OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 01-25-1573 and investigated the following allegation:

“[T]he District is discrimi…

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focuses on the bigger picture. The second article focuses on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. The third article focuses on deference to educators. The fourth article focuses on the problems of evaluating a student’s barriers instead of the student, and this article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: parent behavior.

Parent Behavior vs Substantive Grounds

The legal question in an IDEA due process hearing isn’t whether the parent was pleasant. It’s whether the school division provided the child a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

This distinction matters because parents in special education disputes are often judged by their tone. They’re called difficult or abusive, accused of badgering staff, and their emails and frustrations are picked apart and become part of the school division’s defense.

And yet . . .

IDEA doesn’t require parents to be pleasant, to be calm, or to prioritize the feelings of the same public employees whose actions, inactions, and/or decisions may have denied FAPE or caused serious educational and/or emotional harm.

This issue arose during the due process hearing and appeared in the hearing officer’s decision.

FCPS cross-examined the mother and advocate about emails containing disparaging comments about FCPS personnel. The hearing officer described the comments as uncivil and said it was “unwise to put it in writing,” even though the comments were not intended for others to read. But she also recognized that the mother is the parent of the child, that she was emotional and crying at times, and that “some leeway should be given the Mother.” She also noted that criticisms made by the petitioners in their opening and reply briefs “are no different than the SD criticism of the Mother and the advocate.” Her bottom line was the right one:

“This is contested litigation. The focus remains on the best interest of the Student.”

That should be the rule. Instead, the behavior is often the focus—and FCPS’s lawyers have been blaming parents for years, just as they’ve been arguing for educator deference for years (see article three in this series).

In this case, the record summarized in the decision shows why the parent was frustrated. The mother testified that FCPS hadn’t implemented the June 2023 IEP, trained staff, or provided letterboards, and that a year had passed and the school still hadn’t implemented the training. Then there’s the fact that FCPS significantly underestimated the student’s abilities—something the parents, the student, the student’s CRP, the IEE evaluator who worked with the student, and the advocate all knew. Imagine the frustration level.

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 05-26-1394 and investigated the following allegation:

“[T]hat the District discriminated against a student (Student A) on the basis of disability when it failed to implement provisions of his Individualized Education Program (IEP) during the 2025-2026 school year and excluded him from a field trip.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, the district expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The resolution agreement is dated May 12, 2026. However, OCR’s May 15 letter states that the district signed the agreement May 13, 2026.

OCR didn’t make a final violation finding. Instead, it stated that its investigation had “identified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement.” OCR also stated it had concerns that the student’s IEP may not have been fully implemented and that the district may not have considered whether reasonable modifications were needed to avoid disability discrimination.

What Happened

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focuses on the bigger picture. The second article focuses on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. The third article focuses on deference to educators. This article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: you can’t measure what a student knows while blocking how the student communicates.

Evaluating Barriers Instead of the Student

FCPS previously relied on data and goals that significantly underestimated the student’s abilities.

That is supported by the testimony of Dr. William Ling and by the hearing officer’s own observations of the student during the hearing. The following comes from the hearing officer’s decision:

“When asked questions about The Invisible Kid, he responded that the story was about a reflection of what it is like living in a body that refuses to listen to his brain and “those that never see me for who I truly am.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.14-15) He was able to identify Emily and Celia as his current IAs who are training in S2C to support him. The Student briefly turned around and smiled. There were times, at this point, that he would lift up his left hand and either touch or scratch his face. He was able to identify the letter he wrote to his friend Noah where he expressed “frustration....the thing I know is that Emily and Celia certainly care about me.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.24). At this time, he was not sitting straight and Ms. Berg prompted him to reposition himself. Then he blurted out something. When asked about his experience with Dr. Ling, he responded that it “was exciting....with appropriate support...to show my intelligence.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.26)

“At this time, observers were coming in and out of the hearing room. The undersigned told them to be respectful and not cause distraction as this was the child’s opportunity to testify. In addition, someone’s vehicle was blocking the school buses which caused an issue. After this, the Student seemed to be able to maintain focus and respond to questions while making audible sounds. When asked about a letter to the Superintendent, he responded that he was “frustrated....that nothing had changed....I am advocating for presuming competence and understanding apraxia and they had a hard time with both at Oakton.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.28-29) Then a 10 minute recess was taken. The Student got up and paced back and forth in the area behind the school district attorneys. Once the hearing reconvened the Student continued to make audible sounds. When asked about absences, bathroom breaks and English, he responded that he had challenges staying regulated and in control of his body. The Student briefly switched to letterboard but when asked, he responded he preferred keyboard. (3/26/26 Tr. P.39).

