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 fiscal management.

June 18, 2026: DMS Report, Part C

543KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 14, 2026: DMS Report, IDEA Part B

1.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Reviewed

In September 2025, OSEP conducted interviews for its monitoring activities of both Parts B and C.

For both its Part B and Part C monitoring, OSEP conducted interviews with representatives from various state agencies, and “reviewed publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents submitted by the State”. In the case of its Part B monitoring, OSEP “solicited feedback from parents, members of the public, and local-level staff to obtain a broad range of perspectives regarding the State’s implementation of IDEA Part B.” In the case of its Part C monitoring, “OSEP solicited feedback from interested parties and local-level staff to obtain a broad range of perspectives regarding the State’s implementation of IDEA Part C.”

OSEP’s previously-released DMS reports for other states have stated that its review “did not include an examination of the implementation of IDEA Part B requirements by all local educational agencies (LEAs)”. Hence, OSEP couldn’t determine “whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these requirements without reviewing data at the local level.” The missing disclaimer doesn’t establish that OSEP conducted a deeper review in the case of Pennsylvania, but the report does leave the scope unclear.

What OSEP Found

OSEP made the following key findings:

Part B

1.1 Grant Award Notifications (GANs)

In the three years of sample GANs provided by the State to OSEP prior to the monitoring visit, OSEP identified the State’s IDEA Part B subgrant notifications did not include:

1. The federal grant award date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(iv);

2. The correct subaward period of performance start and end date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v); and

3. The correct subaward budget period start and end date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(vi).

2.1 Dispute Resolution Procedures

During OSEP’s review of the State’s dispute resolution procedures, OSEP noted that the State offers a separate IEP Facilitation process. Although the State’s IEP Facilitation process is listed on the State’s website as a non-IDEA-mandated option, this distinction was not clearly reflected on the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) request form for Mediation and IEP Facilitation.

OSEP also noticed during our review inconsistencies in the procedural safeguards and on the due process model form in what the State required and what is required by IDEA. OSEP notes specifically on the due process model form, individually and within the procedural safeguards, that the State requires LEA information, but not the name of the school the student attends, OSEP also notes that the state does not list the question related to homelessness, required by the McKinney-Vento Act, as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.508.

2.2 Model form for Filing a State Complaint

The State’s model form for filing a State complaint is included on the State’s website and embedded in the State’s procedural safeguards. The State’s model form, and State Code, 55 Pennsylvania Code § 3800, included the following statement, “Is the child publicly placed in the educational program by a Judge or Child Welfare Agency?”

The State’s requirement that additional components be included when filing a State complaint may limit an individual or organization’s ability to file a State complaint. Further, the SEA may inappropriately dismiss complaints that do not include those additional components but otherwise meet the IDEA Part B filing requirements.

Part C

1.1 Dispute Resolution

OSEP’s analysis is based on a review of the documents and information provided by the State, and interviews with State staff and other interested parties. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that the State’s written procedures for the timely administrative resolution of complaints through mediation, State complaints, and due process hearing procedures are inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(e), 1439(a)(1) and (a)(8), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.431 through 303.438.

What Happens Next

Unlike DMS reports that require future corrective-action deadlines, these reports don’t require Pennsylvania to submit additional evidence. Every identified item was corrected and closed before OSEP issued the reports.

“Closed” doesn’t mean OSEP found Pennsylvania’s original forms and procedures complied with IDEA. It means OSEP identified noncompliance and accepted Pennsylvania’s revisions as sufficient correction.

Why Were the Reports Issued After the Findings Were Closed?

The reports don’t explain the timing.

OSEP conducted the Pennsylvania monitoring in September 2025. Pennsylvania submitted several revised documents between September 9 and September 11, 2025, but it didn’t submit all the materials OSEP relied on to close the findings until March 2026. OSEP then issued the Part C report June 18 and the Part B report July 14.

That means OSEP issued the reports about nine and ten months after monitoring, but only about three and four months after Pennsylvania submitted its final revisions.

For context, OSEP monitored New Hampshire in August 2025, one month before Pennsylvania, and issued its Part B report in May 2026. That report identified seven findings and imposed corrective-action deadlines extending into 2027.

Another example: OSEP monitored Nebraska in October 2024, almost a year before Pennsylvania. It issued the initial Nebraska report April 16, 2026, and reissued it June 18, 2026. Only one of Nebraska’s seven findings had been closed before the initial report was issued.

One possible explanation is that OSEP allowed Pennsylvania to correct paperwork problems before issuing the reports, avoiding a separate round of corrective-action submissions and close-out letters.

That may be administratively efficient. But it comes with a transparency cost.

Until OSEP issued the reports, families didn’t have public findings identifying the federal concerns. They couldn’t use those findings to compare OSEP’s concerns with their own experiences or provide feedback targeted to the identified problems before OSEP closed them. Neither report says OSEP sought renewed parent or stakeholder feedback after Pennsylvania made the revisions.

