[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-280631-105":53,"doc-detail-280631-en":122},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":115,"head_meta":117,"extra_data":119,"updated_unix":121},105,"en","osep-policy-letter-22-04-april-15-2022","OSEP Policy Letter 22-04 - April 15, 2022","","OSEP provides informal, non-binding guidance responding to consolidated inquiries from Perry Zirkel, addressing procedural requirements under IDEA for state and due process complaint systems. The letter explains how sufficiency of due process complaints is determined, including the 15-day notice period for challenging compliance with regulatory content requirements, and clarifies limits on how omissions of a proposed resolution affect hearing-officer authority. It also defines expedited hearing timelines measured in school days, including deadlines for the hearing and issuance of the decision.",{"@graph":63,"@context":114},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/osep-policy-letter-22-04-april-15-2022/280631/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/osep-policy-letter-22-04-april-15-2022/280631.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Blaney","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"How is the expedited due process hearing timeline calculated under the IDEA?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The hearing must occur within 20 school days of the complaint filing, and the hearing officer’s decision must be issued within 10 school days after the conclusion of the hearing.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the proposed resolution matter in a due process complaint under OSEP’s guidance?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"OSEP states that a primary purpose of including a proposed resolution is to assist the resolution process, and that inclusion or omission should not be read to limit an impartial hearing officer’s authority to formulate an appropriate equitable remedy.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":116,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":118,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":120,"site_id":56},280631,1790727919,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":123},{"doc_id":120,"user_id":124,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":125,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":126,"file_id":127,"file_url":128,"file_type":129,"file_size":130,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":47,"language":131,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":135,"read_time":73},1236954677761,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  \nOFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  \nOFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS  \nDIRECTOR  \nOSEP Policy Letter 22-04  \nApril 15, 2022  \nPerry Zirkel, PhD  \nUniversity Professor Emeritus of Education and Law Lehigh University  \n[perry.zirkel@lehigh.edu](perry.zirkel@lehigh.edu)  \nDear Dr. Zirkel:  \nThis correspondence responds to your multiple inquiries to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), regarding implementation of the State complaint, due process complaint, and due process hearing procedures required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . We have consolidated the questions you raised, and our responses are provided below. We regret the delay in responding.  \nWe note that Section 607(d) of the IDEA prohibits the Secretary of the Department from issuing policy letters or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance with, and eligibility under, IDEA without following the rulemaking requirements of Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based on the requirements of IDEA Section 607(e), this response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding. It represents an interpretation by the Department of the requirements of IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented and does not establish a policy or rule that would apply in all circumstances. Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in the document, the contents ofthis guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Further, please note that OSEP responds to these matters, generally, and not in the context of any specific due process complaint or State complaint that may be pending or resolved.  \nDue Process Complaints and Due Process Hearings  \nQuestion 1: Does a parent’s failure to provide a proposed resolution of the problem in their due process complaint as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(6), restrict the authority of a hearing officer to order prospective relief (such as ordering an individualized education program (IEP) Team meeting to correct identified deficiencies in the child’s IEP) and/or retrospective relief (such as requiring the agency to provide compensatory services or reimburse the parent for expenses they incurred)?  \nOSEP Response: A due process complaint must be deemed sufficient unless the party receiving the due process complaint notifies the hearing officer and the other party in writing within 15  \ndays of receiving it, that the receiving party believes the due process complaint does not meet the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) . See 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d) . Therefore, if a party does not include a proposed resolution to the problem in their due process complaint to the extent known and available to the party at the time, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(6), the other party may ask the hearing officer to determine the sufficiency of that complaint. If a party does not raise a sufficiency claim within 15 days of receiving the due process complaint, the due process complaint is deemed sufficient, and a due process hearing may occur.  \nWe understand your question to involve those situations in which either no challenge was made to the sufficiency of the due process complaint, or a hearing officer determined the due process complaint was sufficient, notwithstanding the filing party’s failure to provide a proposed resolution to the problem. In some instances, a parent may not be aware of the possible ways to remedy the issue that forms the basis of their due process complaint. Since 34 C.F.R.  \n§ 300.508(b)(6) requires the filing party to propose a resolution to the complaint only to the extent known and available to the party at the time the complaint is filed,","cbCaik4Qd0OAtsko","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaik4Qd0OAtsko","pdf",327545,"English","# Due Process Complaints and Due Process Hearings\n## Question 1: Proposed resolution and complaint sufficiency\n## Question 2: Expedited hearing outer limit and decision timeline","[{\"question\":\"How is the expedited due process hearing timeline calculated under the IDEA?\",\"answer\":\"The hearing must occur within 20 school days of the complaint filing, and the hearing officer’s decision must be issued within 10 school days after the conclusion of the hearing.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the proposed resolution matter in a due process complaint under OSEP’s guidance?\",\"answer\":\"OSEP states that a primary purpose of including a proposed resolution is to assist the resolution process, and that inclusion or omission should not be read to limit an impartial hearing officer’s authority to formulate an appropriate equitable remedy.\"}]","OSEP Policy Letter 22-04 - April 15, 2022 | PDF",1789553029]