“He testified about the difficulty of being in class when the person supporting him has not learned the letterboard well. He explained that he is then unable to communicate at a level that demonstrates his intelligence, and that it is challenging to express opinions when he is limited in what he can spell. He expressed appreciation for Emily and Celia as his current IAs training tobecome CRPs, and also explained that progress had been slow. (3/26/26 Tr. P.14-44). Despite having testified for approximately two and a half hours, he opted to continue with cross examination. He continued to make audible sounds. The SD attorney asked him who he uses S2C with and he responded “Kelly, Mom, Dad, Emily and Celia.” He was able to explain that depending on who he was partnered with, would decide whether to use laminate, letterboards or keyboards. He understood the training where individuals begin with stencils and then work with a hierarchy of boards. He noted that he always spells with a keyboard with Kelly Berg. (3/26/26 Tr. P.42)

“A ten minute recess occurred then the parties reconvened. The Student described his favorite classes. He did not want to re-take classes where he got a poor grade. (3/26/26 Tr. P. 46) He is able to navigate his iPad and phone for access photos, games, and videos. He expressed the desire to graduate high school and then take some local college classes and participate in advocacy work. (3/26/26 Tr. P. 48)

“Every time the Student was directed to review an Exhibit, his mother would hold the Exhibit up for him. When his posture changed, Ms. Berg would either tap the back of his chair or lift up the keyboard. She would position the keyboard in the same manner and he would continue typing using his right hand index finger. He then switched to letterboard; the Student pointed to the letter while Ms. Berg audibly calls out the letter he pointed to. At one point he got up from his chair and walked around the area. He was pacing back and forth all and making audible sounds.

“The Student again would use his left hand to either touch or scratch his face while still making audible sounds. He got up again to walk, pacing back and forth. His father redirected him and he sat down. Near the end of this testimony, he brought both his hands to his face, shaking and bouncing in the chair. Then scratching his ears. The Student, near the end, started typing faster.

“Ms. Berg emailed a copy of the transcript to all the parties.

“The Student was a credible witness, appeared competent, smart, respectful, and trying hard to regulate his body. His testimony was compelling and observing him in real time was significant. He displayed remarkable patience/control having testified for most of the morning, and he had a good bond with his CRP as he appeared very comfortable with her. He expressed appreciation for his IA-CRPs, Emily and Celia. His testimony is given substantial weight because it directly addressed his communication, the effect of a trained CRP support, and the supports he requires to participate meaningfully in school.”

This matters because the student’s testimony did more than show that he could communicate. It showed why the method of communication controlled what adults could accurately measure.

If he was assessed without the communication support he needed, the assessment risked measuring the barrier instead of the student.

Dr. Ling’s Evaluation

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 07-26-1328 and investigated the following allegation:

“[W]hether the District discriminated against the Complainant’s child (the Student) on the basis of disability by denying the Student the ability to qualify for valedictorian, in violation of Section 504, 34 C.F.R. § 104.4, Title II, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, RPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. May 11, 2026, RPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission of liability, non-compliance, or wrongdoing by the District.”

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated that “the District’s initial application of its valedictorian policy may have discriminated against the Student based on disability.”

What Happened

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focused on the bigger picture. The second article in this series focused on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. This article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: deference to educators.

Deference Isn’t a Shortcut Around Evidence

For many parents of students who have disabilities, the phrase “deference to educators” lands like a bomb blowing up all hopes that the process is neutral. It can feel like the school division’s witnesses start ahead because they work for the school division, while the parent, student, private evaluators, and so on have to climb uphill just to be believed.

Respect for educator judgment can make sense. Educators make professional decisions based on what they know at the time. However . . . Deference has limits. It isn’t a shortcut around the evidence. This is one reason Chong’s May 23, 2026, due process decision is important.

FCPS argued the following:

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. Case No.11-22-1358. Its letter of findings redacts the school's name, but the resolution agreement identifies Murch Elementary School as the school whose staff must receive training.

OCR investigated whether:

• “discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by failing to evaluate the Student during the 2021-2022 school year despite information that she needed special education or related services . . .

• “discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to respond to the Complainant’s disability discrimination complaint filed on [redacted content]; and . . .

• “discriminated against the Student on the basis of race (Black) by failing to contact the Complainant prior to administering a COVID-19 test on the Student. . .”

Before OCR completed its investigation, DCPS asked to resolve the disability-related concerns under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. OCR agreed because its investigation had identified concerns that could be addressed through a resolution agreement.

DCPS signed the agreement June 4, 2026. The agreement states that it isn’t an admission of a violation of Section 504, Title II, or any other law enforced by OCR.

