July 14, 2025: Utah Part B DMS Monitoring Report

446KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 24, 2026: Utah Part B DMS Close-Out Letter

341KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP conducted monitoring activities in November 2024, which resulted in its 2025 report. The report identified three monitoring and improvement findings and one dispute resolution finding.

Utah’s monitoring focused on individual student files without examining local policies, procedures, and practices. The state also let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found these practices didn’t meet Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements.

In addition, Utah didn’t track all due process resolution requirements, including the 15-day resolution meeting deadline and written agreements to waive the meeting.

Why OSEP Closed the Findings

According to OSEP, Utah revised its monitoring procedures and submitted records showing how it used them, including monitoring reports and evidence that state staff selected files for review. The state also submitted examples of updated data used to verify correction of violations. OSEP accepted these materials as meeting the relevant requirements.

For due process, Utah revised its resolution procedures before the original report was issued. OSEP accepted the changes as meeting IDEA requirements and required no further action.

Final Words

A corrected file isn’t the same as a corrected system.

Utah let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and choose evidence to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found that these practices didn’t meet IDEA requirements. The problem wasn’t just whether the selected files showed compliance. It was whether they reflected what was happening across the agency.

These weren’t just minor errors at a local level. They were part of the state’s oversight system. OSEP said Utah’s method for checking correction conflicted with its “longstanding position.” Neither the DMS report nor the close-out letter identify which leaders approved these practices or what they knew. Still, it raises questions for those in charge. How were staff trained? Who checked their work? How did these practices become part of the system meant to catch violations?

Utah later submitted revised procedures and evidence showing that state staff selected files and reviewed updated data. OSEP accepted the submissions as meeting the relevant requirements.

However . . .

Proof that a new process is being used doesn’t, by itself, prove a lasting change in culture. Culture includes what leaders expect, what staff accept, and what happens when someone flags a problem. The close-out letter doesn’t address whether the habits that allowed the old practices to stay in play for so long have changed for the long term.

The letter also isn’t a statewide clean bill of health. OSEP’s original report warned that it hadn’t reviewed IDEA implementation in every local educational agency. Closing these findings doesn’t establish that every district complies with IDEA.

October 4, 2024: Nevada Part B DMS Report

475KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

September 1, 2026: Nevada Part B DMS Close-Out Letter

349KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP conducted monitoring activities in October and November 2023, which resulted in its 2024 report. The report identified two fiscal management findings and one dispute resolution finding.

Nevada lacked an adequate system for monitoring recipients of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds, and its grant award notices lacked required information. In addition, Nevada didn’t have a system in place to ensure due process hearing decisions met hearing officer deadlines or, when none was given, a reasonable deadline set by the state.

Why OSEP Closed the Findings

According to OSEP, Nevada revised its fiscal monitoring procedures and submitted records showing how it used them, including its review of Clark County School District. The state also submitted corrected grant award notices. OSEP accepted these materials as meeting the relevant requirements.

For due process, Nevada revised its tracking procedures. OSEP’s letter states Nevada submitted training materials, an agenda, and attendance logs Sept. 18, 2025. OSEP accepted the policies and evidence of implementation as meeting IDEA requirements.

Final Words

Pay attention to the dates.

Nevada had until Oct. 4, 2025, to submit evidence that it was carrying out its fiscal monitoring procedures. Aug. 6, 2025, OSEP reminded the state that it needed records showing those procedures were being used. Yet . . . The close-out letter identifies July 10, 2026, as the date Nevada submitted the additional evidence OSEP accepted. That was more than nine months after the original deadline.

Yes, that submission date doesn’t prove every problem lasted until then. Still, why the late submission? The letter describes earlier submissions and OSEP’s request for more proof. It doesn’t explain the gap.

Keep in mind that the close-out letter isn’t a statewide clean bill of health.

OSEP’s original report warned that OSEP hadn’t reviewed IDEA implementation in every local educational agency. So, closing three findings doesn’t establish that every district complies with IDEA.

Virginia offers an example of how noncompliance can continue after closure. In December 2024, OSEP closed a finding about requiring signed confidentiality pledges before mediation. Yet in August 2025, a state-contracted mediator again told participants they had to sign before mediation.

Virginia Department of Education later acknowledged that the mediator’s instruction was wrong. After a state complaint was filed against VDOE for its failure to properly train, oversee, monitor, and ensure compliance in Virginia’s state-sponsored special education mediation system, VDOE nevertheless found in favor of itself for the complaint.

It opened the review April 20, 2009. According to the resolution letter, it advised JPS of the following in 2009:

“[T]his compliance review investigated ‘whether the District provides free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities.’ OCR ‘look[ed] specifically at whether the District consistently provides a FAPE to students with disabilities by: 1) properly implementing individual[ized] education programs [(IEPs)] or 504 plans; 2) providing necessary [related] aids and services; 3) providing procedural safeguards; and 4) properly preparing disabled students for transition to postsecondary education.’”

JPS requested resolution before OCR completed its investigation. June 22, 2026, JPS signed a resolution agreement with OCR, without a final violation finding.

