Table of Contents
July
July 19, 2022
New Guidance Helps Schools Support Students with Disabilities and Avoid Discriminatory Use of Discipline |
The U.S. Department of Education announced the release of new guidance from its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to help public elementary and secondary schools fulfill their responsibilities to meet the needs of students with disabilities and avoid the discriminatory use of student discipline.
These newly released resources are the most comprehensive guidance on the civil rights of students with disabilities concerning student discipline and build on the Department’s continued efforts to support students and schools through pandemic recovery.
- Letter from Secretary Cardona to Our Nation’s Educators, School Leaders, Parents, and Students About the Importance of Supporting the Needs of Students with Disabilities.
- OSEP Dear Colleague Letter on Implementation of IDEA Discipline Provisions.
- Questions and Answers Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA’s Discipline Provisions.
- Positive, Proactive Approaches to Supporting the Needs of Children with Disabilities: A Guide for Stakeholders.
- Supporting Students with Disabilities and Avoiding the Discriminatory Use of Student Discipline under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)
The guidance makes clear that schools do not need to choose between complying with Section 504 and IDEA and keeping their school community—including students and staff—safe.
All these documents can be found on the Department’s School Climate and Student Discipline Resources website.
OSEP HAS NEW TWITTER ACCOUNT
Connect with Us Online
 |
Connect with OSERS on TwitterFollow us: @Ed_Sped_Rehab |
Visit the OSERS BlogVisit our blog for powerful stories and useful information from parents, families, educators, and practitioners in the field. Be sure to bookmark sites.ed.gov/osers for future posts! |
Connect with the OSEP Update
Thank you for reading the OSEP Newsletter! Click here to subscribe.
You can also check out the IDEA website newsletter archive for past editions of the OSEP Newsletter.
If you have questions or comments, please send them to josiah.willey@ed.gov.
This newsletter may reference and contain links to external sources. The opinions expressed in these sources do not reflect the views, positions, or policies of the Department Education, nor should their inclusion be considered an endorsement of any private organization.
OSEP Releases Fast Facts on the Race and Ethnicity of Students with Disabilities served Under Part B (issued August 10, 2021)
OSEP is excited to release a new OSEP Fast Facts: Race and Ethnicity of Children with Disabilities Served under IDEA Part B and new supplemental tool, Hand In Hand, which explore our IDEA, Section 618 data with the specific lens on race and ethnicity.
Highlights from OSEP Fast Facts: Race and Ethnicity of Children with Disabilities Served under IDEA Part B:
- Asian students with disabilities are more likely to be identified with autism or hearing impairment than all students with disabilities and less likely to drop out and more likely to graduate with a regular high school diploma than all students with disabilities.
- Black or African American students with disabilities are more likely to be identified with intellectual disability or emotional disturbance than all students with disabilities and more likely to receive a disciplinary removal than all students with disabilities.
- Hispanic students with disabilities are more likely to be identified with hearing impairment or specific learning disability than all students with disabilities.
- American Indian or Alaska Native students with disabilities are more likely to drop out than all students with disabilities and less likely to be inside regular class less than 40% of the day than all students with disabilities.
- White students with disabilities are more likely to be served inside a regular class 80% or more of the day than all students with disabilities and less likely to be identified with specific learning disability or intellectual disability than all students with disabilities.
For the Hand In Hand supplemental tool, each display in the OSEP Fast Facts: Race and Ethnicity of Children with Disabilities Served under IDEA Part B is presented with critical questions to allow parents and other stakeholders to engage with the materials. Throughout the Hand In Hand resource, look for hands highlighting further reading on the topics.
OSEP Fast Facts is an ongoing effort to display data from the 12 data collections authorized under IDEA Section 618 into graphic, visual representations with the intent to present 618 data quickly and clearly.
Visit the OSEP Fast Facts page for existing and future Fast Facts.
OSERS ISSUES NEW GUIDANCE ON LONG COVID (Added August 2, 2021)
OSERS and OCR issued a new Joint Guidance (8 pages) on long Covid. It is divided into four parts. Part of the introduction follows; click on the link preceding for entire document.