OCR didn’t issue a final compliance determination on the Section 504 evaluation and grievance allegations. Instead, OCR identified compliance concerns and accepted DCPS’s agreement to resolve them.

OCR found insufficient evidence that DCPS discriminated against the student on the basis of race.

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focused on the bigger picture. This article drills into one of the decision’s most important legal points: a professional organization’s general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP.

In this case, the organization is American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). The issue is ASHA’s position on Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and related methods.

FCPS argued “that the methodology was unconventional, rare, and never been used.” Aside from this being inaccurate, FCPS’s concerns were irrelevant. IEP team members proposed the method within the IEP and the parent consented. FCPS staff members who comprised the student’s IEP team after he transitioned to high school had the right to raise concerns, but they didn’t have the right to delay or refuse to implement the IEP created by their colleagues at a different school.

This Was an IEP Implementation Case

The student’s June 2023 IEP stated that, due to the student’s unique disability-related needs, his “primary preferred communication method” required a letterboard to spell his communication, and that his fluency required support from a trusted and familiar person trained in that communication method. Both FCPS and the parents agreed that the June 2023 IEP was the student’s stay-put IEP.

That language controlled the case.

FCPS had an IEP and the IEP included communication access. If FCPS believed the IEP needed to be changed, IDEA provided a process. Changes could be made by the IEP team or through an agreed written amendment. If FCPS proposed or refused to change the student’s identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of FAPE, it had to provide prior written notice. Simply not implementing the IEP wasn’t an option.

The Letterboard Language Didn’t Come From Nowhere

One of the key facts in the decision is that the letterboard was not some unknown method that suddenly appeared at the high school’s door.

FCPS records from 2021 and 2022 already referenced the student spelling, typing, using a letterboard, and spelling functional needs such as “allergies,” “headache,” “break,” and “lights off.” The hearing officer found that, although the acronym S2C may not have appeared in those earlier records, the absence of the acronym didn’t mean FCPS lacked knowledge of the student’s letterboard communication.

The decision also supports that the June 2023 IEP language was not simply a parent demand imposed on educators. The mother testified that the middle school team was supportive and collaborative, that the team discussed how to set the student up for success in high school, and that the letterboard language was an IEP team decision, not simply a parent request.

This wasn’t a case of parents versus educators. FCPS educators helped place the communication access language in the IEP. Then, when the student transitioned to high school, different FCPS leadership and specialists questioned, doubted, and delayed implementation of the support already written into the IEP.

When High School and Central Office Staff Disagreed, the IEP Still Controlled

Dawn Schaefer, director of FCPS’s Office of Special Education Procedural Support, testified that FCPS wanted to understand how the communication method would look in the classroom. She wanted to observe prompting, positioning, and how much of the communication was coming from the partner as compared to the student. She also acknowledged that FCPS was required to implement the June 2023 IEP as written and that the smooth transition to the high school didn’t happen.

The high school speech-language pathologist (SPL) who worked with the student testified that she believed the student’s AAC device remained important because it didn’t require a communication partner, and she raised concerns about S2C, including independent authorship and emergency communication. All of these are legitimate topics for an IEP team to discuss.

However . . .

Her disagreement didn’t void the IEP. If FCPS believed the IEP was inappropriate, unsafe, unclear, or inconsistent with professional practice, it had options. It could observe the student, collect data, propose evaluations, convene the IEP team, and make a different proposal.

FCPS did not have the right to treat the IEP as optional.

The SLP Chose Not to Observe

The most revealing part of the SLP’s testimony was not that she disagreed with S2C. It was that she maintained her position without observing the student using the communication support at issue.

The following are two exchanges between the hearing officer and speech-language pathologist.

Hearing officer: Why haven’t you observed him with his CRP?
Speech-language pathologist: Because it is not that independent work.
Hearing officer: So is it that you don’t want to observe it, or you came to the conclusion that it’s not his independent work?
Speech-language pathologist: I don’t believe it’s his work.

Hearing officer: What harm would it have done for you to observe him?
Speech-language pathologist: It probably wouldn’t have done anything. I just didn’t. I don’t believe in it, and I didn’t.

It’s one thing to have professional concerns. It’s entirely something else to refuse to observe the student working with his CRP and insist the student’s CRP-supported work isn’t his own.

The hearing officer gave the SLP’s opinion about the student’s use of the letterboard limited weight because she didn’t observed him with his CRPs and because she appeared rigid in her view.

Had she observed him, the SLP would have seen what you can view in the video below of the student spelling with Kelly Berg, of Growing Kids Therapy Center. The video has been sped up because spelling this way is time-consuming. While this isn’t a video of the student’s testimony, it provides an example of what those attending the hearing witnessed. The board stays in the same position. There is no prompting the student to choose a specific letter.

