AT includes tools that help a child who has a disability do tasks such as writing, reading, or communicating with others. AT services help the child choose and use those tools and can include training for students and parents on how to use the AT tool, repairs, and other support.

U.S. Department of Education (ED) explained this in its January 2024 guidance, Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services and the Dear Colleague letter accompanying it.

January 22, 2024, USDOE document "Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices"

667KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 22, 2024, USDOE Dear Colleague Letter

551KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This is supported by § 300.324(a)(2)(v), which states each IEP team must "consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services consider" and by § 300.324(b)(2), which states, "in conducting a review of the child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider the special factors described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section."

What You Need to Know

IDEA Doesn’t Require Separate AT Evaluations for Every Student

A separate AT evaluation isn't required before every device or service is provided. A team may already have enough facts to choose a tool. In other cases, an AT evaluation may be needed. ED’s January 2024 Myths and Facts document gives this example:

“For example, a graphic organizer that assists a child to categorize ideas into topics, subtopics, and supporting facts generally would not require an evaluation prior to its use. An AT evaluation may be needed for a child when it comes to determining an appropriate AT device that the child would need to use throughout the school day, such as read-aloud software, or the use of peer readers during different academic periods.”

However, just because an AT evaluation isn’t required doesn't allow a school to leave a student's needs unidentified.

Parents and/or staff can request and/or propose an evaluation to determine a student's needs. For example, in Office for Civil Rights (OCR) case 01-21-1596, an alleged failure to provide an AT evaluation in a timely manner was one of the main focuses of the investigation into Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School in Massachusetts. In this case, the evidence indicates the parent initiated the request for the evaluation.

OCR Case No. 01-21-1596 Letter

236KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case No. 01-21-1596 Agreement

98.5KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A functional evaluation looks at how a student performs in daily settings. ED says it may:

"include observations of the child’s interactions across different locations in school and at home and identify strengths and weaknesses the child has in completing tasks. This evaluation can provide data and information to determine when and why an AT device and service is needed and could then be matched with an appropriate AT device and service based on the child’s needs."

IEP Teams Need People Who Know About AT and AI

IEP team members are required to make decisions regarding a student's needs for AT devices and/or services. The Myths and Facts document provides the following reminder:

"[I]f IEP Team members lack knowledge about AT options to support the child’s needs, they must engage other individuals who are knowledgeable about AT options in the decision-making process."

The IEP Must State the Help A Student Will Receive

Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(a)(4), IEPs must include:

"a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child—(i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; (ii) To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and (iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities. . ."

To achieve all of this, IEP teams have to make informed decisions. While they might not be required to propose AT evaluations, they are required to identify and address the unique needs of students. This may require observing the student, collecting data related to the student, and administering evaluations to determine the needs of the student.

A Device May Not Be Enough

Jan. 6, 2025, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled in C.B. v. Nazareth Area School District. The student in this case used an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device to communicate. Although the device was available, staff didn't consistently demonstrate its use.

The school district argued that the IEP didn’t require staff to show the student how to use the device. The court noted that the IEP left out that support:

“While the IEP contained a “Guide to AAC Device Programming and Use,” it did not require modeling of the device.”

The court treated that omission as a flaw in the IEP, not as an acceptable reason to avoid modeling use. The court’s decision states:

“Successful use of the AAC device requires consistent modeling throughout the day with various communication partners.”

Required AT must be provided without charging the family. School-purchased devices must also be available at home or in other settings when the IEP team finds that access is needed for a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Parents and students may need training to use the device or its programs.

AI Can Qualify as Assistive Technology

IDEA defines an AT device by what it does for a child with a disability. Under § 300.5, assistive technology device means:

“any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.”

Under this definition, AI software may count as AT. The team must look at what it does for the student and whether it is needed.

For example, a student who struggles with executive functioning might use ChatGPT to break a long-term assignment into smaller tasks and create a schedule. For a research paper, the student could enter the deadline and available work time, then ask ChatGPT to suggest dates for choosing a topic, finding sources, drafting, and revising. The student would then review it with the teacher and adjust it as needed. *This is actually a chunking goal that can help a student learn to chunk long-term projects independently, but with the guardrails of having a teacher check the timeline until the student achieves the goal. In this case, AI, instead of the teacher, would help create the initial schedule.

July 22, 2025, ED issued guidance on using federal grant money for AI. It said grant funds could support AI uses that fit each program's rules.