“This resource is issued jointly by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to provide information about long COVID
as a disability and about schools’2 and public agencies’ responsibilities for the provision of services and
reasonable modifications to children and students for whom long COVID is a disability. The discussion
here focuses on two Federal laws: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Parts
B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
OSEP Fast Facts on Students 5 – 21 (Added July 8, 2021)
A graphic breakdown on children served during the school year 2019-2020 nationally and by state.
Some interesting facts, e.g., males were twice as likely to be served under Part B than females. A quick and easy way to compare how youIr served population compares to your state and the nation.
OSERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING FAPE After ENDREW (12/14/2017)
OSERS issued a Q and A explaining ED’s “take” on the Endrew Supreme Court decision on December 7, 2017.
A direct link to the actual FAQ. (Click here.)
A direct link to the Endrew Supreme Court decision: Endrew v. Douglas County, District Court, 2/12/2018 (20 page)
Also see our discussion of Endrew and additional links under Landmark Cases.
For some court cases on FAPE illustrating how courts are applying Endrew, see Guy’s 2017 Log for FAPE cases after March, 2017.
Introduction:
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is a part of the United States Department of Education (ED). A subdivision of OSERS is the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). OSEP’s responsibilities (or mission) is to administer the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA authorizes formula grants to states, and discretionary grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance and dissemination, technology and personnel development and parent-training and information centers. The doorway to all of OSEP’s resources is its Home Page. OSEP also sponsors a parent oriented resource center called the Center for Parent Information and Resources, which provides resources that may be equally valuable for service providers.
Prior to 1999, if a parent disagreed with the decision of a state hearing review officer or a state’s response to a complaint, he or she could appeal that decision to OSEP. After that date, Part B no longer provided for an OSEP review of individual complaints to the state or due process hearings. (Appeals may be made to state or federal courts, however.)
Although OSEP has its hands in many pies, one responsibility is to respond to policy questions of a more general nature. For example, an advocate might have a concern over a state’s inclusion of a requirement that schools document a psychological processing disorder related to the area of academic deficit as a prerequisite for SLD entitlement. Asking OSEP to review the state criteria would be an appropriate use of their resources.
Two caveats. First, the turnover time in getting a response may in some cases be a year or more. Second, the IDEA requires OSEP to add to every letter boilerplate telling the reader 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.” What this means from a practical perspective is that while a court may find an OSEP opinion persuasive, their opinion should not be counted on as money in the bank. Courts can and have interpreted the Federal Regulations differently (even though OSERS writes the Final Regulations for the IDEA and would be presumed to know what they mean.
OSEP Letters on other pages
The sections following this introduction to OSEP Letters are just a sample of what is available.
For a more complete collection of letters regarding Part C, click on Part C of the IDEA.
For OSEP letters regarding IEPs, click on Test Info/IEPs and the School Psychologist/OSEP Letters
For OSEP letters regarding emotional disabilities, click on Disability Info/Emotional Disabilities
For OSEP letters regarding disparate impact, click on Spedlaw/OCR/Title VI/OSEP Letters
For OSEP letters on Manifestation Determinations, also click on Disability Info/Emotional Disabilities/OSEP Guidance and Disability Info/Discipline and the Disabled
There ate two searchable databases on the Internet (and one non searchable) that may be used to find OSEP letters on a particular topic or within a particular time frame.
OSEP LETTERS DATABASES
There are two databases available. One, maintained by Pennsylvania (PAttan), the other by OSEP.
The PAttan database has two advantages: more search words; and letters dating back to 1997. The OSEP data base begins with letters issued after 2000. The PaTTAN database is now current through 2016.
Click here for the federal OSEP data base.
GUIDANCE FROM OSEP AND OSERS:
The following documents are a sampling of what is available for download from the federal website.
On July 18, 2014, OSEP, acting under Executive Orders, issued the following Q and A on including English Learners with Disabilities in English language proficiency exams. The summary follows:
Questions and Answers Regarding Inclusion of English Learners with Disabilities in English Language Proficiency Assessments and Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
This guidance document is on the inclusion of English Learners (ELs) with disabilities in English language proficiency (ELP) assessments under Titles I and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These are assessments designed to measure the progress of ELs in attaining English language proficiency. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) administers the ESEA and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) administers Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). OESE and OSERS are issuing the guidance to help states and LEAs understand how Part B of the IDEA and Titles I and III of the ESEA address the inclusion of ELs with disabilities in annual state ELP assessments.