ASHA’s Position Didn’t Rewrite the IEP

FCPS’s SLP testified that she is a member of ASHA and that ASHA takes the position that S2C is not evidence-based and should not be used. ASHA’s public materials state that ASHA doesn’t recommend Rapid Prompting Method, also known as Spelling to Communicate (S2C), due to concerns about scientific validity, prompt dependency, and authorship. On its site, ASHA claims:

Read more

The decision is significant in Virginia, too. A 2025 external review of Virginia’s special education dispute resolution system reported that, between school years 2015-16 and 2019-20, parents fully prevailed in only four of 47 fully adjudicated due process hearings, with split decisions in four more. JLARC’s 2020 report similarly found that, between school years 2010-11 and 2019-20, parents fully or partially prevailed in only 17 percent of fully adjudicated due process hearings.

The decision states that the student is eligible for special education under Autism and Significant Communication Needs. It also identifies diagnoses reported in the amended due process complaint, including ADHD, autism, apraxia, sensory processing disorder, and anxiety. The June 1, 2023, IEP stated that, because of the student’s disability-related needs, his primary preferred communication method required a letterboard to spell his communication, and that his fluency required support from a trusted and familiar individual trained in that communication method.

That language became the center of the case.

Read more

OSEP stated that the purpose of the letter was to provide an update on the required actions identified in OSEP’s September 21, 2023, DMS monitoring report. The May 2026 letter responded to documents NYSED submitted to OSEP in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. OSEP determined that NYSED “satisfied all of the original required actions” from the September 2023 monitoring report.

May 6, 2026: DMS closeout letter for New York State Education Department

375KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

So Much for Deadlines . . .

The 2023 DMS report required NYSED to submit revised policies and procedures within 90 days and evidence of implementation as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of the monitoring report. OSEP did not close all of the findings until May 6, 2026. The close-out letter states that NYSED continued submitting documents to OSEP in 2025 and 2026. The letter does not identify any penalty or sanction tied to the missed original deadlines.

The 2023 DMS report identified the following findings of IDEA Part B noncompliance:

“Monitoring and Improvement

“1.1 OSEP finds that NYSED does not consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators; (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with IDEA, including any relevant audit findings, when making annual determinations about the performance of its LEAs.

“1.2 OSEP finds that NYSED does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to identify and verify correction of noncompliance in a timely manner using its different components, as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602.

“Dispute Resolution: State Complaints

“2.1 OSEP finds that NYSED does not have reasonable procedures to ensure that State complaints held in abeyance pending a due process hearing decision are properly resolved. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 and 300.152(c).

“2.2 OSEP finds that NYSED does not ensure that State complaints, which allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is received, are ultimately investigated and resolved as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c).

“Dispute Resolution: Due Process Hearings

“3.1 OSEP finds that the NYSED does not ensure that public agencies issue timely due process hearing decisions as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515.

“3.2 OSEP finds that NYSED does not provide adequate written notice to parents regarding the differences in the rights afforded to parents in IDEA due process hearings as compared to the rights afforded to parents who elect to participate in the accelerated review process including the IDEA due process rights that parents forfeit if they participate in the accelerated review process. 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(c).

“3.3 OSEP finds that NYSED does not have mechanisms in place to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable time set by the State as required under IDEA, as required in 34 C.F.R §§ 300.511through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600.”

What the Close-Out Letter Does and Does Not Mean

The May 2026 letter means OSEP determined NYSED satisfied the original corrective actions from the September 2023 DMS report. It does not mean OSEP found that every local IDEA violation in New York has been resolved. OSEP’s original 2023 report stated that its review did not examine IDEA implementation by all LEAs in the state and that OSEP could not determine whether the state’s systems were fully effective without reviewing local-level data.

The close-out letter also does not end federal attention on NYSED. For example, OSEP closed out issue 3.2, but made a point of stating the following:

“OSEP recognizes that the State has a high volume of due process complaints filed annually and will continue to monitor the State’s progress in implementing the policies and procedures that address the timely resolution and implementation of hearing decisions. OSEP notes that future DMS monitoring will include further review of the State’s dispute resolution system.”

February 29, 2024, OSEP issued another DMS report involving New York. That report focused on IDEA Part C and identified more than a dozen findings of noncompliance. That Part C report is separate from the May 2026 Part B close-out letter.

Why This Matters for Families

A close-out letter is not the same thing as saying every problem is gone. It means OSEP determined NYSED submitted enough evidence to satisfy the original corrective actions from the 2023 Part B monitoring report.

This the real takeaway: NYSED knew it had problems, OSEP required corrective actions, and OSEP did not close all of the original findings until May 2026.