The guidance lists five principles for responsible AI use:

“• Educator-led: AI should support teachers, providers, tutors, advisors, and education leaders.

“• Ethical: Within the K-12 realm in particular, educators should help students navigate AI to be able to evaluate the validity of AI outputs, to understand the appropriate use of AI in the context of social media, to learn with – rather than exclusively from – AI, and to leverage the promise of AI to be contributing members of a free society.

“• Accessible: AI tools or systems should be accessible for those who require digital accessibility accommodations, including children, educators, providers, and family members with disabilities.

“• Transparent and explainable: Stakeholders, especially parents, should understand how systems function and participate meaningfully in decisions about the adoption and deployment of new technologies.

“• Data-protective: Systems must comply with federal privacy laws including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.”

ED’s AI grant priority published April 13, 2026, includes special education, related services, and universal design for learning.

AI Supports Don't Replace Needed Teaching

An AI tool may provide help, but can’t replace needed instruction. The IEP team should identify the disability-related need AI would address and determine whether it helps the student access instruction, communicate, or demonstrate learning.

If the team determines that the tool is needed for the student to receive a FAPE, the IEP must document the required support. The school must also provide any AT services the student needs to use it, including training for the student, family, or staff when needed.

Feb. 3, 2025, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals issued its ruling for the case of William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System. It upheld an award of 888 hours of extra reading instruction to make up for education William had been denied. He had finished high school with a 3.4 grade-point average but still couldn’t read.

The court described his use of ChatGPT, speech-to-text software, and Grammarly to complete written work:

“William graduated from high school without being able to read or even to spell his own name. That was because, per the terms of his IEPs, he relied on a host of accommodations that masked his inability to read. To write a paper, for example—as the ALJ described—William would first dictate his topic into a document using speech-to-text software. He then would paste the written words into an AI software like ChatGPT. Next, the AI software would generate a paper on that topic, which William would paste back into his own document. Finally, William would run that paper through another software program like Grammarly, so that it reflected an appropriate writing style. Not all these workarounds were specifically listed in his IEP, but all were enabled by an accommodation that was: 24 extra hours to complete all assignments, which allowed William to complete his assignments at home, using whatever technology tools he could find.”

Students Must Be Able to Use Digital Class Materials

April 24, 2024, Department of Justice (DOJ) published a web access rule that applies to public schools under Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

DOJ set specific requirements for web content and mobile apps because they can create barriers for people with disabilities if they aren’t accessible. DOJ provided the following example:

“For example, individuals who are blind may use a screen reader to deliver visual information on a website or mobile app as speech. A state or local government might post an image on its website that provides information to the public. If the website does not include text describing the image (sometimes called “alternative text” or “alt text”), individuals who are blind and who use screen readers may have no way of knowing what is in the image because a screen reader cannot “read” an image.”

April 2026, DOJ extended the deadlines. School districts with populations of at least 50,000 must comply by April 26, 2027. Smaller districts have until April 26, 2028.

Schools still have duties under ADA before those dates. They must provide equal access, ways to communicate that work, and reasonable changes to their practices when needed.

Phone and Screen Policies Must Account for Students’ Needs

ED’s December 2024 Planning Together: A Playbook for Student Personal Device Policies guidance addresses school rules for personal devices. Some students need a device to receive a FAPE or take part in school. General phone rules must allow for those needs

ED’s Aug. 20, 2026, Dear Colleague letter urges schools to judge tools by how they help students learn:

“Technology also increases access for students whose education needs require additional supports. Students with disabilities often rely on assistive technologies such as text-to-speech, speech-to text, real-time captioning, and visual supports to access grade-level instruction. Virtual tutoring, adaptive instructional programs, and digital learning resources can provide individualized services, timely feedback, and additional instructional support that complements high-quality classroom teaching.

“These examples illustrate why education technology should not be evaluated solely by the amount of time students spend using it. The same technology that can distract a student during recreational use can also connect a student in a rural community to advanced coursework, enable a student with dyslexia to access complex text through assistive technology, or allow a homebound student to remain engaged in classroom learning. The core question remains whether a given technology strengthens instruction, expands opportunity, and improves student learning.”

Digital Safety Goals

ED’s January 2025 “Students with Disabilities Online” guidance asks schools to plan for online risks. These include bullying and threats to privacy. It suggests staff training and lessons that students with disabilities can use. It also asks schools to check that digital tools work with AT.

