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

April 25, 2016

Kelli Unnerstall
Decoding Dyslexia Missouri
Dear Ms. Unnerstall:
This is in response to the comments you provided to the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services on the October 23, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) addressing the use
of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in evaluation and eligibility determinations
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and in individualized education
program (IEP) documents. Specifically, you ask whether “a school district, through their
evaluation, by a multi-disciplinary team including a school psychologist or a school
psychological examiner, may identify a child as having dyslexia under the category of Specific
Learning Disability. In other words, can this team diagnose the child as having dyslexia and use
this diagnosis as meeting the eligibility requirements under Specific Learning Disability
(assuming all of the other conditions are met)?” You express concern that your school district
believes that the DCL “only applies to the term dyslexia being recognized if a parent provides an
evaluation conducted by an outside agency. In other words the term dyslexia would never come
up unless a parent receives an outside evaluation.”
In determining whether a child has a disability under the IDEA, including a specific learning
disability, the public agency must conduct a comprehensive evaluation, which requires the use of
a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and
academic information about the child. Information obtained through the evaluation, which
includes information provided by the parent, may assist in determining: 1) whether the child is a
child with a disability; and 2) the content of the child’s IEP to enable the child to be involved in,
and make progress in, the general education curriculum. 34 CFR §300.304(b)(1). Therefore,
information about the child’s learning difficulties, including the presenting difficulties related to
reading, mathematics, or writing, is important in determining the nature and extent of the child’s
disability and educational needs.
As we explained in our October 23, 2015 letter, while IDEA does not prohibit the use of the
terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in eligibility determinations, there is no requirement
under IDEA that a disability label or “diagnosis” be given to each student receiving special
education and related services, so long as the child is regarded as having a disability and receives
needed special education and related services. 34 CFR §300.111(d). To ensure that this occurs,
the public agency must ensure that each child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected
disability, including as appropriate, academic performance. 34 CFR §300.304(c)(4). There is no
provision in the IDEA that gives a parent the right to dictate the specific areas that the public
agency must assess as part of the comprehensive evaluation; the public agency is only required
to assess the child in particular areas related to the child’s suspected disability, as it determines
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 competiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

appropriate. However, if a determination is made through the evaluation process that a particular
assessment for dyslexia is needed to ascertain whether the child has a disability and the child’s
educational needs, including those related to the child’s reading difficulties, then the public
agency must conduct the necessary assessments. We also note that an evaluation for dyslexia
could be an evaluation by a licensed physician to determine a child’s medically related disability
that results in the child’s need for special education and related services. 34 CFR §300.34(c)(5).
If the public agency decides that a medical evaluation or any other assessment is necessary to
determine whether the child has a disability and his or her educational needs, the entire
evaluation must be provided at no cost to the parents.
Parents who disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency have the right to seek an
independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. Under 34 CFR §300.502(b)(2), if a
parent requests an IEE at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay,
either: (i) file a due process complaint to request a due process hearing under 34 CFR §300.507
to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or (ii) ensure that an IEE is provided at public expense,
unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.507-300.513 that the
evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria.
Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as
informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S.
Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Laura Duos at 202-245-6772
or by email at Laura.Duos@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ruth E. Ryder
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs


February 9, 2016
John D. Copenhaver
Executive Director
Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education
1780 N. Research Parkway, Suite 112
Logan, Utah 84341
Dear Mr. Copenhaver:
This letter responds to your January 4, 2016 electronic mail (email) correspondence to Lisa
Pagano, Policy Specialist, in the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP), Monitoring and
State Improvement and Planning Division. In your email, you ask whether a parent of a child
who has been identified as having a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
(hereafter, Section 504) may serve on the State advisory panel as a parent representative of the
advisory panel required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Under 34 CFR §300.167, each State must establish and maintain an advisory panel for the
purpose of providing policy guidance with respect to special education and related services for
children with disabilities in the State. The advisory panel membership requirements are found in
34 CFR §300.168(a). Under 34 CFR §300.168(a)(1), the State’s panel must include parents of
children with disabilities (ages birth through 26) and under 34 CFR §300.168(b), the majority of
panel members must be individuals with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities (ages
birth through 26).
The duties of the State advisory panel are outlined in 34 CFR §300.169. The advisory panel
must: (1) advise the State educational agency (SEA) of unmet needs within the State in the
education of children with disabilities; (2) comment publicly on any rules or regulations
proposed by the State regarding the education of children with disabilities; (3) advise the SEA in
developing evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under section 618 of the IDEA; (4)
advise the SEA in developing corrective action plans to address findings identified in Federal
monitoring reports under Part B of the IDEA; and (5) advise the SEA in developing and
implementing policies relating to the coordination of services for children with disabilities.
Parents of children with disabilities play an important role on a State’s advisory panel,
particularly because of their first-hand experiences with accessing and receiving special
education and related services for their children, and their input is critical in enabling the State
advisory panel to carry out the duties listed above.
The IDEA defines a child with a disability to mean a child who has been evaluated in accordance
with the IDEA’s evaluation procedures (34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.311) as having an
intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language
impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance, an
orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, and other health impairment, a specific
learning disability, deaf-blindness or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs

Page 2 – John D. Copenhaver
special education and related services. 34 CFR §300.8(a). Therefore, OSEP interprets the
reference to “parents of children with disabilities” in 34 CFR §300.168 to mean parents of
children who have been evaluated and determined to have a disability under the IDEA. Thus,
parents of children who do not have disabilities under IDEA would not meet the membership
requirement for “parents of children with disabilities (ages birth through 26).” However, there is
nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit a State from including on its advisory panel, parents of
students who have disabilities under Section 504 who are not considered children with
disabilities under the IDEA. Such parents could be appointed by the State to serve on the
advisory panel, but the State would also be required to appoint parents of children with
disabilities under the IDEA who are ages birth through 26 to satisfy the advisory panel parent
membership requirement.
Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as
informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S.
Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Pagano at 202-245-7413
or by email at Lisa.Pagano@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ruth E. Ryder
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs


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

January 19, 2016

Diana M. Savit, Esq.
Savit & Szymkowicz, LLP
4520 East-West Highway, Suite 700
Bethesda, MD 20814-6907
Dear Ms. Savit:
This is in response to your May 3, 2015 and June 8, 2015 letters to the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) requesting guidance regarding the District of Columbia Public
Schools’ (DCPS) policies concerning recording individualized education program (IEP) team
meetings and criteria for psychologists permitted to conduct an independent educational
evaluation (IEE) under 34 CFR §300.502(e). Specifically, you ask whether DCPS’ respective
policies are consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
First, you raise concerns about DCPS’ policy regarding recording IEP Team meetings. Part B of
the IDEA is silent regarding the use of audio or video recording devices at IEP Team meetings.
OSEP has previously stated in the Letter to Anonymous dated June 4, 2003 and in Appendix A to
the 1999 IDEA Part B regulations (64 Fed. Reg. 12406, 12477 (Mar. 12, 1999)):
Part B does not address the use of audio or video recording devices at IEP
meetings, and no other Federal statute either authorizes or prohibits the recording
of an IEP meeting by either a parent or a school official. Therefore, an SEA [State
educational agency] or public agency has the option to require, prohibit, limit, or
otherwise regulate the use of recording devices at IEP meetings. If a public
agency has a policy that prohibits or limits the use of recording devices at IEP
meetings, that policy must provide for exceptions if they are necessary to ensure
that the parent understands the IEP or the IEP process or to implement other
parental rights guaranteed under Part B. An SEA or school district that adopts a
rule regulating the tape recording of IEP meetings also should ensure that it is
uniformly applied.
It remains OSEP’s position that in the absence of IDEA requirements, a State is in the
best position to decide the specific criteria it will use to permit audio or video recording
devices at IEP Team meetings. However, requirements for parent participation at meetings of
their child's IEP Team, which are found at 34 CFR §300.322, require public agencies to ensure
that parents are notified of their child’s IEP Team meeting early enough to ensure they have an
opportunity to attend and to schedule such meetings at a mutually agreed on time and place.
34 CFR §300.322(a). If a public agency requires notice from the parent before permitting audio
or video recording devices at IEP Team meetings, (e.g., five days before the date of a meeting),