Families can use these DMS findings to ask better questions and hold local education agencies and the state accountable. If similar problems continue locally, parents can document what is happening, cite the federal findings, use state complaint or due process procedures, and/or flag systemic concerns to OSEP. A close-out letter shouldn’t be treated as proof that every underlying problem has disappeared.

May 5, 2026, IDEA Part B DMS report submitted to New Hampshire Department of Education

557KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

August 2025, OSEP conducted interviews with representatives from various state agencies, “reviewed publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents the State submitted to OSEP” and “solicited feedback from various groups of parents, the public, and local level staff to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s system of general supervision.”

OSEP stated its review “did not include an examination of the implementation of IDEA Part B requirements by all local educational agencies (LEAs)”. Because of this, OSEP said it couldn’t determine “whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these requirements without reviewing data at the local level.” However, OSEP did make the following key findings:

“Monitoring and Improvement

“1.1 OSEP finds that the State is not timely identifying noncompliance when monitoring LEAs, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602.

“1.2 OSEP finds that the State allows LEAs to self-select evidence and files for review when determining the LEAs’ compliance with IDEA and verifying correction related to SPP/APR Indicator B-13 of the SPP/APR, which is inconsistent with. 20 U.S.C. § 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e).

“1.3 OSEP finds that the State does not have a system to monitor compliance with the IDEA Part B 619 preschool requirements to ensure that children participating in early intervention programs under IDEA Part C, and who will participate in preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and effective transition, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149(b), 303.209(d)(1)(i) and (ii), 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.

“1.4 OSEP finds that the State does not consider correction of identified noncompliance and other data available about the LEA’s compliance with IDEA to include any relevant audit findings when making an annual determination on the performance of each LEA, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(d)(2), 1434, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(a)(2) and 300.603(b).

“Data

“2.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have policies and procedures to meet the data reporting requirements of IDEA Sections 616 and 618 and 20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(f), 1416, 1418, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.

“Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

“3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed general supervision system, including policies and procedures, for subrecipient monitoring and fiscal management, consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600 through 300.602, 300.604, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(b), (d)‑(f) and (h).

“Dispute Resolution

“4.1 OSEP finds that the State, in resolving State complaints, does not consistently identify and require correction of all noncompliance to address the needs of the child and appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities in State complaint decisions, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1221e-3 and 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b).”

What Happens Next

OSEP gave New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) concrete deadlines for implementing corrective actions.

For example, one of the more mind-boggling findings relates to NHDOE’s practice of allowing “LEAs to self-select evidence and files for review when determining LEAs’ compliance with IDEA and when verifying correction related to SPP/APR Indicator 13.” In other words . . . NHDOE isn’t verifying correct implementation of regulatory requirements. It’s allowing LEAs to submit data that reflects what the LEA wants to portray, which may differ from reality.

In this instance, OSEP is requiring NHDOE to take the following actions:

“Policies and Procedures—the State must submit to OSEP by Aug. 4, 2026:

“1. Policies and procedures to ensure the correction of noncompliance by verifying that the LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through integrated monitoring activities or the State’s data system, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e).

“Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than May 6, 2027, the State must submit to OSEP:

“1. A copy of the notification issued to all LEAs advising them of the State’s revised policies and procedures to ensure the correction of noncompliance by verifying that the LEA has demonstrated systemic compliance, as described above.

“2. Documentation that the State reviewed updated data and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through monitoring activities or the State’s data system.”

Why This Matters for Families

A requirement is not optional. States are required to carry out general supervision duties under IDEA. Opting out, delaying findings, or relying on weak systems is not an option.

OSEP identified multiple weaknesses in the systems NHDOE uses to monitor LEAs, verify corrections, report data, oversee IDEA funds, and resolve state complaints. Those systems are supposed to catch problems and help fix them. They are not supposed to become another problem families have to fight through.

This report gives NHDOE a roadmap for repair. It also gives families concrete language they can use to advocate for their children, ask better questions, and hold both NHDOE and their individual LEAs accountable.

April 16, 2026: OSEP DMS Report for Nebraska

578KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

October 2024, OSEP “conducted interviews with representatives from various state agencies, “reviewed publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents” and “solicited feedback from various groups of interested parties and local level staff to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s system of general supervision.”

OSEP stated its review focused on Nebraska’s responsibility to oversee local compliance and did not examine every early intervention service program or provider in Nebraska. Because of this, OSEP said it couldn’t determine whether every local program is fully compliant with IDEA. However, OSEP did make the following key findings:

“Monitoring and Improvement

“1.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure that EIS programs and providers include the required content in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) that includes information about the child’s status, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.20, 303.120, 303.321, 303.344(a), and 303.700 through 303.708.