The guidance suggests involving IEP or Section 504 teams in goals for students when needed:

“What measurable goals have you established for the digital health, safety, citizenship, and mental well-being of students?

“When determining these measures, consider goals and objectives that address both the reduction in negative incidents against students with disabilities as well as strategies that increase their digital health, safety and mental well-being. When appropriate, include IEP and Section 504 team members in developing goals for specific students who utilize digital learning as part of their education.”

Parents Can Ask for the Decision and Its Basis in Writing

If a school refuses an AT evaluation, it must give the parent prior written notice. The same rule applies when it refuses an AT support as part of the child's FAPE.

The notice must explain what the school refused and why. It must list the information used and the other options considered. It must also explain why those options were rejected and tell parents about their rights. The notice must use language the public can understand.

2024 Resolutions

Since August 14, 2025, the overall count for 2024 resolutions remained the same: 518 overall, 390 involving disability discrimination.

Aft…

Read more

The complaint alleged restraint, failure to follow part of an Individualized Education Program (IEP), denial of services, and other forms of disability discrimination.

OCR redacted the complaint’s filing date. However, OCR assigned the complaint Case No. 04-17-1163, placing it in OCR’s 2017 case series. Depending on the exact filing date, it remained unresolved for nine-to-ten years.

By the time OCR issued its findings, the person who filed the complaint had died.

What Happened

Read more

The increase follows a sharp decline a few days earlier, with resolutions falling below the number posted in June 2026.

June 30, 2026, the database listed 83 case resolutions for 2026, 45 of which involved disability discrimination. July 21, 2026, those totals had increased to 92 and 52. By Aug. 27, 2026, the totals reached 130 and 75. However, by October 16, 2026, the totals dropped to 76 and 38.

The increase doesn’t establish that every previously missing case has returned or that every document link works, nor do they show which entries are completely new to the database. Special Education Action will go through the listing to compare what’s been added and will continue writing articles about the findings.

Final Words

At this point, an explanation from OCR on why the listings fell won’t change anything. It would go a long way, though, if OCR could ensure they stay up and parents, educators, and students have access to the findings.

Special Education Action’s latest check of OCR’s “Recent Resolution Search” found 76 cases listed for 2026, 38 of which involve disability discrimination. Yet . . .

Almost two months prior the same search found 130 cases, of which 75 involved disability discrimination.

The decline isn’t just a delay in posting new resolutions. The current numbers are lower than those recorded during several earlier checks, including one in June 2026.

What the Earlier Counts Show

Special Education Action recorded the following totals while tracking OCR’s 2026 resolution listings:

• June 30, 2026: 83 total, 45 disability discrimination

• July 21, 2026: 92 total, 52 disability discrimination

• Aug. 27, 2026: 130 total, 75 disability discrimination

• Aug.-Oct. 2026: subsequent searches found the same 130/75 results obtained Aug. 27th.

• Oct. 16, 2026: 76 total, 38 disability discrimination

A screenshot of Wayback Machine’s Sept. 1, 2026, capture shows 130 cases for 2026, preserving evidence of the earlier total, separate from Special Education Action’s notes and reporting.

An attempt to access a Sept. 1, 2026, version of the disability discrimination results through Wayback Machine was unsuccessful, as were attempts to access captures from later dates.

Important: The decline doesn’t establish that exactly 54 distinct cases were deleted. New entries, removed entries and changes in how cases are classified could affect the totals.

Beyond June

Special Education Action’s review suggests that resolutions dated after early June are missing from the current results.

Special attention needs to be given to the dates. A letter’s date, an agreement’s signing date, and the date OCR posts those records aren’t necessarily the same. For example, OCR’s Aug. 14, 2026, resolution letter for Jenks Public Schools (JPS) accompanied an agreement signed earlier this summer, for the compliance review started 17 years earlier. Special Education Action reported on the JPS resolution letter and agreement when it was still coming up in OCR’s current search results.

Later Resolutions Are Documented

Copies retained by Special Education Action establish that OCR issued resolution letters after early June. These records address students’ access to instruction, services and school activities.

Special Education Action was working its way through writing about each case, finding, and/or resolution. It saved the following names and dates but didn’t save every full name, state, or case number. It couldn’t find matching entries in OCR’s current search results.