OCR Case Number 07-09-5004 Resolution Letter

294KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case Number 07-09-5004 Resolution Agreement

224KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Can schools block students who have disabilities from sports, field trips, and other activities because their grades are too low?

Answer:

Sometimes.

A child who has a disability may still have to meet grade requirements. However, low grades alone aren’t enough to block a student from participation.

If a student and/or the student’s family requests an accommodation of having a grade requirement waived, the school must review the student’s needs. It can’t point to a one-size-fits-all grade cutoff. The school must look at whether the student’s disabilities affected the grades.

Two recent Office for Civil Rights (OCR) cases show why. One involved a student who was barred from playing on the basketball team and the other was about a student who was barred from a field trip.

Supporting Documents and/or Regulations

IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and OCR “Dear Colleague” Letter

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protects students who have disabilities. In public schools that receive federal funds, it requires an equal chance to take part in sports, recreation, clubs and other school activities. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also applies. For children who qualify, it requires needed supports, so they have an equal chance to take part.

Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires reasonable changes to rules when needed to avoid disability discrimination.

In its Jan. 25, 2013, “Dear Colleague” letter, OCR described a runner who needed a visual start signal because of a hearing disability. The signal would occur at the same time as the starting pistol. OCR said this wouldn’t change the race’s basic nature or give the runner an unfair advantage.

However, a school may refuse a change if it can show that the change would fundamentally alter the activity. As an example of a fundamental alteration that a school could refuse, OCR gave the example of adding an extra base in baseball. Adding an additional base would change the game.

January 25, 2013: OCR "Dear Colleague" Letter

503KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR’s Resolution Letters and Agreements

Read more

September 16, 2026: DMS Report for Maine

583KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP interviewed Maine Department of Education staff in September 2024. It also reviewed state documents and gathered feedback from the public and local staff. Its findings cover state oversight, data reporting, financial management and procedures for resolving disputes.

The following excerpts describe the 11 areas.

1.1. Monitoring Section 619 Preschool Programs

“The State is not monitoring the subrecipients of IDEA funds, which include programs operated by other State agencies, such as preschool programs, to ensure compliance with IDEA Section 619 requirements, including whether special education and related services are being provided consistent with the IEP, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”

1.2. Monitoring IDEA Early Childhood Transition Requirements

“The State is not monitoring to ensure children participating in IDEA Part C early intervention, and who are potentially eligible for preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and effective transition to those programs, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(9), 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”

1.3. IEP and Placement Decisions for IDEA Part B Section 619 Preschool Programs

“The State has a policy that establishes a maximum amount of IDEA Section 619 preschool program services based solely on the child’s age, without regard for the child’s identified needs for that service. This policy is inconsistent with the individualized decision-making required in both the IEP and placement process requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 through 300.116, 300.320, and 300.321.”

1.4. Monitoring Private School Placements by the Public Agency

“The State has not monitored all programs providing special education and related services, including private schools or facilities that the public agency has referred to or placed a child with a disability, such as nonpublic out-of-state schools or residential facilities, to ensure compliance with IDEA Part B, as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(11) and 616, 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(E), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.115, 300.149, 300.325(c), 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”

2.1. Data Reporting: Indicators 11—Child Find

“The State is not reporting valid and reliable data for SPP/APR Indicator 11. Specifically, the State is not ensuring the data collected and reported reflects actual practice, performance, and compliance, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(B), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.”

2.2. Data Reporting: Indicator 13—Secondary Transition

“The State is not reporting valid and reliable data for SPP/APR Indicator 13. Specifically, the State is not ensuring the data collected and reported reflects actual practice, performance, and compliance, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(B) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.”

3.1. Internal Controls: Segregation of duties

“The State does not have a system of internal controls in place that is reasonably designed to ensure the segregation of duties between MDOE as the SEA, and CDS as the primary subgrantee for IDEA Section 619 preschool program funds, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.149, 2 C.F.R. § 200.303, and the GAO-14-704G: Principle 10.”

3.2. Fiscal Monitoring: Section 619 Preschool Programs

“The State does not have a system in place that is reasonably designed to ensure that MDOE monitors IDEA and cross-cutting fiscal requirements for all IDEA Section 619 preschool programs, including but not limited to identifying and verifying correction of noncompliance as a part of the State’s system of fiscal monitoring, required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.149 and the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329(a) and 200.303. Specifically, MDOE does not perform fiscal monitoring over CDS, the State’s largest subgrantee of IDEA Section 619 preschool funds.”

3.3. Single Audit Responsibilities: Correction of Noncompliance

“The State does not have internal controls in place that ensure that MDOE, as the SEA and pass-through entity, is responsible for follow-up and corrective action of single audit findings for the IDEA Section 619 preschool programs, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.508(c) and 200.511(a). Specifically, MDOE does not ensure prompt follow-up and corrective action related to single audit findings issued to CDS for the Preschool program.”

4.1. Filing a Due Process Complaint

“The State’s regulations and notice of procedural safeguards do not make clear that a due process complaint may be filed by parents or a public agency consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1415(b)(6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.507.”

