obligado a prestar servicios durante el
cierre. Si las oficinas permanecen abiertas, pero los servicios de la
Parte C no se pueden prestar en un lugar en particular (como en el
hogar del niño), por un proveedor de EIS en particular o a un niño en
particular que está infectado con COVID-19, entonces la agencia
principal debe garantizar la continuidad de los servicios, por ejemplo,
prestando servicios en una ubicación alternativa, utilizando un
proveedor de EIS diferente o a través de medios alternativos, como
servicios de consulta para los padres.
Además, una vez que las oficinas vuelvan a abrir, el coordinador de
servicios y los proveedores de EIS para cada niño deben determinar si
las necesidades de servicio del niño han cambiado y decidir si el
equipo del plan de servicio familiar individualizado (Individualized
Family Service Plan, IFSP) debe reunirse para revisar el IFSP del niño
y determinar si es necesario realizar algún cambio. Si las oficinas
están cerradas y los servicios no se prestan durante un período
prolongado, el equipo del IFSP debe reunirse según el título 34 §
303.342(b)(1) del CFR para determinar si se necesitan cambios en el
IFSP y para determinar si los servicios compensatorios son necesarios
para abordar el retraso en el desarrollo del bebé o niño pequeño.

8

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

Pregunta B-2: ¿Qué debe hacer una agencia principal estatal o un proveedor del
programa de EIS para prestar servicios de la Parte C si sus oficinas
están abiertas, pero no pueden prestar servicios de acuerdo con el
IFSP de un bebé o niño pequeño durante un brote de COVID-19?
Respuesta:

Si las oficinas permanecen abiertas, pero los servicios de la Parte C
no se pueden prestar en un lugar en particular (como en el hogar del
niño), por un proveedor de EIS en particular o a un niño en particular
que está infectado con COVID-19, entonces la agencia principal debe
garantizar la continuidad de los servicios, caso por caso y en
consonancia con el cuidado de la salud y la seguridad del estudiante y
de quienes le prestan servicios. Como ejemplo, la agencia principal
puede considerar la prestación de servicios en una ubicación
alternativa, utilizando un proveedor de EIS diferente o mediante
medios alternativos, como un servicio de consulta para los padres.
Una vez que los servicios se reanuden por completo, el coordinador
de servicios y los proveedores de EIS para cada niño deben evaluar al
niño para determinar si sus necesidades de servicio han cambiado y
para decidir si el equipo del IFSP debe reunirse para revisar el IFSP
del niño con el fin de identificar si es necesario hacer cambios en
dicho plan. Si las oficinas están cerradas y los servicios no se prestan
durante un período prolongado, el equipo del IFSP debe reunirse
según el Título 34 § 303.342(b)(1) del CFR para determinar si se
necesitan cambios en el IFSP y decidir si se necesitan servicios
compensatorios.
Si un proveedor de EIS no puede prestar los servicios de la Parte C en
el hogar del niño durante un brote de COVID-19, pero el programa o
proveedor de EIS determina que es seguro prestar los servicios
presenciales de la Parte C en otro entorno, como un hospital o clínica,
entonces el niño podría recibir servicios temporales en dichos lugares.
Además, si la agencia principal o el proveedor de EIS determinan que
los servicios presenciales de la Parte C no deben proporcionarse
durante un período de tiempo, entonces el proveedor de EIS o el
coordinador de servicios pueden consultar con los padres a través de
una teleconferencia u otro método alternativo (como correo electrónico
o videoconferencia), de conformidad con los intereses de privacidad,
para proporcionar servicios de consulta, orientación y asesoramiento
según sea necesario. Sin embargo, determinar cómo proporcionar los
servicios de la Parte C de manera consistente con la guía de
9

PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS A NIÑOS CON DISCAPACIDADES DURANTE UN
BROTE DE COVID-19

seguridad y salud pública más actualizada se deja a discreción de la
agencia principal y el programa y el proveedor de EIS que atienden a
un niño y una familia en particular.
Pregunta B-3: ¿Qué actividades, además de la prestación de servicios, pueden y no
pueden proporcionarse con los fondos de la Parte C de la Ley IDEA
antes y durante un posible brote de COVID-19?
Respuesta:

Los fondos de la Parte C de la Ley IDEA se pueden usar para
actividades que se relacionen directamente con la prestación y la
garantía de la continuidad de los servicios de la Parte C para los niños
elegibles y sus familias. El Estado puede usar los fondos de la Parte C
de la Ley IDEA para difundir información sobre salud y COVID-19 a las
partes relevantes, desarrollar planes de emergencia para respaldar la
provisión y continuidad de los servicios de la Parte C o proporcionar
otros datos a las partes relevantes que necesitan esta información (p.
ej., cómo el personal de la agencia principal o los programas o los
proveedores de EIS pueden proporcionar servicios alternativos o
servicios en ubicaciones alternativas como se describe en la Pregunta
B-2). Las partes relevantes pueden incluir padres de niños elegibles,
centros de cuidado infantil, personal en otros lugares donde se prestan
servicios de intervención temprana, programas y proveedores de EIS y
fuentes primarias de referencia. También se pueden financiar otras
actividades relacionadas con la prestación de servicios, incluida la
prestación de servicios de coordinación, evaluaciones y valoraciones.
Sin embargo, el estado no puede usar los fondos de la Parte C de la
Ley IDEA para administrar futuras vacunas contra la COVID-19, ya
que es un servicio médico según el Título 34 §303.13(c)(3) del CFR.

10


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

October 23, 2019

Dear XXXXXXXX:
This letter addresses your correspondence to me regarding the provision of compensatory
education after a family relocates to a new State. Specifically, in a XXXXXXXX Complaint
Resolution Report, the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED) ordered
compensatory services on your child’s behalf due to a finding of a denial of a free appropriate
public education (FAPE). As stated in your letter, at that time you resided in New Mexico;
however, your family would be moving to a different State. You estimate that your child will
continue to be owed compensatory service hours after your family moves and ask whether your
child will be able to receive the remainder of her compensatory services after your family
relocates. We address your question below.
We note that section 607(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prohibits
the Secretary 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.
This response represents an interpretation by the U.S. Department of Education 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.
The IDEA regulations require each State educational agency (SEA) to adopt procedures for
resolving complaints filed by an organization or individual, including those from another State,
alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or the Part B
regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(a)(1). In resolving a complaint in which the SEA has found a
failure to provide appropriate services, an SEA, pursuant to its general supervisory authority
under Part B of the Act, must address the failure to provide appropriate services, including
corrective action appropriate to address the needs of the child (such as compensatory services or
monetary reimbursement); and the appropriate future provision of services for all children with
disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b).
Once the SEA issues a written decision in response to a State complaint, the SEA, consistent
with its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities, must ensure that the public agency
involved in the complaint implements the decision in a timely manner. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and
300.600. The State’s complaint procedures must include procedures for effective implementation
of the SEA’s final decision, if needed, including technical assistance activities, negotiations, and
corrective actions to achieve compliance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(b)(2).
To ensure corrective action and pursuant to its general supervisory and monitoring
responsibilities in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, the SEA must inform the public agency
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

that is involved in the complaint of any findings of noncompliance and the required corrective
action. The SEA also must ensure that the corrective action is completed as soon as possible and
within the timeframe specified in the SEA’s written decision, and in no case later than one year
of the State’s identification of the noncompliance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). Based on these
requirements, a State’s responsibility to ensure implementation of a final decision in a State
complaint resolution generally would continue until the ordered corrective action has been
implemented. We understand that in some cases this will be a fact specific determination. For
example, if an SEA has ordered an LEA to develop a new IEP for a child with a disability and
the child and parents move to a different State, the LEA in the State from which the child’s
family has moved would not need to develop a new IEP, because the new LEA in the new State
would be responsible for developing and implementing the IEP for an eligible child with a
disability. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.323 (a) and (f).
Therefore, if an SEA’s complaint resolution decision has ordered relief (e.g., compensatory
education) that can reasonably be implemented in a new State and the parent does not reject the
remaining compensatory services, the SEA must ensure the decision is implemented in the new
State.1
By copy of this letter, I am informing Deborah Clark, Director of Special Education at the
NMPED, of your inquiry and the Office of Special Education Programs’ response. If you have
any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Pagano at 202-245-7413 or by email
at Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
Cc: Deborah Clark

We note that the only federal court of appeals decision on this issue specifically held that “a claim for
compensatory education is not rendered moot by an out-of-district move even if that move takes the child out of
state.” See D.F. v. Collingswood Borough Bd. of Educ., 694 F.3d 488, 498-499 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting ways to
provide compensatory education once a child has moved, including payment to the new school district or a contract
with a local provider). See also, Independent School District No. 284, Wayzata Area Schools, Wayzata, Minnesota v.
A.C., by and Through Her Parent, C.C., 258 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2001) (claim for compensatory education not
rendered moot by out-of-district move).
1