• June 15, 2026: Maine Community College

• June 15, 2026: Eastern Maine Community College

• July 1, 2026: Pace University

• July 13, 2026: Sapulpa

• July 20, 2026: Duluth Public Schools

• July 21, 2026: Seminole County

• July 22, 2026: Blanchester Local

• July 24, 2026: University of Oklahoma

• July 24, 2026: Clayton

• July 28, 2026: Huntsville

• July 29, 2026: Detroit

• Aug. 3, 2023: Montgomery

• Aug. 3, 2023: Coventry

• Aug. 3, 2023: Walled Lake

• Aug. 10, 2026: Gahanna Jefferson

• August 11, 2026: Coalinga Huron

• Aug. 11, 2026: Twin Falls

• 8.14.26: Louisiana State University, three separate complaints

The following cases were covered by Special Education Action before it could no longer find them in OCR’s search results. The dates below are the resolution letter dates.

• July 8, 2026: Sandhills Public Schools

• July 9, 2026: Paramount Charter School

• July 13, 2026: Council Rock School District

• July 16, 2026: Tarkington Independent School District

• July 17, 2026: Kerman Unified School District

• July 20, 2026: Southeastern Cooperative Educational Programs

• August 7, 2026: Prince George’s County Public Schools

• Aug. 17, 2026: Jenks Public Schools

Special Education Action also downloaded records for the following cases but hasn’t written about them yet. It couldn’t find these cases in OCR’s current search results either.

• July 17, 2026: Baltimore City Public Schools (OCR Case No. 03-25-1396)

  

  OCR Case No. 03-25-1396 Resolution Letter

  191KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download
  

  OCR Case No. 03-25-1396 Resolution Agreement

  168KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

• Aug. 19, 2026: Montgomery County Public Schools (OCR Case No. 04-17-1163)

  

  OCR Case No. 04-17-1163 Resolution Letter

  190KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download
  

  OCR Case No. 04-17-1163 Resolution Agreement

  120KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

• Aug. 20, 2026: Advantage Charter (OCR Case No. 06-21-1277)

OCR Case No. 06-21-1277 Resolution Letter

208KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case No. 06-21-1277 Resolution Agreement

142KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Another Public Report Puts the Earlier Total Higher

A separate account suggests that the database’s 2026 total may have climbed beyond 130 before the decline.

In a recent LinkedIn post, Beth Gellman-Beer, former regional director and chief attorney in OCR’s Philadelphia office, reported that OCR had uploaded 72 new resolutions, including 37 addressing disability discrimination. She reported a 2026 total of 202.

Missing Listings Don’t Establish What Happened to the Cases

The lower totals don’t, by themselves, prove that OCR destroyed records, withdrew findings, or ended its monitoring of agreements.

A document might remain online while no longer appearing in search results. A technical problem could prevent entries from displaying. (OCR’s site has been wonky for months, making searches difficult.) Records also might have been removed or reclassified. The cause remains unknown.

Final Words

OCR should identify which entries stopped appearing, when the changes occurred, and why.

If the problem is technical, OCR should say so and explain when access will be restored. If records were withdrawn or reclassified, it should identify them and explain the changes.

Accessing findings and agreements shouldn’t feel like a scavenger’s hunt. Parents and educators need access.

Three findings remained open when OSEP issued the report. OSEP closed the other three after reviewing changes Massachusetts submitted during the monitoring process. The open findings concern state oversight, identification of noncompliance and parental consent to use public benefits or private insurance.

Oct. 7, 2026: IDEA Part C DMS Report

540KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP interviewed Massachusetts Department of Public Health staff in March 2026. It also reviewed state documents and publicly available information, and sought feedback from parents, members of the public and local staff.

The following excerpts describe the six areas.

1.1. Responsibility for Monitoring

“The State’s general supervision system does not include oversight of contracted organizations to ensure compliance with IDEA Part C, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434 and 1435(a)(10), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.708.”

1.2. Identification of Noncompliance

“The State’s general supervision system does not consistently ensure accurate and timely identification of noncompliance as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.702.”

2.1. Parental Consent for Use of Public Benefits or Private Insurance

“The State is not in compliance with the IDEA Part C parental consent requirements for use of public benefits or private insurance to pay for Part C services consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1432(4)(B), 1435(a)(10), 1439, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.7, 303.414(b), 303.520 and 303.521.”