4.2. Confidentiality of Mediation Discussions

“Under the State’s mediation guidance, parties may be required to sign a confidentiality pledge before participating in mediation which is inconsistent with the voluntary nature of IDEA’s mediation process and the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8).”

What Happens Next

OSEP set deadlines for Maine to submit corrective-action documents and show that its changes are being used. The first submissions are due Dec. 15, 2026. Evidence of implementation is due as soon as possible, but no later than Sept. 16, 2027.

For example, Finding 1.3 requires Maine to submit revised draft rules and related documents by Dec. 15. Maine must also provide written assurances of compliance and notify CDS, school districts, parent groups and others about the proposed changes.

What This Means for Families

For parents facing noncompliance identified by OSEP, this report is more ammunition to bring to IEP meetings. The report by itself doesn’t prove that every district violated IDEA or that every child was denied services. However, it does identify noncompliance and parents can use it to point out the noncompliance to any schools engaging in it.

The findings also raise a harder question. How many times must the same problems be identified before families stop facing them?

Some warnings were already in writing nearly six years ago. An Oct. 30, 2020, review by Public Consulting Group, commissioned by the Maine State Legislative Council, described children waiting for IEP services because providers weren’t available. OSEP cited that review in its 2026 report. These weren’t all new concerns.

October 30, 2020: Maine Early Childhood Special Education Independent Report

1.93MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Maine didn’t have to wait for OSEP to tell it to oversee these programs. That duty already existed.

The mediation history goes back even further.

In guidance issued July 23, 2013, OSEP explained that signing a confidentiality pledge can’t be a condition for entering mediation. It repeated that position in a July 31, 2020, letter. IDEA already protects the confidentiality of mediation discussions.

July 23, 2013: "Dispute Resolution Procedures under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B)"

436KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 31, 2020: OSEP Letter to Anonymous

253KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OSEP then identified this problem in Virginia’s March 13, 2024, DMS report. Its Dec. 5, 2024, close-out letter said Virginia had submitted revised regulations and resolved that finding.

So . . .

Guidance was released in 2013 and 2020, and then OSEP specifically addressed Virginia in 2024. How is it that Maine wasn’t addressed until 2026?

Parents shouldn’t have to carry a 2013 federal explanation into a 2026 dispute to defend the same right.

Checking other states for the same problem could help catch it before more families face it. That would mean reviewing actual rules, forms and practices, not collecting another promise to comply.

Given ED’s SPPO office has repeatedly required states to confirm compliance with FERPA, why isn’t the same occurring each time another example of IDEA noncompliance is found in a state? Why isn’t something issued requiring each state to confirm compliance? Seems such an approach would streamline the process and perhaps help decades of other families avoid facing the same noncompliance.

“The Complainant alleged that the Division discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by failing to respond effectively to a report of peer disability harassment, on or around [redacted content].”

OCR found insufficient evidence that PECPS failed to respond effectively to disability-based harassment.

However . . .

OCR did question whether the division considered the bullying’s effects on the student’s education. Was the student still receiving a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

Before OCR completed its investigation, PECPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The district voluntarily signed a resolution agreement with OCR June 2, 2026. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission by the Division of a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), or any other law enforced by OCR.”

What Happened

Read more

What OSEP Found

August 2025, OSEP interviewed representatives from the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to interviews with staff members, OSEP reviewed “publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents the State submitted to OSEP” and “solicited feedback from interested parties and local-level staff to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s implementation of IDEA Part C.”

In previous DMS reports, OSEP stated that it hadn’t examined IDEA implementation by every local educational agency or early intervention service (EIS) program or provider. It said it couldn’t determine whether state systems were fully effective without reviewing local-level data. That disclaimer is absent from New Hampshire’s September 2026 report, which describes reviewing a sample of individualized family service plans (IFSPs) and case notes.

The following are OSEP’s findings:

Read more

The pattern appears across the following six cases:

• OCR’s 2017 review of restraint and seclusion across Southeastern Cooperative Educational Programs (SECEP).

• An individual SECEP complaint whose case number points to fiscal year 2019.

• A teacher’s 2015 complaint about Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) restraint-and-seclusion practices.

• A 2019 federal lawsuit that forced FCPS to change its restraint-and-seclusion practices before OCR finished the teacher’s complaint.

• OCR’s 2021 investigation and 2022 resolution agreement on FCPS’ pandemic-period practices.

• A 2024 Virginia state complaint over FCPS’ delayed follow-through on remedies tied to the 2022 OCR agreement.

SECEP: OCR Left an Entire Service Setting Out of Its File Review

OCR opened its SECEP review Aug. 29, 2017. It didn’t resolve the review until Dec. 16, 2022, more than five years later.

SECEP is a regional special and alternative education program run by eight Virginia school divisions. During the years OCR reviewed, about 85% of its about 1,200 students had disabilities. SECEP had five regional centers and about 70 special education classes inside about 50 comprehensive public schools.

During the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years, SECEP reported 15,713 uses of restraint and seclusion. Some files tied those measures to spitting, profanity, obscene gestures, and insubordination. The records didn’t show whether another danger was present. OCR expressed concerns that SECEP may have used restraint and seclusion to manage behavior instead of reserving them for the most dangerous conduct.