“1.2 OSEP finds that the State does not make annual determinations about the performance of each EIS program in the State, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700(a)(2) and 303.703(b). In addition, the State’s public reporting of the performance of local EIS programs does not reflect the actual EIS program performance, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.702(b)(1)(i)(A).

“Dispute Resolution

“2.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have written procedures to ensure that within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, the lead agency convenes a resolution meeting, and adjustments are made to the 30-day resolution period, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.430(a) and (d), and 303.442(a) and (c).

“2.2 OSEP finds that the State does not have written procedures in place to ensure that not later than either 30 days or 45 days (consistent with the lead agency’s written policies and procedures adopted under 34 C.F.R. § 303.440(c)) after the expiration of the 30-day period, or the adjusted 30-day time period: (1) a final decision is reached in the hearing; and (2) a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.430(a) and (d), and 303.447(a).

“Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

“3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not monitor EIS programs for compliance, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, on the Statewide system of payments (SoP) policy requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.520 and 303.521, including internal controls over policies and procedures, as required by 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329(a) and 200.303.

“3.2 OSEP finds that the State does not have a methodology, including policies and procedures, to track all State and local funding sources budgeted and expended in a fiscal year for early intervention services for children eligible under IDEA Part C, to ensure compliance with the IDEA Part C Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b).

“3.3. OSEP finds that the State’s use of the IDEA Part B Section 611 funds to provide direct early intervention services for infants and toddlers aged birth to three, is unallowable and inconsistent with the IDEA Part B use of funds requirements under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.162(a) and 300.202(a).”

What Happens Next

OSEP gave Nebraska concrete deadlines for implementing corrective actions.

For example, one of the most significant fiscal findings relates to Nebraska using IDEA Part B funds for “unallowable” purposes. In this case, OSEP is requiring the following corrective actions:

“3.3 Unallowable Use of Funds: Next Steps/Required Actions

“1. Required Assurances: To receive Nebraska’s FFY 2026 IDEA Part B and Part C grant awards, the State will need to provide, in writing (signed and dated by the individual designated by the Governor of Nebraska to submit the IDEA Part B and Part C grant applications) the following specific assurances to OSEP with the submission of its FFY 2026 IDEA Grant Applications:

“IDEA Part B:

“a. The State will no longer use IDEA Part B funds to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities, birth through age three and that the State will comply with 34 C.F.R. § 300.162(a) throughout the FFY 2026 grant period and all subsequent grant periods; and

“b. The State will not direct LEAs’ use of IDEA Part B funds unless specifically allowed or required by IDEA Part B throughout the FFY 2026 grant period and all subsequent grant periods.

“IDEA Part C:

“a. The State will no longer use the IDEA Part B Section 611 funds as a payor source for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities.

“2. Required Notifications: Within 30 days of the issue date of this letter, the State must provide OSEP with evidence that it has provided notice regarding the basis of this finding to the following parties:

“a. The Governor,

“b. The Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature and Chairperson of Nebraska’s Legislature Committee on Education,

“c. The Nebraska Auditor of Public Accounts,

“d. Nebraska’s Early Childhood Interagency Coordinating Council and Nebraska’s Special Education Advisory Council, and

“e. LEA superintendents.

“3. Corrective Action Plan: Based on the Department’s authority in Section 616 of the IDEA to monitor and ensure compliance as well as the Department’s ability in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208 to impose specific conditions, by September 30, 2026, the State must develop and submit for OSEP’s approval a corrective action plan (including a timeline for the correction of noncompliance and reporting to OSEP on the status of the correction of noncompliance) that identifies:

“a. The additional actions Nebraska will take to discontinue the use of IDEA Part B funds to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers.

“b. All regulations, policies, and procedures that NDE will need to revise to come into compliance with IDEA requirements regarding the appropriate use of IDEA Part B funds including but not limited to:

“i. Regulations, policies and procedures, that permits or authorizes the use of Part B Section 611 funds for infants and toddlers with disabilities ages birth to age three, including those that contain language governing “birth through five” and “below five.”

“ii. Regulations, policies and procedures, that permit the State to the direct the use of IDEA Section 611 and Section 619 subgrants to LEAs for purposes other than those specifically allowed under IDEA.

“iii. A revised SoP policy that removes IDEA Part B subgrants as a funding source for early intervention services.

“c. A plan for how the State will fund early intervention.

“d. A plan for how the State will provide technical assistance, training, and/or support to LEAs on the appropriate use of IDEA Part B subgrants.