3.1. Procedural Safeguards Notice

“The State has not established or adopted procedural safeguards consistent with the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.400(a).”

3.2. State Complaint Model Form

“The State’s model complaint form does not indicate that use of the form—or any additional information it requests—is optional, and it includes fields that exceed the complaint content required under 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.434(b). Further, the State’s written procedures require complainants to send a copy of the complaint to the Early Intervention Division and simultaneously provide a copy to the ‘other party,’ rather than forwarding a copy to the public agency or EIS provider serving the child at the time the complaint is filed with the lead agency, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.434(d).”

1.3. Timely Implementation of Due Process Hearing Decisions

The report labels this finding “1.3” and cites “300.700.” These appear to be typos for “3.3” and “303.700.”

“The State has not ensured that hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there was no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1439(a)(1), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, 303.437, and 300.700 through 303.708.”

What Happens Next

According to the report, Oct. 7, 2026, OSEP closed findings 3.1, 3.2, and the finding labeled 1.3.

OSEP set deadlines for Massachusetts to submit corrective-action documents by Jan. 7, 2027, for the open findings. Evidence of implementation is due as soon as possible, but no later than Oct. 7, 2027.

What This Means for Families

This report gives parents more ammunition to bring to meetings. Keep in mind that it doesn’t prove that every early intervention provider violated IDEA or that every child was denied services.

Massachusetts’ April 2013 payment policy required parental consent to use public benefits or private insurance. It also said the state would provide services parents had approved in their child’s plan even when they declined that use. Yet the state’s forms didn’t let parents approve one funding source and decline the other:

“OSEP found that the State’s “Consent to Access Insurance” form combines consent for public benefits and private insurance and does not provide an option for separate informed consent for families. . . .

“Both the web-based form in EICS and the State’s Universal IFSP consent form to access insurance include a single signature line that authorizes the State to access public and/or private insurance without clearly distinguishing between the two sources of insurance and does not provide parents the opportunity to separately consent to or decline insurance sources separately. As a result, when a parent consents to one type of insurance, the consent also applies to the other insurance and when a parent chooses to decline consent, the parent declines consent for both public benefits and private insurance.”

OSEP also found that Massachusetts lacked a consistent process for checking reports and data to determine whether IDEA requirements were met. Collecting information isn’t the same as using it to identify and correct violations.

The same concern applies to shared policies. OSEP warned that a finding against one program could leave others using the same noncompliant policy.

Families shouldn’t have to report the same violation one child at a time before the state checks how far it reaches.

Can general education teachers provide special education services?

Answer:

Yes. A general education teacher can provide specially designed instruction. Federal law doesn’t reserve all such instruction for special education teachers. The teacher must meet the rules for the work, and the school must follow state requirements and the student’s individualized education program (IEP).

Supporting Documents and/or Regulations

IDEA and U.S. Department of Education Guidance

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) doesn’t require a special education teacher to personally deliver every part of special education instruction.

U.S. Department of Education’s January 2025 Building and Sustaining Inclusive Educational Practices guidance addresses who may provide specially designed instruction. Page 15 states:

“Who can provide specially designed instruction?

“Ultimately the answer needs to be based on the individual needs of a student, but IDEA does not limit who can provide specially designed instruction. For example, a math teacher could provide specially designed instruction for a child with a disability based on the child’s IEP by:

“• Allowing students to think aloud and talk through the problem-solving process;

“• Sharing a written list of steps needed to solve a math concept; or

“• Creating visual flow charts for the problem-solving process.

Under 34 CFR 300.39(b)(3), specially designed instruction means:

“adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—

“(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and

“(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.”

For example, a student might need direct teaching on how to organize multistep math problems. A qualified general education teacher could model the steps, guide practice, and adjust prompts when state rules and the IEP allow it. The teacher’s job title doesn’t prevent that work from being specially designed instruction.

Does the Teacher Need Special Education Certification?

Read more

Student will be tested for mastery only.

A testing-for-mastery accommodation can limit repetitive questions while allowing a student to show whether they’ve learned the skills being assessed.

However, “testing for mastery only” doesn’t explain how to provide the support.

Does the teacher shorten the test before giving it to the student? Does testing stop once the student shows mastery? What happens after a wrong answer? Does the student take weekly quizzes, end-of-unit tests, or both?

Those questions need answers before testing begins.

Who Benefits From Testing-for-Mastery Accommodations?