Records were also missing or inconsistent. Students lost large amounts of class time, and OCR found no evidence that SECEP gave them services to make up for those losses.

Additionally, OCR expressed concern that SECEP relied on informal safety or intervention meetings. OCR said they didn’t meet Section 504’s reevaluation rules and often didn’t lead to new evaluations, behavior assessments, revised behavior plans, or IEP meetings.

OCR reviewed 77 files of students with disabilities at SECEP’s five regional centers. It reviewed no individual files from SECEP programs inside comprehensive schools.

More than 100 students with disabilities in those school-based programs experienced restraint or seclusion in each year. About 30 students in 2016-17 and 35 in 2017-18 had at least 10 incidents. OCR later said some may have needed reevaluation.

OCR then required SECEP to review current students from either setting who had been restrained or secluded since 2016-17. However, the review was limited to students still enrolled when SECEP signed the agreement. Students who had left by Dec. 15, 2022, including those who left during OCR’s five-year review, were outside the review.

OCR Case 11-17-5001 Resolution Letter

439KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case 11-17-5001 Resolution Letter Resolution Agreement

219KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Individual SECEP Case Was Already Waiting

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 focused on a student who attended SECEP for seven days. During those seven days, staff used restraint or seclusion five times.

The student’s IEP and behavior plan didn’t mention either practice—and SECEP didn’t revise the behavior plan as the placing school division had advised.

After the third incident, SECEP held what it called a critical meeting. OCR couldn’t tell whether the parent took part or received advance notice. OCR also found no evidence that SECEP considered an IEP meeting to decide whether the student needed new supports, reevaluation or makeup services.

The exact filing date is redacted. The “19” in the case number suggests the complaint entered OCR’s system in fiscal year 2019.

OCR didn’t resolve the complaint until July 20, 2026. By then, the student had left SECEP. OCR’s resolution letter says the 2022 agreement addressed the student’s complaint only “in part,” separate relief was still needed, and OCR was still monitoring the older agreement.

If OCR already had the individual complaint while reviewing SECEP as a whole, why didn’t it address the student’s relief in the 2022 agreement?

SECEP’s quarterly assessments were due by Dec. 22, 2023. Student reviews were due by Dec. 31, 2023. Approved makeup services were to be completed by Dec. 20, 2024. Yet OCR was still monitoring the agreement in July 2026. Its public letter doesn’t say what remained unfinished or what the monitoring found.

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 Resolution Letter

224KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 Resolution Agreement

123KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

FCPS: Private Plaintiffs Reached Court Before OCR Finished

In 2015, a teacher in FCPS’ Comprehensive Services Site (CSS) program filed an OCR complaint related to the 2014-15 school year. OCR reviewed claims involving disability harassment, failure to follow students’ IEPs, race discrimination in discipline, discrimination against English learners, and restraint and seclusion.

OCR didn’t issue its resolution letter and agreement until Jan. 16, 2025, almost a decade later.

While OCR’s case remained open, six students with disabilities and several disability-rights groups sued FCPS in federal court in October 2019. FCPS records showed that the lead plaintiff had been restrained or secluded at least 745 times.

The parties settled in November 2021. The court-enforceable agreement required FCPS to ban seclusion in all schools by the start of the 2022-23 school year. It also banned several dangerous restraints, sharply limited others, addressed students’ communication needs, and required public reports.

OCR’s 2025 resolution letter noted that the lawsuit was filed while its case was open. OCR also remained concerned about possible denials of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the need for makeup services because the lawsuit didn’t include FAPE claims.

Private plaintiffs secured court-enforceable changes more than three years before OCR resolved the teacher’s complaint.

Where was OCR before the lawsuit? Why did the OCR case take until 2025? Why did OCR then wait almost seven more months, until Aug. 8, 2025, to post its resolution letter and agreement?

FCPS’s Pandemic Remedy Still Required a State Complaint

January 2021, OCR opened a directed investigation of FCPS’s pandemic-period practices.

November 2022, OCR found that FCPS failed or was unable to provide FAPE to thousands of students who have disabilities. OCR found that FCPS used an incorrect FAPE standard, cut or capped services for reasons other than each student’s needs, changed some placements without required evaluations and team decisions, and failed to create an adequate plan to fix those denials. OCR also raised concerns about poor service tracking.

The agreement required FCPS to name a qualified plan administrator, notify families, review each student’s case, and create an electronic tracking system by Jan. 17, 2023.

Public records obtained from FCPS later showed serious problems. November 2023, FCPS told OCR that data involving almost 400 students was corrupted and hard to use. The audit was put on hold. OCR followed up twice before FCPS responded. FCPS later said its report wasn’t pulling correct data and that some internal data couldn’t be recovered.

January 2025, FCPS told OCR that its system showed 283 meetings were still needed. FCPS said an audit found the correct number was 17.

Families were also waiting for makeup services and reimbursements already written into students’ IEPs.

