Education Across the States — Pillar Guide
Special education and McKinney-Vento requirements for 2026–2027 — what the law actually requires, where the findings come from, and how to check your own district before the state does
Two federal systems generate a disproportionate share of the findings, corrective actions, and litigation that land on a district's desk. The first is the education subtitle of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act — the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11431–11435 — which governs how districts identify, enroll, transport, and keep faith with students who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. The second is Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which governs how districts find students with disabilities, evaluate them on a clock, write and implement their programs, and report results to the state and the U.S. Department of Education. This guide states what each system actually requires — from the statute and the regulations, not from summaries of summaries — and ends with a five-point audit an administrator can run internally, on the district's own files, before a monitor does it from the outside.
One correction worth making at the top, because it circulates widely: IDEA is administered by the U.S. Department of Education — specifically the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), one of the two program offices inside the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). It is not administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Under a recent interagency agreement, HHS provides grant-administration and monitoring-support services at OSERS's direction, and the Department of Education's own fact sheet on the arrangement is explicit that ED retains all statutory responsibilities and oversight. The duties in this guide run to districts under authorities ED administers and states enforce; nothing in the HHS support arrangement moves a single district obligation.
McKinney-Vento is a barrier-removal and school-stability law. Its core duties bind every local education agency in a state receiving program funds, whether or not the agency holds a federal subgrant. Our full briefing, McKinney-Vento: The Students the Law Already Covers, works through the definition and the failure record in depth; this section states the operating requirements a compliance review will test.
"Homeless children and youths" are individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (42 U.S.C. § 11434a(2)). The definition expressly includes students sharing the housing of other persons because of loss of housing or economic hardship ("doubled-up"); students in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds for lack of alternative adequate accommodations; students in emergency or transitional shelters; students in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, or substandard housing; and migratory children living in those circumstances. An "unaccompanied youth" is a homeless child or youth not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian (§ 11434a(6)). One drafting point that still trips up older policy manuals: the pre-ESSA phrase "awaiting foster care placement" was struck from the definition in 2015 — manuals that still list it are out of date.
The school selected under the best-interest determination must immediately enroll the student even if the student cannot produce the records normally required — previous academic records, immunization and other health records, proof of residency, or other documentation — or has missed application or enrollment deadlines during any period of homelessness (§ 11432(g)(3)(C)(i)). The enrolling school must immediately contact the school last attended to obtain relevant records (§ 11432(g)(3)(C)(ii)). If immunizations or health records are needed, the enrolling school must immediately refer the parent or guardian — or, for an unaccompanied youth, the youth — to the local liaison, who must assist in obtaining them (§ 11432(g)(3)(C)(iii)). Note where the statute puts each duty: enrollment belongs to the school; the liaison's role at this step is referral and assistance. A front-office practice that routes a family to "come back with documents" fails the statute on its face, whoever designed the practice.
The "school of origin" is the school the student attended when permanently housed, or the school in which the student was last enrolled, including a preschool; when the student finishes the final grade the school of origin serves, the term extends to the designated receiving school at the next grade level for feeder schools (§ 11432(g)(3)(I)). The LEA serving the student must, according to the student's best interest, either continue the student's education in the school of origin for the duration of homelessness — and for the remainder of the academic year if the student becomes permanently housed during it — or enroll the student in the public school that nonhomeless students in the attendance area where the student is actually living are eligible to attend (§ 11432(g)(3)(A)). In making that determination the LEA must presume that staying in the school of origin is in the student's best interest, except when contrary to the request of the parent or guardian or, for an unaccompanied youth, the youth; must consider student-centered factors, including the impact of mobility on achievement, education, health, and safety, giving priority to that request; and, if it decides against the school of origin or the school requested, must give the parent, guardian, or unaccompanied youth a written explanation of the reasons, in an understandable form, including the right to appeal (§ 11432(g)(3)(B)). For an unaccompanied youth, the liaison must assist in the placement decision, give priority to the youth's views, and give the youth notice of the right to appeal.
The state and LEAs must have policies and practices ensuring transportation is provided, at the request of the parent or guardian (or, for an unaccompanied youth, the liaison), to and from the school of origin (§ 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)). If the student continues to live in the area served by the LEA where the school of origin sits, that LEA provides or arranges the transportation. If the student, while continuing at the school of origin, begins living in another LEA's area, the two LEAs must agree on a method to apportion responsibility and costs — and if they cannot agree, the responsibility and costs are shared equally (§ 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)(II)). Transportation is also the first-named of the comparable services owed to each homeless student (§ 11432(g)(4)(A)). The practical consequence: "we're waiting to hear back from the other district" is not a compliance posture. The equal-split default exists precisely so that a disagreement between adults never becomes a missed school day for a student.