Click here for Cover Letter 7 18 2014
Click here for the Questions and Answers re EL with Disabilities
Among the many topic papers issued by OSERS/OSEP is one detailing the federal requirements for state complaint procedures. Click here for: State Complaint Procedures
IDEA and McKinney-Vento
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education issue this Question and Answer (Q & A) document to provide State and local educational officials, early intervention services providers, and homeless assistance coordinators with information to assist with implementation of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act)
Spec-ed-homelessness-q-a
Transition
This document addresses significant changes from preexisting regulations to the final regulatory requirements regarding secondary transition.
Secondary Transition
This document addresses significant changes in the rules for surrogate parents.
Procedural Safeguards-Surrogates Notice and Consent 10-4-06
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide parents, parent training and information centers, school personnel, State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), advocacy organizations, and other interested parties with information to facilitate appropriate implementation of the IDEA due process procedures.
Procedural Safeguards-Resolution Meetings and Due Process He
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide parents, parent training and information centers, school personnel, State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), advocacy organizations, and other interested parties with information to facilitate appropriate implementation of the IDEA due process procedures. But also see the updated Q and A on Mediation below and links on Dispute Resolution (2013) below.
Procedural Safeguards-Q and A
Mediation
Questions and Answers on Mediation: an authoritative review
Q and A on mediation
This document addresses significant changes from preexisting regulations to the final regulatory requirements regarding mediation
Procedural Safeguards-Mediation
A PDF slide presentation on mediation
Mediation Q and A overheads
These two documents update OSERS/OSEP’s thinking on dispute resolution and the advice therein supersedes earlier dicta reported in earlier links above.
Dispute Resolution QandA July 2013
Transportation
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), parents, advocacy organizations, and other interested parties with information regarding the requirements for serving children with disabilities eligible for transportation
OSERS Transportation 2009
Reevaluations
This letter responded to twelve questions asking for clarification regarding the IDEA requirements for reevaluation and the provision of FAPE.
Letter to Anonymous, February 6, 2007 (Reevaluations)
This Q and A updated the Department’s thinking about IEPs, evaluations, and reevaluations
IEP.Q&A. June 2010
History
An “official” history of the IDEA from 1975 to 2000.
History of IDEA
Early Intervention
The IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations allows for the use of some special education federal funding for early intervention services. The document below explains in some detail both the scope and limitations of those changes.
Early Intervening Services 2006
Over representation
A complex issue that addresses more than over representation of minority groups in special education. A finding of disproportionality does not necessarily mean a school has discriminated against any particular group, but it is a red flag that can trigger changes in how funding can be used, particularly funding for prereferral interventions. Currently, the most intense scrutiny has been focused on disproportional representation in discipline.
Results Driven Accountability
In May, 2012, OSEP took steps to move away from a one size fits approach, further emphasizing its shift from process based accountability (school compliance based solely on having squeaky clean paperwork) to a results driven accountability system. Over the course of several months it issued five different documents (including one summary and one press release) in order to assist school systems in meeting the demands of a results based accountability system. Those documents are available below.
Results Driven Accountability (Summary)
RDA Summary
Results Driven Accountability (Press Release)
Results Driven Accountability (RDA)
Sample Approaches for Using Assessment Data in RDA
sample-approaches
The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) was asked by the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) to work with a team to provide input on measures that could be
used to review states’ performance results of their students with disabilities who receive special
education services This is a result of their work.
using-assessment-data–core-team-input
A Q and A on Results Driven Accountability
Parental Consent for the Use of Public Benefits or Private Insurance to Pay for Services *
OSEP prepared this Non Regulatory Guidance Q and A explaining the February 14, 2013 Amendment to the IDEA.
An amendment to the IDEA changed the consent requirements for using publicly funded insurance for medical evaluations. This Q and A details the rather complex provisions.
idea-part-b-parental-consen and insurance 2013