I filed State Complaint C24-166 over FCPS’ delays and its use of a first-come, first-served queue to provide those remedies. May 31, 2024, Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) found FCPS at fault for systemic noncompliance for delays in implementing IEPs divisionwide, including makeup services and reimbursements.

It shouldn’t have taken a new complaint with another agency to make FCPS fully implement the IEPs in a timely manner.

Final Words

OCR moved too slowly, so others had to force the next step.

Oversite is no more than a piece of paper and hollow words if it isn’t enforced.

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Complaint No. 03-23-1279 and investigated the following allegation filed by the parent:

“[T]he District failed to make a reasonable modification to its policies when it denied the Student the opportunity to play on the School’s basketball team due to his grades, which were impacted by his disability.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, PGCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The district voluntarily signed a resolution agreement with OCR Aug. 6, 2026. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission of liability, non-compliance, or wrongdoing by the District.” However, the agreement requires PGCPS to take specific actions.

What Happened

During the 2022-23 school year, the student received special education services under an IEP for specific learning disabilities.

According to OCR, “At the time of filing, the Complainant asserted the Student’s academic performance was on or about the [redacted content] grade level in reading, writing, and math.” The parent also told OCR that the student’s low grades were affected by his disability and prevented him from playing basketball.

The student’s February 2022 IEP said he loved basketball and spent much of his free time playing. Notes from a March 2023 IEP meeting said he wanted to raise his grade point average so he could play sports.

The family asked PGCPS to set aside its academic rule and let the student play. The principal denied the request because of the student’s academic standing. The parent said that happened around Nov. 15, 2022.

PGCPS told OCR that it hadn’t allowed any student who failed to meet the academic rule to take part in athletics.

The Academic Eligibility Rule

At the time, PGCPS Administrative Procedure 5122 required high school students to maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average to take part in school sports and other activities.

The procedure allowed no exemptions, waivers or probation periods. A family could appeal only by challenging a course grade.

Administrative Procedure 5146 said students covered by Section 504 had the same chance to take part in activities as other students. It said a student’s 504 plan could include needed accommodations. It also states that “Students with disabilities must meet the same academic eligibility requirements as their non-disabled peers…”

The Grades Weren’t the Whole Story

During the same school year, the family raised concerns that PGCPS wasn’t adequately addressing the student’s needs under his IEP. The family filed a complaint with Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) alleging the district had denied the student a FAPE.

PGCPS voluntarily agreed to resolve that complaint by providing 60 hours of reading instruction and 30 hours of instruction and tutoring in math and written language. The family accepted the offer. The state considered the complaint resolved as of Feb. 28, 2023.

OCR specifically noted that the information it reviewed in the student’s March 2023 IEP “did not indicate whether the Student’s grades were impacted by any potentially denied FAPE services or if the grades were adjusted after the Student received compensatory services.”

OCR’s Concerns

Read more

SECEP is a public regional special education program jointly overseen by eight Virginia school divisions: Virginia Beach City, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Franklin City, Suffolk, Southampton County, and Isle of Wight County.

OCR styled the complaint as Case No. 11-19-1090. The complaint alleged that SECEP discriminated against the student based on disability when it secluded him during a redacted school year, denying him a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Before OCR completed its investigation, SECEP expressed interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint. SECEP signed a resolution agreement with OCR on July 13, 2026.

The agreement states that it doesn’t “constitute an admission by SECEP of a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), or any other law enforced by OCR.”

The Timeline Is the Story

OCR was already examining SECEP’s use of restraint and seclusion under a separate systemic compliance review, OCR Case No. 11-17-5001.

OCR opened that review Aug. 29, 2017, to examine whether SECEP denied FAPE to students who had disabilities when it restrained or secluded them. It didn’t resolve the review until Dec. 16, 2022, more than five years later.

Read more

Now the Fourth Circuit has ordered that the private school remains the student’s stay-put placement while both sides’ appeals continue.

The placement is protected for now, but the payment dispute remains unresolved.

Here’s What Happened

Due Process Appeal and Background

When I last wrote about Prince William County School Board v. Lassiter, the parents had prevailed before both a due process hearing officer and a federal district court judge.

February 29, 2024, a Virginia due process hearing officer found that Prince William County Public Schools failed to provide the student with a FAPE. The hearing officer found that a specific private school could provide the student with a FAPE, ordered that the student continue there at public expense and directed the division to convene an IEP meeting placing the student at the private school.

PWCSB challenged the decision in federal court.

November 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston denied PWCSB’s motion for judgment. He found that the school board’s motion sought relief “untethered” to the claims in its complaint and that its prospective placement arguments rested on a “broad misreading” of the hearing officer’s decision.

He also found that the hearing officer had made the private school part of the IEP process, which meant the placement remained subject to annual review. PWCSB could continue reviewing the student’s needs and proposing a different IEP.

I ended my previous article by asking the following:

“The student will be a high school senior next year. Will PWCSB go the pragmatic route and pay for her to finish high school at the school in which she’s been enrolled for her first three years of high school?”

We now have an answer.

PWCSB chose to continue litigating.