The state plan must describe procedures ensuring homeless youths are identified and given equal access to appropriate secondary education and support services, including by identifying and removing barriers that prevent them from receiving appropriate credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed at a prior school, in accordance with state, local, and school policies (§ 11432(g)(1)(F)(ii)). The Department of Education's guidance states the operational expectation directly: LEAs must have clear procedures in place to ensure homeless students receive appropriate credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior school — including consulting the prior school, evaluating mastery of partly completed courses, awarding partial credit, and offering credit recovery (EHCY Non-Regulatory Guidance, § O-2). The statute sets a procedures duty, not a federal credit formula; states and districts write the formulas, and a district with no written partial-credit procedure for transfer students has a gap whether or not a monitor has found it yet. The same barrier-removal duty runs wider: SEAs and LEAs must review and revise policies that may act as barriers to identification or enrollment, considering transportation, immunization, residency, birth certificates, records, and guardianship, and including barriers from outstanding fees or fines and absences (§ 11432(g)(1)(I), (g)(7)). Two related supports belong in the same file: counselors must assist homeless youths in preparing for and improving readiness for college (§ 11432(g)(1)(K)), and the liaison must ensure unaccompanied youths know they are independent students for federal student aid purposes and can get the liaison's help verifying that status for the FAFSA (§ 11432(g)(6)(A)(x)).
If a dispute arises over eligibility, school selection, or enrollment, the student must be immediately enrolled in the school in which enrollment is sought, pending final resolution of the dispute, including all available appeals (§ 11432(g)(3)(E)(i)). The parent, guardian, or unaccompanied youth must receive a written explanation of the decisions involved, including the right to appeal, and must be referred to the liaison, who must carry out the dispute-resolution process as expeditiously as possible (§ 11432(g)(3)(E)(ii)–(iv)). The Department's guidance adds that McKinney-Vento's transportation requirements apply while disputes are being resolved: at the request of the parent, guardian, or unaccompanied youth, the LEA must provide or arrange adequate and appropriate transportation to and from the school the family or youth selected during that period (EHCY Guidance, § J-4). That transportation point is guidance interpreting the enroll-pending-resolution rule — the statute's own text commands the enrollment — and districts should treat both as binding in practice.
Every LEA must designate an appropriate staff person, able to carry out the statutory duties, as its local liaison for homeless children and youths (§ 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)). The liaison must ensure that homeless children and youths are identified through outreach and coordination with other entities and agencies; are enrolled in, and have a full and equal opportunity to succeed in, the LEA's schools; have access to services they are eligible for, including Head Start and early intervention under IDEA Part C; and receive referrals to health care, dental, mental health, housing, and other appropriate services. The liaison must also ensure parents and guardians are informed of educational opportunities and can participate meaningfully in their children's education; that public notice of homeless students' rights is posted where families and unaccompanied youths will actually see it — schools, shelters, public libraries, soup kitchens — in an understandable form; that enrollment disputes are mediated under the dispute provisions; that families and unaccompanied youths are fully informed of all transportation services and assisted in accessing them; that school personnel serving these students receive professional development and support; and that unaccompanied youths are enrolled, can meet the same state academic standards as other students, and are informed of their independent-student status with liaison help on FAFSA verification (§ 11432(g)(6)(A)). Ten duties, one named person. A liaison designation that exists only in a board policy and not in anyone's working week is the most common McKinney-Vento finding there is.
In August 2026 the Department of Education clarified one use of EHCY subgrant funds that districts ask about constantly. LEAs may, in certain circumstances, use EHCY subgrants to pay for short-term, temporary emergency housing — a hotel or motel room, for example — under the Act's authority for "other extraordinary or emergency assistance needed to enable homeless children and youths to attend school and participate fully in school activities" (42 U.S.C. § 11433(d)(16), as quoted in the Department's guidance). The Department is explicit about the limits: permissibility is context-dependent and decided case by case; the use must be reasonable and necessary to facilitate school attendance and a last resort when other funding sources are not readily available. Four criteria govern: (1) last resort after coordination — alternative funding and housing options (shelter beds, hotel vouchers the family may be eligible for) are not readily available despite active collaboration with local housing providers, government agencies, and nonprofits; (2) a case-by-case determination rooted in the individual student's circumstances and adequately documented; (3) reasonable and necessary for school attendance — the housing removes an immediate barrier to enrollment, regular attendance, or full participation, including stability at the school of origin, weighed against the size of the grant and the needs assessment; and (4) short-term and temporary — strictly time-limited while long-term housing solutions are actively pursued. The Act does not define "short-term," and ED sets no universal maximum number of nights: the SEA, coordinating with its LEAs, determines the appropriate length. The Department strongly encourages simple internal review processes that approve and document each case, record the coordination steps taken first, and keep the focus on school stability and attendance (Dear Colleague Letter, Aug. 4, 2026; EHCY Guidance, § H-5). Read plainly: this is a documented exception for acute cases, not a housing program, and an undocumented stay is an audit finding waiting for a fiscal year.