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 competiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

then the public agency would need to schedule the meeting at a time that allows the parent to
meet that notice requirement so the parent can fully participate in the meeting.
Second, you ask whether it is permissible for DCPS to suspend recording of an IEP Team
meeting based upon its assessment of whether the parent has had adequate opportunity to fully
understand the meeting. As noted above, while the State has the discretion to determine the
criteria for use, including the suspension of audio and video recording devices at IEP Team
meetings, under 34 CFR §300.322(e), the public agency must take whatever action is

necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP Team meeting.
While the public agency could suspend recording of an IEP Team meeting, it must ensure
that doing so will not interfere with the parent’s understanding of the IEP, the IEP
process, or other rights provided under Part B.
You also ask whether DCPS is permitted under IDEA to have different credential requirements for DCPS
school psychologists than those for independent psychologists who may conduct an IEE. Specifically, you
state that DCPS requires an independent psychologist who conducts an IEE under 34 CFR §300.502 to
be licensed by the District of Columbia Department of Health or the locality of practice, which is a
more rigorous credential standard than DCPS’ requirement for a school psychologist to be licensed
by the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE). As you
correctly note, under 34 CFR §300.502(e), if an IEE is at public expense, the criteria under which the
evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner,
must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the
extent those criteria are consistent with the parent’s right to an IEE. OSEP has previously stated in its
Letter to Anonymous dated August 13, 2010:

[A] public agency may establish qualifications that require an IEE examiner to
hold or be eligible to hold a particular license when a public agency requires the
same licensure for its own staff conducting the same types of evaluations.
However, the agency is prohibited from imposing other conditions or timelines
related to obtaining an IEE at public expense. 34 CFR §300.502(e)(2). In short,
the IEE must meet the same criteria as the evaluation performed by examiners of
the public agency, unless those criteria would result in the denial of an IEE to a
parent. For example, children suspected of having a particular disability may
require evaluations performed by clinical psychologists who would not meet the
qualifications the State educational agency (SEA) requires for school
psychologists to be licensed by the SEA.
In addition, OSEP stated in its Analysis of Comments and Changes in the 2006 IDEA Part B
regulations (71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46689 (Aug. 14, 2006)):
Consistent with applicable agency criteria, it would be appropriate for a public agency to
require an IEE examiner to hold, or be eligible to hold, a particular license when a public
agency requires the same licensure for personnel who conduct the same types of
evaluations for the agency. In contrast, it would be inconsistent with a parent’s right to
an IEE for a public agency to require all evaluators to be licensed, if only individuals
employed by a public agency may obtain a license.
Further, OSEP does not review an SEA or local educational agency’s personnel qualifications,
including qualification criteria for evaluators involved in identifying children with disabilities

eligible to receive special education and related services. The Department believes that States are
in the best position to determine appropriate professional requirements for personnel necessary to
comply with the IDEA in their States. Section 612(a)(14) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.156
clarify that the State is responsible for establishing and maintaining personnel qualifications to
ensure that personnel have the knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities under the
IDEA and are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained.
With respect to both questions posed to OSEP, if, after reviewing this information, you believe
DCPS has violated Part B of the IDEA, you may wish to file a State complaint with OSSE
pursuant to 34 CFR §300.153. By copy of this correspondence, we are notifying Dr. Amy
Maisterra, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary, Secondary, and Specialized Education, of your
concerns.
Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as
informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S.
Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Wolfsheimer, of my
staff, at 202-245-6090 or by email at Jennifer.Wolfsheimer@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ruth E. Ryder
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: Amy Maisterra, Assistant Superintendent