How the Original Victory Was Narrowed

According to the parties’ later filings, the parents paid the remaining 2025-26 private school tuition in advance and sought reimbursement. PWCSB reimbursed the parents $6,700 but disputed whether it owed the remainder.

December 4, 2025, PWCSB filed a motion asking Judge Alston to clarify two points:

1. “With respect to the current school year, PWCS does not owe reimbursement for the entire year even though Parents have already prepaid the tuition for the entire year, rather PWCS’ reimbursement obligation ends on the date that a new IEP takes effect; and,

2. “A new IEP “takes effect” and is “in effect” on the date that it is proposed by PWCS pursuant to 8VAC20-81-110(B)(1) and not the date it is “consented to” by the Parents pursuant to 8VAC20-81-110(B)(2)(d).”

December 4, 2025: Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Final Order

108KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

December 4, 2025: Plaintiff's Brief in Support of its Motion for Clarification of Final Order

501KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The parents opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion Dec. 12, 2025, asking the court to require PWCSB to show cause for its alleged failure to comply with the earlier orders. The parents maintained that the private school remained the student’s stay-put placement.

December 12, 2025: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Final Order and Cross-Motion to Show-Cause

149KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

On April 22, 2026, Judge Alston granted the school board’s clarification motion. He held that the November opinion hadn’t determined that every amount shown on the parents’ Nov. 4, 2025, tuition receipt was due. He also rejected the argument that paying the tuition in advance required PWCSB to reimburse the entire 2025-26 school year.

April 22, 2026: Judge Alston's Order

1.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Judge Alston concluded that the district court proceedings and the associated stay-put obligation ended Dec. 16, 2025. He ordered PWCSB to document reimbursement through Dec. 16 or the date a new IEP went into effect, whichever was later.

He also ruled that the new IEP could take effect without the parents’ consent. Judge Alston distinguished between an IEP being “in effect” and PWCSB implementing the IEP’s services, which would require parental consent:

“Finally, the parties dispute whether the “takes effect” language used by the Court in reference to a new lEP obligates PWCS to continue to pay The Wakefield School tuition until the Parents consent to a new lEP. The short answer in this regard is no. Such a construction of the Court’s Opinion would permit the Parents to circumvent the main thrust of the decision on the merits; that is, “[b]y making Student’s placement at The Wakefield School part of the lEP, the Hearing Officer made that placement subject to the annual review process for lEPs.’’ Dkt. 75 at 22. Moreover, the Court’s use of the language “takes effecf’ is consistent with the language in 8 VAC 20-81-110(B) which provides that “each local educational agency shall have an lEP in effect for each child with a disability” and that such plan is “in effect before special education and related services are provided.” 8 VAC 20-81-110(B)(1) and (2)(a). This is to be contrasted with the references to “implementation” which require parental consent. 8 VAC 20-81-110(B)(2)(d). Of note, the Parents did not address this argument in their Opposition/Motion to Show Cause.

PWCSB Reported Paying Through December 26

May 21, 2026, PWCSB filed an affidavit from Amanda Mallory, its director of procedural support and compliance. Mallory stated that an IEP meeting occurred Dec. 16, 2025, and that the IEP was “fully proposed” to the parents Dec. 26. For purposes of complying with the April order, Mallory used Dec. 26, 2025, as the date the new IEP took effect.

May 21, 2026: Prince William County School Board Affidavit of Amanda Mallory

362KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

PWCSB calculated that six tuition installments of $3,350 had become due by Dec. 26, for a total of $20,100. After subtracting the earlier $6,700 reimbursement, PWCSB calculated that it owed another $13,400. Mallory stated that a $13,400 check was delivered to the parents’ home May 21, 2026, and asserted that PWCSB had fully complied with the court’s orders.

Both Sides Appealed

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Complaint No. 07-26-1286 and processed it through its Rapid Resolution Process, an expedited approach OCR may use during the evaluation stage or after it formally notifies the parties that it has opened an investigation.

OCR investigated whether SPS failed to evaluate a student who, because of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), “needed or was believed to need” special education or related services before SPS took action concerning the student’s initial placement in regular or special education.

According to OCR, the complainant alleged the following:

“The Complainant asserted that one of the Student’s teachers (Teacher) discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability when, after the Complainant had provided the District with notice of the Student’s condition, the Teacher yelled at the students during class, which made the Student cry, and indicated that the Student does not have “[c]ommon sense.””

Although the allegation quoted by OCR focused on the teacher’s conduct, the issue OCR investigated centered on whether SPS had evaluated the student under Section 504.

Before OCR completed its investigation, SPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. SPS voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement July 6, 2026. OCR issued its resolution letter two days later. Because the matter was resolved before the investigation concluded, OCR didn’t make a final determination that SPS violated federal law. However, it did require corrective actions.

What Happened

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 07-26-1501 and investigated whether BCPS failed to implement provisions in a student’s Section 504 Plan and, if so, whether that failure denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

The complaint alleged the following:

“The Complainant alleged the District failed to implement the Student’s Section 504 Plan during the 2025-26 school year. She stated the Student has Type 1 Diabetes and needs constant monitoring of his blood sugar levels. The Complainant stated the District often neglected to monitor the Student’s levels, causing him to have dangerous levels on several occasions.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, BCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. BCPS voluntarily signed a resolution agreement with OCR July 1, 2026. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission of liability, non-compliance, or wrongdoing by the District.” However, the agreement requires BCPS to take specific actions.