Students who struggle with attention, processing, stamina, reading, and/or writing are among the students who may benefit from this accommodation. The decision should be based on the student’s needs and the task, not just a diagnosis.

For example, consider a student who can explain a math concept but struggles to complete pages of similar problems. Is repeated work the barrier? Is it fatigue or anxiety about the test’s length? Does the student struggle to put thoughts into words? Is the physical act of writing difficult?

The answers can help the team decide how to write the accommodation.

Potential Problems

Under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), an individualized education program (IEP) must identify the student’s services and supports. The school also must tell responsible teachers and providers what they must do, including which accommodations they must provide. These requirements appear in 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a)(4) and 300.323(d). Clear wording helps staff follow the plan.

The Teacher Says Everyone Already Gets the Support

Consider this example from Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia:

A student’s IEP said he would be tested for mastery only. The parent and student thought this meant shorter tests with fewer questions than classmates received.

The student later reported receiving the same tests as his classmates. His math teacher explained that she already limited repeated questions for everyone. She said she tested the entire class for mastery.

Read more

Do educators who aren’t my child’s teachers have to read his IEP?

Answer:

Educators who aren’t your child’s classroom teachers may have duties under his individualized education program (IEP). The school must give access to the staff members responsible for implementing the plan. It must also tell them their duties and the accommodations, modifications, and supports the child must receive.

Federal law doesn’t impose a blanket requirement that every teacher in a school read every page of every student’s IEP. The key is what staff must do for the student, not just whether they teach the student’s classes. Being outside the classroom doesn’t end duties that apply there.

Supporting Documents and/or Regulations

IDEA

Staff Duties Extend Beyond the Classroom

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), at 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(d), requires both IEP access and notice of staff members’ specific duties. Putting the plan in an online system accessible to staff isn’t enough. The school must also inform teachers and providers of their responsibilities.

IDEA also covers settings outside class. 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 specifically names meals and recess:

“In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and the services and activities set forth in § 300.107, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. The public agency must ensure that each child with a disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child's IEP Team to be appropriate and necessary for the child to participate in nonacademic settings.”

34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) also addresses services and supports for school personnel. Subsection (ii) names extracurricular and nonacademic activities. Subsection (iii) addresses participation with other children.

“(a) General. As used in this part, the term individualized education program or IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§ 300.320 through 300.324, and that must include— . . . (4) A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child— . . . (iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section;”

Office for Civil Rights

Read more

• Procedural Safeguards—Complaints:

  • The allegations concerned the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) handling of a systemic complaint filed against the agency April 3, 2026.

    • Failure to Issue a Notice of Complaint: Whether VDOE failed to issue the required Notice of Complaint within seven business days.

    • Failure to Issue Timely Findings: Whether VDOE failed to issue a Letter of Findings within the 60-day timeline.

    • Failure to Follow Other Complaint Procedures: Whether VDOE failed to issue a Letter of Inquiry, provide instructions for resubmission if warranted, and give the complainant an opportunity to respond to the complaint.

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more

Parents need those facts to determine whether their children were affected, to seek inclusion in required corrective actions, and to hold their divisions accountable.

OCR’s records also show how discrimination can occur, giving parents and educators examples for advocacy and training. Some records document violations, while others describe concerns resolved before OCR made a final determination.

For example, some of OCR’s records quote division staff OCR communicated with during investigations, while other records conceal entire statements from division staff. Sometimes the inconsistency occurs within the same document or its accompanying agreement. For example, a school name may be redacted in a letter but published in the associated agreement.

These inconsistencies block access that is important for both parents and educators.

OCR Redacts Officials’ Statements and Plan Details in Some Cases but Not Others

Kerman Unified School District—OCR Case No. 09-23-1715

OCR’s July 17, 2026, resolution letter issued to Kerman Unified School District (KUSD) in California redacts the student’s plan type and relevant provisions of the original, amended and associated plans. It also removes the substance of two officials’ statements. The following is from page 3:

“The [redacted content] Director told OCR [redacted content]. Similarly, the Superintendent told OCR [redacted content].”

In the next paragraph on page 3, under “Allegation 3,” part of the director’s account remains unredacted:

“The [redacted content] Director told OCR that during a [redacted content] meeting, the Complainant raised concerns about the Student’s [redacted content] plan and her participation [redacted content]. The [redacted content] Director was unable to recall whether the Complainant specifically mentioned civil rights violations or discrimination during this meeting.”