Another example: June 2020, OSEP released a DMS report for Virginia. In it, OSEP found problems with VDOE’s mediation system. VDOE issued a response saying that OSEP was wrong. However, parents contacted OSEP and journalists with hard evidence of the noncompliance. Had the reports not been made public, the parents wouldn’t have had the opportunity to weigh in and make OSEP aware of the continued noncompliance.

Why This Matters for Families

The Part B model-form finding is frustrating because OSEP has warned states for years that model forms can’t add filing requirements or make optional information appear mandatory.

In 2013, OSEP sent national dispute-resolution guidance to chief state school officers and state special education directors. The guidance explained that when a state complaint form asks for information not required by IDEA, the form must identify that information as optional. The guidance didn’t create a new requirement. The regulations themselves prohibit state educational agencies and local educational agencies from requiring use of the model forms.

July 2013 Q&A on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures

639KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OSEP made a related finding against Virginia in 2024 after Virginia Department of Education required state complaints to “contain all relevant documents.” OSEP concluded that the requirement exceeded IDEA’s filing standard and could discourage people from filing complaints.

The Pennsylvania and Virginia findings weren’t identical, but both involved state-created requirements that exceeded, or appeared to exceed, IDEA’s minimum filing standards.

Parents shouldn’t have to wait for OSEP to correct the same or similar problems one state at a time. When OSEP identifies recurring noncompliance, it should conduct a nationwide compliance check and ask every state educational agency and Part C lead agency to review its forms and provide evidence of compliance.

That wouldn’t replace state-specific monitoring, but it could prevent a known barrier from remaining in place until the next federal review.

U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office has already provided an example. In 2025, SPPO requested that each state educational agency submit documentation assuring that the agency and its local educational agencies were complying with FERPA and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment in specified priority areas. If SPPO can do this, why not OSEP?

Pennsylvania corrected its materials before OSEP issued the reports. That matters. The next question is whether those revisions change what families experience in practice.

A finding closed on paper isn’t necessarily a system fixed in practice.

As I recently reported, a Virginia parent encountered a mediation practice similar to one VDOE had previously told OSEP it corrected years ago.

Oversight and transparency matter.

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

The parent alleged VDOE failed to properly train, oversee, monitor, and ensure compliance in Virginia’s state-sponsored special education mediation system.

The complaint arose after a VDOE-assigned mediator told the parent and other mediation participants:

“You must sign, date, and return the Agreement to Mediate prior to the day of the mediation.”

The mediator also wrote:

“You will be expected to agree to it and return it to me prior to the mediation”

VDOE later admitted the signature instruction was inconsistent with IDEA and VDOE policy.

Then . . .

VDOE found itself in compliance.

Background

The parent filed the complaint against VDOE “in its capacity as the State Educational Agency” and framed the allegation this way:

“Whether VDOE failed to meet its supervisory responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.149 and §§ 300.600–300.604 by failing to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight to mediators, resulting in noncompliant mediation practices that undermine the voluntary and accessible nature of IDEA mediation.”

The complaint asked whether VDOE’s oversight system worked after U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) had already required Virginia to stop treating signatures on confidentiality agreements as a condition of mediation.

OSEP’s March 13, 2024, differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) report found that Virginia’s procedure requiring parties to sign a confidentiality pledge before mediation was inconsistent with IDEA and OSEP guidance. OSEP required Virginia to revise its regulation and related procedures.

Starting With the Notice of Complaint

Read more

“Unpacking VDOE’s Letter of Findings in State Complaint C26-564”

Issue:

• Student Records — Confidentiality: Whether LEA violated state and federal regulations regarding confidentiality of student records.

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more

• “Unpacking VDOE’s Letter of Findings in State Complaint C26-564”

Issues Investigated:

• Mediation: The complaint alleged Fairfax County Public Schools (FCCPS) violated the voluntary nature of mediation by insisting—after the mediation had already ended—that all documents provided and created during the mediation be provided to FCPS for destruction.

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more

“Unpacking VDOE’s Letter of Findings in State Complaint C26-564”

Issues:

• Mediation – Procedures: Whether LEA failed to provide regulatorily required oversight over special education mediation, including adequate training of mediators

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more

However, OCR didn’t publicly release the letter of findings with more specifics of its findings or a resolution agreement until June 2026.

In its press release, OCR stated DCPS violated Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act and Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act by denying students who have disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In addition, OCR said it had issued a proposed resolution agreement to DCPS and warned:

“OCR issued a proposed Resolution Agreement to the District that specifies actions to remedy the violation of Section 504 and Title II. If an agreement is reached, OCR will monitor the Agreement to ensure the District fulfills all terms and obligations. As a part of that monitoring, if necessary, OCR may conduct additional interviews, obtain data, or take necessary steps to ensure the noncompliance is remedied. If an agreement is not reached, the U.S. Department of Education may initiate enforcement action.”