“4. Evidence of Corrective Actions: Following the State’s submission and OSEP’s approval of the corrective action plan and timeline described above, Nebraska will submit evidence of:

“a. Revised regulations, policies and procedures compliant with IDEA requirements regarding the appropriate use of Part B funds, including:16

“i. Regulations, policies and procedures, that permit or authorize the use of Part B Section 611 funds for infants and toddlers with disabilities ages birth to age three, including those that contain language governing “birth through five” and “below five.”

“ii. Regulations, policies and procedures, that permit the State to direct the use of IDEA Section 611 and Section 619 subgrants to LEAs solely for purposes specifically allowed under IDEA.

“iii. A revised system of payments that removes IDEA Part B Section 611 subgrants as a funding source for early intervention services and is consistent with the IDEA Part C requirements at 34 C.F.R §§ 303.501, 303.510, 303.520 and 303.521.

“b. The source of State funding for early intervention services.

“c. Technical assistance, training, and/or support materials provided to LEAs on the appropriate use of IDEA Part B subgrants.

“5. Specific Conditions: Based on the longstanding and substantial noncompliance identified above and consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, OSEP is imposing specific conditions on the IDEA Part B grant for FFY 2026 and for subsequent grant award periods until the noncompliance has been corrected. The following specific conditions will be applied in accordance with regulations governing specific conditions in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208 in the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance):

“a. Implementation of items 1-4 of the “Next Steps/Required Actions” related to this finding; and

“b. Technical Assistance: Consistent with IDEA Section 617(a) and 2 C.F.R. § 200.208(c)(5), NDE shall obtain and participate in technical assistance related to carrying out IDEA Part B and the appropriate use of IDEA Part B funds provided by the Department, both directly and through OSEP’s funded technical assistance centers.”

Why This Matters for Families

This report is more than paperwork.

These issues matter. IFSP content shapes the services infants and toddlers receive. Dispute resolution timelines ensure parents have a process they can rely on when they disagree with the system. Public reporting provides families and policymakers accurate information about how local programs are performing. Fiscal oversight ensures IDEA funds are used for purposes federal law allows.

Families shouldn’t have to be special education experts to know whether their state is following IDEA. OSEP’s report identifies the noncompliance and gives families, providers, advocates, and policymakers something concrete to track.

OCR investigated the following allegation:

“whether the District discriminated and retaliated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) from the [redacted content] to [redacted content].”

Before OCR completed its investigation, BSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. May 5, 2026, BSD entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

OCR did not issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated that it had “a concern that the District may have discriminated and retaliated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the Student a free appropriate public education.”

What Happened

Read more

OCR investigated two allegations:

“1) In [redacted content], the District discriminated against a [redacted content] student (Student A) on the basis of disability when it changed Student A’s educational placement and setting without following the appropriate Section 504 evaluation and placement procedures, including the provision of procedural safeguards; and

“2) In [redacted content], the District denied Student A a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) when it failed to implement Student A’s Section 504 plan.”

For the first allegation, OCR found the BPSD violated Section 504. Before OCR completed its investigation for the second allegation, BPSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual.

May 4, 2026, BPSD entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. The agreement requires policy revisions, staff training, and written notice to the parent that staff received the required training.

What Happened

Read more

OCR investigated one allegation:

“[T]he District discriminated against Student A, a [redacted content] student at [redacted content] (School), based on disability when, during the [redacted content] school year, staff at the School denied Student A a free and appropriate public education by inappropriately secluding him.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, CVSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual.

April 28, 2026, Central Valley entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

What Happened

Read more

OCR investigated the following three allegations:

• “the Student’s teachers failed to provide him with an additional class period to complete assignments and a brain break outside of the classroom with a trusted adult as required by his Section 504 Plan from [redacted content] until [redacted content] (Allegation 1);

• “the Student’s Spanish teacher failed to implement the Student’s accommodations, including an additional class period to complete assignments and a brain break outside of the classroom with a trusted adult, as required by his Section 504 Plan from the beginning of the [redacted content] until [redacted content] (Allegation 2);

• “it failed to respond appropriately to a complaint that another student harassed the Student based on his disability on [redacted content] (Allegation 3).”

According to the letter, “OCR found sufficient evidence of a violation of Section 504 and Title II for Allegation 1, which the Division agreed to resolve through the enclosed resolution agreement. However, OCR found insufficient evidence to support Allegations 2 and 3.”

May 1, 2026, SPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. The agreement states that it does not constitute an admission by SPS that it violated Section 504, Title II, or any other law enforced by OCR. However, SPS did agree to take specific actions related to Allegation 1.

What Happened

Read more

The announcement came about a week after leaked drafts for HISD’s “Special Education Success Programs” were made public by local news outlets, and just days after HISD announced the p…

Read more

April 8, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-23-1119

207KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The complaint was filed November 23, 2022, against the Miami-Dade County School District.