OCR’s letter also redacts staff and activity descriptions, while the agreement names athletics, coaches, tryouts, practices and competitions.

The following is from page four of the letter:

“Pursuant to the Agreement, the District has agreed to provide a guidance memorandum to employees (including [redacted content] staff), students, and parents/guardians of the District’s obligations to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from District programs and activities (including [redacted content]) and a FAPE during extracurricular activities; and, provide training on the guidance memorandum, Section 504, and Title II training for staff, including [redacted content].”

Compare that summary with the following from page 1, Section I.A, of the agreement (bold/red added in the paragraph above/below for comparison):

“The District will provide a written Guidance Memorandum to its employees, including but not limited to all athletics coaching staff, including volunteer or part-time coaching staff, students, and parents/guardians of: the District’s obligation to (and assurance that it will) provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from District programs and activities, including athletics, and a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during extracurricular activities in accordance with Section 504 and Title II, as well as the name, position title, and contact information of the District employee who is responsible for responding to any inquiries or complaints pertaining to FAPE.”

These records don’t explain why the letter redacts staff and activity descriptions that the agreement supplies.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 04-23-1119

OCR’s April 8, 2026, resolution letter issued to Miami-Dade County Public Schools in Florida lists five interviewees but replaces their descriptions with “[Redacted Content].”

The redacted list doesn’t let readers determine which staff responsibilities were represented in those interviews.

School District of Phillips—OCR Case No. 05-26-1394

OCR’s May 15, 2026, resolution letter issued to the School District of Phillips in Wisconsin identifies an individualized education program (IEP), check-ins, occupational therapy consultations, and executive functioning instruction. It also includes the superintendent’s explanations about services, missing records, and grades. The agreement identifies the services to review and the conditions for a replacement field-trip experience.

The placeholder “[redacted content]” appears three times: for an email address and information following “Student A” on page 1, and for the field-trip destination on page 2. The concealed information after “Student A” isn’t identified as the student’s name.

The letter and agreement for this case allow readers to compare the relevant plan requirements, officials’ explanations, and required response.

Prince George’s County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 03-23-1279

OCR’s Aug. 7, 2026, resolution letter issued to Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland publishes the district’s explanation for denying a request to waive an academic eligibility rule so a student could play basketball. The agreement identifies the procedures to review and how requests involving disability-related effects on grades must be addressed.

This letter was issued after OCR’s resolution letter issued to KUSD. The dates show different disclosure practices in the same year, but don’t establish whether OCR changed a policy or how any policy was applied.

Readers can examine the stated reason for exclusion and the policy changes intended to address OCR’s concern.

San Bernardino City Unified School District—OCR Case No. 09-22-1263

OCR’s April 24, 2026, resolution letter issued to San Bernardino City Unified School District in California identifies a Section 504 plan, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and five accommodations. It also preserves the teacher’s and vice principal’s different explanations of how extended time should work.

This access lets readers distinguish what the plan said from how staff interpreted it.

Fairfax County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-21-5901

OCR’s Nov. 30, 2022, findings letter issued to Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia preserves dated internal communications and officials’ explanations, including an April 3, 2020, superintendent email about identifying students for future compensatory services and later administrators’ responses.

This access lets readers examine the division’s internal discussion, not just OCR’s finding of noncompliance. It also lets staff compare the instructions they received from the division with OCR’s explanation of the division’s legal duties.

Los Angeles Unified School District—OCR Case No. 09-21-5901

OCR’s April 28, 2022, findings letter issued to Los Angeles Unified School District in California preserves instructions from a district webinar to steer discussions away from compensatory education and toward “recoupment” services. It also describes how those instructions related to OCR’s findings.

The public can see instructions given to staff and recognize similar explanations given to other families. As in the FCPS case, staff can compare the division’s instructions with OCR’s findings.

OCR Redacts Parts of Required Corrective Action

Orange County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-25-1178

OCR’s Jan. 30, 2026, findings letter issued to Orange County Public Schools in Virginia accompanies an agreement signed Jan. 29, 2026. The agreement requires training and a memorandum on using “non-school based processes” alongside, rather than instead of, evaluations. The example of the particular process is redacted in both requirements.

From page 1 of the agreement:

“The training will emphasize: The importance of implementing non-school based processes such as [redacted content] in addition to, not instead of or as a precursor to, evaluating for special education or related services.”