What Happened

Read more

That should have been the simple part.

However . . .

The trouble started when PRS decided what it would, and wouldn’t, investigate.

Let’s Start with the “Request for Local Response”

The parent’s complaint raised three overlapping allegations involving two points in time. The first concerned MGRSD’s decision to treat the student’s OT as suspended after the provider became unavailable. The second concerned MGRSD’s response after the parent learned of the suspension and requested an IEP Team meeting.

The parent alleged the following in her complaint:

“1. Failure to Implement the IEP

“(34 C.F.R. § 300.323; 603 CMR 28.03(3))

“The District failed to fully implement [Student’s] accepted IEP by suspending Occupational Therapy services.

“Under federal and Massachusetts law, the District must ensure that all services in the IEP are delivered as written. Staffing shortages or provider absences do not excuse non-implementation.

“2. Failure to Convene the IEP Team

“(34 C.F.R. § 300.324; 603 CMR 28.04(2))

“The District made a material change to [Student]’s service delivery—specifically, stopping OT services—without convening the IEP Team.

“Massachusetts regulations require that the Team, including the parent, determine any changes to services. The District also failed to respond to my request for a Team meeting, violating procedural requirements and my right to participate in educational decision-making.

“3. Failure to Provide Prior Written Notice (N1)

“(34 C.F.R. § 300.503; 603 CMR 28.05(1))

“The District failed to provide required Prior Written Notice (N1) regarding:

• The suspension of OT services (a change in the provision of FAPE); and

• Its refusal or failure to act on my request for an IEP Team meeting.

“Massachusetts requires districts to provide written notice whenever they propose or refuse to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of FAPE.”

April 15, 2026, PRS issued its Request for Local Response (RFLR). It stated it would investigate the following:

“Whether the District provided the Student with occupational therapy (“OT”) services in accordance withs [sic] her Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) during the 2025-2026 school year between when the period without an OT provider began and April 13, 2026.”

PRS also stated it wouldn’t review the following:

“1. The Complainant alleged that the District failed to reconvene the IEP Team and did not provide prior written notice in response to the Complainant’s requests from March 2026 and April 2026.”

PRS explained:

“The Department will not investigate this matter further because there was no alleged noncompliance of state or federal education laws or regulations. There is no specific timeline required by state or federal regulation regarding reconvening the IEP Team upon parental request.”

Concern:

PRS reduced several distinct legal questions to one timing issue.

The parent didn’t just allege that MGRSD missed a fixed deadline for holding an IEP team meeting. The parent alleged that MGRSD first suspended a required IEP service without convening the IEP team or issuing prior written notice. The parent then requested an IEP team meeting, but MGRSD neither convened the meeting nor issued prior written notice stating that it was refusing the request.

The complaint therefore raised two sets of IEP team meeting and prior written notice questions.

First, was the OT suspension just a failure to implement an unchanged IEP, or was it also a service-delivery decision that required IEP team involvement or prior written notice?

Second, did MGRSD’s response amount to a refusal to reconvene the IEP team and, if so, did that refusal require prior written notice?

It’s correct that IDEA doesn’t prescribe one fixed number of days for every parent-requested IEP Team meeting.

However, U.S. Department of Education (ED) guidance states that a parent may request an IEP team meeting at any time. If the LEA refuses the request, it must provide written notice explaining why it believes a meeting isn’t necessary to ensure FAPE. IDEA also requires prior written notice a reasonable time before a public agency proposes or refuses to initiate or change the provision of FAPE.

IDEA also allows changes to an IEP after the annual meeting without reconvening the full IEP team when the parent and public agency agree to develop a written amendment. However, prior written notice is still required when an IEP is amended without an IEP meeting.

So . . .

The absence of a fixed meeting deadline didn’t dispose of the allegations.

PRS still needed to determine whether MGRSD’s suspension of OT was solely a failure to implement an unchanged IEP or also a service-delivery decision that triggered an IEP team meeting or prior written notice requirements.

It separately needed to determine whether MGRSD’s response to the parent amounted to a refusal to convene the IEP team and, if so, whether prior written notice was required.

It didn’t.

When the parent later submitted additional information explaining that the interruption occurred outside the IEP team process and without an N1, PRS responded:

“As a reminder, PRS is investigating the following issue in PRS 15836: Whether the District provided the Student with occupational therapy (‘OT’) services in accordance withs [sic] her Individualized Education Program (‘IEP’) during the 2025-2026 school year between when the period without an OT provider began and April 13, 2026.”

IDEA requires a state complaint to identify an alleged violation and provide the supporting facts. It doesn’t require a parent to identify every applicable regulation or draft a perfect legal brief.

The parent provided the facts.

PRS still had to apply the correct law to them.

Instead, it removed issues from the investigation.