(Additional Reading: “Office for Civil Rights Finds District of Columbia Public Schools at Fault for Extensive Discrimination Against Students Who Have Disabilities”)

June 11, 2026—almost three months later—DCPS signed a resolution agreement with OCR.

Those almost three months came on top of a class-action lawsuit involving transportation for students who have disabilities in D.C. That lawsuit, Robertson et al. v. District of Columbia, was filed in federal court and concerns claims that the district failed to provide safe, reliable, and appropriate transportation to students who have disabilities. According to OSSE’s April 2026 notice, the class includes:

“All students with disabilities aged 3–22 who, from March 7, 2022, until judgment is issued in this case, require transportation from the District to attend school and have experienced and will continue to experience unsafe, unreliable, or inappropriate transportation services from the District.”

(Additional Reading: Class-Action Lawsuit Continues Forward; Related Service of Transportation at Core of Suit Against District of Columbia’s OSSE)

Hence DCPS was aware of the problems for a significant amount of time before signing the resolution agreement—and aware of the significant number of students impacted.

This wasn’t a complaint about one student. OCR opened the directed investigation March 5, 2025, to examine whether DCPS was failing to evaluate or reevaluate students in an individualized manner, whether that failure forced parents and guardians to rely on due process complaints, and whether DCPS’s transportation system resulted in the denial of FAPE to students who have disabilities.

What OCR Found

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 03-26-1199 and investigated the following allegations that occurred during the 2025-26 school year:

“1) a staff member inappropriately restrained Student A; and

“2) school personnel failed to implement provisions of Student A’s Section 504 Plan that required them to contact available personnel when Student A becomes dysregulated and contact Student A’s parents immediately if Student A falls or has significant contact to his spine.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, FCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. June 12, 2026, FCPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated the following concerns:

“Based on the evidence collected to date, OCR has concerns regarding whether the District denied Student A a FAPE when Teacher A responded in a manner that exacerbated Student A’s dysregulation when she repeatedly took his hood off his head, which Student A uses to self-regulate, and then physically held Student A’s body and arms even after the Classroom Teacher told her to stop. OCR is concerned that the District did not consider whether this conduct constituted harassment based on disability and whether School staff responded appropriately. In addition, OCR is concerned that School staff who were responsible for supervising Student A were not aware of Student A’s Section 504 plan and did understand how to use appropriate deescalation techniques when he became dysregulated per his Section 504 plan, which were part of the services needed to provide a FAPE. Lastly, OCR is concerned that the Section 504 team failed to consider whether Student A was denied a FAPE because of the incident and whether Student A was in need of compensatory or other services such as counseling to address his increased dysregulation, emotional outbursts, and elopement that may have been caused by the incident.”

What Happened

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 15-17-1529 and investigated the following allegations:

1. “During the 2016-2017 school year, the District failed to conduct a manifestation determination review prior to suspending the Student in excess of 10 school days, and

2. “from May 2017 through the end of the 2016-2017 school year, the District failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education when it failed to provide the Student with homebound services.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, HPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. June 16, 2026, HPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated that the evidence it obtained “raises compliance concerns” that HPS didn’t evaluate the student before implementing a significant change in placement related to discipline. OCR also stated it had “cause for concern” that HPS “may not have complied with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a), which could have resulted in the denial of a FAPE in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 when it removed the Student from the regular education placement required by his IEP for the last two weeks of the school year and developed an alternative home instruction schedule outside of the IEP process that provided minimal instruction.”

What Happened

Read more

And yet . . . DOJ has been handling special education-related civil rights cases for…

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 09-24-1234 and investigated the following allegations:

“1. Whether the District discriminated against the Student based on disability when it revoked his Inter-district Permit; and

“2. Whether the District denied the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to follow adequate procedures for evaluation and placement of the Student.”

Before OCR completed its investigation or made a compliance determination, LLCSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. June 19, 2026, LLCSD entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

The agreement states that it’s not an admission by LLCSD that it violated Section 504, Title II, or any other law enforced by OCR.

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, it identified concerns that the District may have removed the student because of disability-related behavior without adequately evaluating him under Section 504.

What Happened

Read more

Read more

OSEP stated that the purpose of the letter was to notify CDE that OSEP had completed its review of the corrective actions associated with OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS monitoring report and that all findings identified in that report were closed.

OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS report identified 12 findings of IDEA Part B noncompliance. The report required CDE to submit revised policies and procedures, or other required documentation, within the deadlines stated in the report. For many findings, OSEP also required evidence of implementation as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of the monitoring report.

The June 18, 2026, close-out letter responded to documents CDE submitted throughout the corrective action period. Based on CDE’s submissions, OSEP determined that “Colorado has completed all required actions identified in OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS monitoring report.”

Of note: Page two of the close-out letter states there were 10 original findings, even though OSEP’s May 16, 2024, report identified 12 findings. Attachment A to the close-out letter addresses all 12 numbered findings.

Read more

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

“[T]he District is discrimi…

Read more