December 13, 2015
Colleen A. Snyder
Ruderman & Knox LLP
1300 National Drive, Suite 120
Sacramento, California 95834
Dear Ms. Snyder:
This is in response to your July 6, 2015 letter regarding the application of the expedited due
process hearing requirements under 34 CFR § 300.532 of the regulations implementing Part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, you ask whether an
expedited due process hearing is mandatory when a due process complaint is submitted pursuant
to 34 CFR § 300.532(a), or if a parent or local educational agency (LEA) can request that a
hearing pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.532(a) not be subject to the expedited due process timeline.
An expedited due process hearing under 34 CFR § 300.532 is a hearing involving a due process
complaint regarding a disciplinary matter, which is subject to shorter timelines1 than a due
process hearing conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §§ 300.507-300.516. Under 34
CFR § 300.532(a), the parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision
regarding placement under 34 CFR §§ 300.530 and 300.531, or the manifestation determination
under 34 CFR § 300.530(e), or an LEA that believes that maintaining the current placement of
the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others, may appeal the decision
by requesting a hearing.
If a parent or LEA files a due process complaint to request a due process hearing under one of
the disciplinary matters mentioned above, the State educational agency (SEA) or LEA is
responsible for arranging an expedited due process hearing, which must occur within 20 school
days of the date that the due process complaint requesting the hearing is filed.2 The hearing
officer must make a determination within 10 school days after the hearing. See 34 CFR
§300.532(c)(2); See also Question E-1 of the Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute
Resolution Procedures (Q&A) 3. The purpose of expediting the due process hearing related to a
disciplinary decision is to ensure that the matter is resolved promptly and that the child’s
educational program is not adversely affected by undue delays. The shortened timelines for
1

Under 34 CFR § 300.532(c) the timeline for an expedited due process hearing is determined by school days. A
school day is defined under 34 CFR § 300.11(c)(1) as any day, including a partial day, that children are in
attendance at school for instructional purposes. School day has the same meaning for all children in school,
including children with and without disabilities. 34 CFR § 300.11(c)(2). See Letter to Cox dated June 22, 2012.
2
In a one-tier system, the SEA conducts the expedited due process hearing. In a two-tier system, the public agency
directly responsible for the education of the child conducts the expedited due process hearing.
3
Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures can be found at:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/acccombinedosersdisputeresolutionqafinalmemo-7-2313.pdf.

Page 2 – Ms. Colleen A. Snyder
conducting expedited due process hearings in disciplinary situations should enable hearing
officers to make prompt decisions about disciplinary matters while ensuring that all of the due
process protections in 34 CFR §§ 300.510-300.514 are maintained. There is no provision in the
Part B regulations that would give a hearing officer conducting an expedited due process hearing
the authority to extend the timeline for issuing this determination at the request of a party to the
expedited due process hearing. Under 34 CFR § 300.532(c)(4), a State may establish different
procedural rules for expedited due process hearings than it has established for other due process
hearings, but except for the timelines in 34 CFR § 300.532(c)(3), those rules must be consistent
with 34 CFR §§ 300.510-300.514. See Question E-7 of the Q&A.
In reviewing the exhibits attached to your letter, we note that, in some cases, a due process
hearing may include both a disciplinary and non-disciplinary matter. The IDEA and its
implementing regulations do not specifically address this situation. Under the IDEA, with the
exception of matters raised under 34 CFR §§ 300.530 and 300.531, hearing officers have
discretion in how they manage cases before them. Therefore, in this circumstance, a hearing
officer could decide that it is prudent to bifurcate the hearing, thus allowing for an expedited
hearing on the discipline and removal issues, and a separate hearing on any other issues.
Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as
informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S.
Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Wolfsheimer, of my
staff, at 202-245-6090 or by email at Jennifer.Wolfsheimer@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Melody Musgrove, Ed.D.
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: California State Director