The state must have policies and procedures ensuring that all children with disabilities residing in the state — expressly including children with disabilities who are homeless or wards of the state, and children attending private schools, whatever the severity of the disability — who need special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated, with a practical method for determining which children are currently receiving needed services (34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)). Child find also covers children suspected of having a disability even though they are advancing from grade to grade, and highly mobile children, including migrant children (§ 300.111(c)). Passing grades are not a screening result, and a student's housing status is a child-find flag, not an exception to it — the two systems in this guide meet first right here.
Once a parent consents to an initial evaluation, the evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent — or, if the state has established its own timeframe, within that state timeframe (34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c)(1)). Know which rule your state runs on; the federal backstop is 60 days, and several states impose shorter or differently-counted clocks. Once a determination is made that a child needs special education and related services, a meeting to develop the IEP must be conducted within 30 days of that determination, and special education and related services must be made available as soon as possible following the IEP's development (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c)). Consent date, evaluation completion, eligibility determination, IEP meeting: four dates, in the file, in order. Most timeline findings are not arguments about law — they are missing or out-of-order dates.
Each state files a State Performance Plan and an Annual Performance Report against a fixed set of Part B indicators set by OSEP, and districts supply much of the underlying data. The indicators administrators most often answer for:
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| 1 — Graduation | Percent of youth with IEPs exiting special education by graduating with a regular high school diploma |
| 2 — Dropout | Percent of youth with IEPs who exited special education by dropping out |
| 3 — Statewide assessments | Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments, including the proficiency gap |
| 4 — Suspension/expulsion | Rates of suspension and expulsion of children with IEPs |
| 5 — Education environments | Where children with IEPs aged 5 (in kindergarten) through 21 are served — the least-restrictive-environment measure |
| 8 — Parent involvement | Percent of parents reporting that schools facilitated their involvement as a means of improving services and results |
| 9 & 10 — Disproportionality | Districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education overall (9) and in specific disability categories (10) that results from inappropriate identification |
| 11 — Child find (timely evaluations) | Percent of children evaluated within 60 days of parental consent, or within the state's own timeframe |
| 12 — Early childhood transition | Children referred by Part C before age 3 who are found eligible and have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays |
| 13 — Secondary transition | Youth aged 16 and above whose IEPs include appropriate measurable postsecondary goals, updated annually and based on an age-appropriate transition assessment, with transition services and related annual goals |
| 14 — Post-school outcomes | Youth no longer in secondary school who are enrolled in higher education or other postsecondary education or training, or competitively or otherwise employed |
Indicator definitions condensed from ED/OSERS, Part B SPP/APR Indicator Measurement Table, FFYs 2020–2025. The full set runs to Indicator 18 and includes preschool environments and outcomes, resolution sessions, mediation, and the state systemic improvement plan.
Two of these indicators deserve a district's closest attention because the district controls them almost entirely. Indicator 11 is arithmetic: it is your own evaluation-clock data, reported. Indicator 13 is a file-quality measure: a sample of transition IEPs either contains measurable postsecondary goals tied to a transition assessment or it does not. Both are knowable internally, to the decimal, before the state asks.
Transition is where the IDEA timeline meets a student's actual future. At the front end, Indicator 12 grades the handoff from Part C early intervention to Part B preschool services: referred before age 3, found eligible, IEP in place by the third birthday — a deadline with no ambiguity in it. At the back end, Indicator 13 grades whether the IEPs of students aged 16 and above carry measurable postsecondary goals, updated annually from an age-appropriate transition assessment, with the transition services — including courses of study — that make those goals reachable. When an IEP team determines that a student's needs require a placement outside the district's own programs, the placement decision is an IEP-team decision, and it triggers the same notice discipline as any other placement action: prior written notice is required before the agency proposes or changes the student's educational placement (see below), and the transition obligations travel with the student — a change of setting is not a pause in the plan. Districts should verify, in the file, that the receiving program's services match the IEP as written, that progress reporting flows back on the schedule the IEP promises, and that the student's postsecondary goals survived the move intact.
Prior written notice must be given to parents a reasonable time before the agency proposes to initiate or change — or refuses to initiate or change — the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a)). The notice must contain all seven of the following (§ 300.503(b)): (1) a description of the action proposed or refused; (2) an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses it; (3) a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the action; (4) a statement that the parents have procedural-safeguards protections and, when the notice is not an initial referral, how to obtain a copy of the safeguards description; (5) sources parents can contact for help understanding Part B; (6) a description of the other options the IEP team considered and why those options were rejected; and (7) a description of other factors relevant to the proposal or refusal. The notice must be written in language understandable to the general public and provided in the parent's native language or other mode of communication, unless clearly not feasible (§ 300.503(c)). A notice missing element (6) — the options considered and rejected — is the single most common drafting failure in the files we see described in hearing decisions, because it converts a defensible decision into an undocumented one. Whatever the district decided, the PWN is where it has to be provable.
Run these five checks on your own records — a sample, not a census — before monitoring season. Each maps to duties stated above; each can be finished by a small team with file access and a spreadsheet.
Every requirement stated in this guide is drawn from the primary sources below — the statute, the regulations, the federal indicator definitions, and the Department of Education's published guidance.