The complainant alleged that a school discriminated against a student on the basis of disability.

OCR investigated two issues:

“1. Whether the District has denied a Student a free appropriate public education in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

“2. Whether the District discriminated against a Student by treating her differently from students without disabilities as alleged, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, MDCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. Under that process, OCR may resolve allegations before issuing a final determination when the recipient expresses interest in resolving the allegations and OCR determines that its investigation has identified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement. This case had another wrinkle. According to OCR:

“Based upon recently obtained information, OCR has determined that it no longer has consent to proceed with the investigation of the individual issues. However, based upon evidence obtained during the investigation OCR has identified a systemic concern that can be addressed through a resolution agreement.”

What Happened

According to OCR:

“District witnesses told OCR that for students transferring into the School, they had followed accommodations on IEPs that were given to them for the students. However, the individual student at the center of OCR’s investigation transferred to the School with an expired IEP that was provided to teachers, and while there was some conflicting evidence of a newer IEP being generated, no information received by OCR to date confirms a meeting was held to reevaluate the student and their IEP.”

That’s a problem.

Students don’t stop needing supports because they transfer schools—and they don’t lose disability rights because the paperwork is old.

AND: Teachers can’t implement a current plan if nobody gives them a current plan.

Where MDCPS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 8, 2026, Letter of Finding for OCR Case No. 01-25-1572

180KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated one allegation:

“[W]hether the District is discriminating on the basis of disability against students and other individuals with mobility impairments by failing to properly maintain and repair the elevators at Springfield High School of Science and Technology (the School).”

Before OCR completed its investigation, SPS expressed interest in resolving the allegation. April 7, 2026, SPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified issues that could be addressed through a resolution agreement.

What Happened

Springfield High School of Science and Technology serves approximately 1,100 high school students. Its main building has four floors, two passenger elevators, and one freight elevator. According to OCR, the school was built in 1952 and last renovated in 1996.

The district acknowledged to OCR that the age of the elevators caused frequent and extended mechanical failures. SPS said:

“[I]t has spent $44,000 to maintain the School’s elevators in the last three years, but the two passenger elevators have operated only intermittently, and the freight elevator has been inoperable since 2023.”

That is not a small inconvenience.

For a student who uses a wheelchair, crutches, a scooter, or has another mobility impairment, a broken elevator can mean the student cannot get to class. For staff members with mobility impairments, broken elevators can also affect access to the building and their ability to do their jobs.

For students, this can directly affect access to instruction.

According to OCR’s letter of findings:

“In March 2025, a District Operational Manager reported that all three elevators were down so multiple students using crutches, a scooter, or a wheelchair were assigned to the library where teachers would drop off their schoolwork. In August 2025, the Principal reported that the School had “no working elevator” and a Food Service Manager relayed that the elevators “will be down for the year.” From September 2025 to January 2026, a Math Specialist expressed concerns that students with mobility challenges “will not be able to access their actual classrooms until next year” and were instead put in the library to “effectively teach themselves.” Multiple School staff emphasized that students with mobility issues “have no access to the third and fourth floor.””

That last part should bother everyone.

Students were not just waiting for an elevator repair. According to OCR’s summary of the evidence, students with mobility impairments were being assigned to the library, teachers were dropping off work, and staff were raising concerns that students could not access their actual classrooms.

That is where the access issue becomes an education issue.

Where SPS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 10, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-22-1662

323KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated three issues:

“1. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the School gym, an accessible route to the gym, or accessible seating within the gym, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“2. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the baseball field and an accessible route to the baseball field, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“3. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the football field, an accessible route to the football field, and an accessible route to the football field restrooms and concessions, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, LCSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. March 3, 2026, the district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified accessibility concerns that could be addressed through an agreement.

What Happened

The complaint alleged that individuals who have disabilities could not access East Lawrence High School’s gym, baseball field, and football field in the same way nondisabled people could access these facilities.

School access doesn’t stop at the classroom door. Students and family members attend games. Students participate in athletics, band, cheer, clubs, ceremonies, and school events. If the school hosts the event, accessibility matters.

OCR reviewed the gym, baseball field, and football field under the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design because the facilities had been renovated after 2012. OCR noted that the gym was built in 1978 and that the gym bleachers were replaced approximately 10 years ago. OCR also reviewed documentation showing later additions and renovations to the baseball field and football field, including football stadium renovations as recently as November 2020.

That matters because when a school alters part of a facility, the altered portion has to be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible.

Schools do not get to keep updating facilities for everyone else while ignoring access for people who have disabilities.

Where LCSD Ran into Trouble

Read more