PRS Didn’t Apply the Massachusetts Regulation Fit for This Situation

Read more

The findings fall within the two general areas of dispute resolution and …

Read more

OCR styled the matter as OCR Case Number 15-24-1834.

The complaint was filed August 7, 2024, and alleged that PCA discriminated against a former student on the basis of disability when:

”1. the Academy removed the Student from tutoring services because of disability-related behavior in January 2024; and

“2. the Academy failed to implement her January 30, 2024, Individualized Education Program (IEP) from January 30 through May 15, 2024, by not providing her with the Academy’s after-school tutoring.”

Before OCR completed its investigation of the first allegation, PCA expressed interest in resolving it. PCA voluntarily signed a resolution agreement June 22, 2026. The agreement doesn’t constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

What Happened

Read more

OCR styled the matter as OCR Docket No. 03-25-1460 and investigated:

“whether the District’s online programs, services, and activities exclude qualified persons with disabilities from participation in, deny them the benefits of, or otherwise subject them to discrimination under any program or activity, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35. . . .

“whether the District fails to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as its communication with others, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a).”

That same day, CRSD signed a resolution agreement with OCR to voluntarily resolve the investigation under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual.

A Note About Section 302

OCR’s letter doesn’t use the language that has often appeared in other resolution letters stating that a district expressed interest in resolving a complaint before OCR completed its investigation. It states only that CRSD signed the agreement under Section 302.

Under Section 302:

“Allegations under investigation may be resolved at any time when, prior to the point when the Regional Office issues a final determination under CPM Section 303, the recipient expresses an interest in resolving the allegations and OCR determines that it is appropriate to resolve them because OCR’s investigation has identified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement. The provisions of the resolution agreement must be tied to the allegations and the evidence obtained during the investigation, and will be consistent with applicable regulations.”

This means the agreement shouldn’t be described as a violation finding or as a finding that CRSD complied. OCR ended the investigation after identifying possible compliance concerns that it determined could be addressed through the agreement.

What Happened

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 06-24-1873 and investigated the following allegation:

“[T]the District discriminates against students with disabilities as the playground located at Tarkington Elementary School (School) is inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments.”

Before OCR completed its investigation or made a final determination, TISD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. TISD signed a resolution agreement with OCR July 16, 2026.

OCR didn’t determine that TISD violated federal law. The agreement states that TISD entered into it “without admitting any violation of law.” However, OCR identified the following compliance concerns:

“The apparent absence of an accessible route from the school building to the playground and swing sets raises concerns under the accessibility requirements of Section 504, Title II, and the 2010 ADA Standards, which require an accessible route composed of a firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface. Natural grass does not meet these requirements and cannot serve as an accessible route.

“Similarly, the wood-mulch surfacing in both the playground and swing-set areas appears uneven and therefore may not meet the Standards’ requirements for accessible ground surfaces within a play area. Uneven or unstable mulch can impede accessibility for individuals with mobility impairments and may not satisfy the requirement that surfaces be firm, stable, and maintained.

“Based on these observations, OCR identified compliance concerns involving the ostensible absence of an accessible route from the school building to the playground and swing sets and relating to the possibly inaccessible ground surfaces in both areas.”

What Happened

Read more

Complaint and Allegations

The complaint was filed by the parent of a student enrolled in an MGRSD school.

The complaint alleged the following three violations:

• “Failure to Implement the IEP: The District failed to fully implement [Student’s] accepted IEP by suspending Occupational Therapy services.”

• “Failure to Convene the IEP Team: The District made a material change to [Student’s] service delivery — specifically, stopping OT services — without convening the IEP Team.”

• “Failure to Provide Prior Written Notice (N1): The District failed to provide required Prior Written Notice (N1) regarding: The suspension of OT services (a change in the provision of FAPE); and its refusal or failure to act on my request for an IEP Team meeting.”

What MDESE Investigated

MDESE didn’t frame the investigation exactly as the parent framed the complaint.

The complaint alleged failure to implement the IEP, failure to convene the IEP Team, and failure to provide Prior Written Notice.

MDESE narrowed the issue to whether MGRSD provided the student with OT services in accordance with the student’s IEP during the 2025-26 school year, between the start of the period without an OT provider and April 13, 2026.

*TK: Special Education Action will publish a follow-up article unpacking MDESE’s finding, including the issues MDESE did and did not address.

Findings

Read more

• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Finds Mount Greylock Regional School District in Noncompliance with IDEA After Student’s OT Services Were Put “On Hold”

• *Unpacking article to come . . . Tune in for more later.

Issues:

• Failure to Implement the IEP: Whether the district failed to fully implement [Student’s] accepted IEP by suspending occupational therapy (OT) services.

• Failure to Convene the IEP Team: Whether the district made a material change to [Student’s] service delivery—specifically, stopping OT services—without convening the IEP Team.

• Failure to Provide Prior Written Notice (N1): Whether the district failed to provide required Prior Written Notice (N1) regarding 1) the suspension of OT services (a change in the provision of FAPE) and 2) its refusal or failure to respond to parent’s request for an IEP Team meeting.

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more