From pages 1and 2 of the agreement:

“The Division will issue a memorandum to all Division staff and administrators involved in the identification, evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities on the following Section 504 requirements: . . . (4) the importance of implementing non-school based processes such as [redacted content] in addition to, not instead of or as a precursor to, evaluating for special education or related services.”

Readers can see the general duty but not the specific process OCR required the division to address.

Marymount University—OCR Case No. 11-23-2033

OCR’s Dec. 22, 2025, findings letter issued to Marymount University in Virginia accompanies an agreement signed Dec. 19, 2025. The agreement requires training for Student Access Services and “[redacted content] faculty and staff.” The training topics remain unredacted, but part of the description of those required to attend is redacted.

Readers can identify what the training must cover, but not the full group required to receive it.

Jenks Public Schools—OCR Case No. 07-09-5004

OCR’s Aug. 14, 2026, resolution letter issued to Jenks Public Schools in Oklahoma identifies therapy services and plan requirements in its factual account, then redacts service descriptions in later analysis. Its conclusion states:

“The Agreement requires the District to ensure [redacted content].”

The agreement describes reviews of missed occupational therapy and speech-language therapy sessions during the 2023-24 school year, including reviews for other qualifying students.

Readers must consult the agreement to identify requirements omitted from the letter’s summary, including relief that may extend beyond the students discussed.

Bremerton School District—OCR Case No. 10-25-1564

OCR’s March 4, 2026, resolution letter issued to Bremerton School District in Washington describes the district’s “alternative school program placement process.” The agreement, signed Feb. 24, 2026, repeatedly redacts program descriptions in requirements for placement decisions, district oversight and parent contacts.

The letter supplies a program category that helps explain the agreement’s scope. It doesn’t reveal every deleted word or a specific campus.

Portland Public Schools—OCR Case No. 10-23-1280

OCR’s March 4, 2026, resolution letter issued to Portland Public Schools in Oregon describes “tuition reimbursement for one semester of community college.” The agreement, signed March 3, 2026, requires an offer to reimburse “tuition and fees,” followed by “[redacted content].”

The letter explains the remedy’s scope more fully. Readers who consult only the agreement won’t have that detail.

OCR Inconsistently Redacts School and Program Names

Chicago Public Schools District 299—OCR Case No. 05-22-1042

OCR’s March 10, 2026, resolution letter issued to Chicago Public Schools District 299 in Illinois redacts the school’s name. The agreement also redacts that name and part of the description of classes covered by a review. It doesn’t redact the requirement to notify parents of students whose instruction moved to hallways, landings or other non-classroom settings in fall 2021.

Other families can recognize the practice and period, but the public copies don’t identify the school whose students are covered.

Stafford County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-23-1686

OCR’s March 17, 2026, resolution letter issued to Stafford County Public Schools in Virginia withholds the program and school names. The agreement redacts the program name, too, while describing advanced or accelerated classes and programs.

The general description identifies a type of program, not the particular school or program named in the complaint.

District of Columbia Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-22-1358

OCR’s June 5, 2026, resolution letter issued to District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in Washington, D.C., redacts the school’s name. The agreement’s second corrective action states:

“The District will provide training to all District administrators and School staff members at Murch Elementary School on the District’s duties and responsibilities under Section 504 and Title II and the provision of a free appropriate public education.”

This identifies staff required to receive training. It doesn’t establish where the training would take place or that it occurred.

The agreement names the school singled out for training, while the letter withholds the student’s school.

Southeastern Cooperative Educational Programs—OCR Docket No. 11-17-5001

OCR’s Dec. 16, 2022, resolution letter issued to Southeastern Cooperative Educational Programs (SECEP) in Virginia names its five regional centers, then redacts center headings in its site-by-site account. School years and incident totals remain visible, including an anonymous student’s 10,715 minutes in seclusion during 2016-17.

Readers can see the reported practices but can’t 100% match each account to a named center from the letter alone, making it difficult to assess whether their children might also have been affected.

Clark County School District—OCR Case No. 10-25-1391

OCR’s Nov. 18, 2025, resolution letter issued to Clark County School District in Nevada withholds the individual school’s name but identifies it as a magnet school. The agreement repeatedly uses “magnet school” in its placement, oversight and parent-contact requirements, unlike Bremerton’s masked program descriptions.

Readers can identify the category of schools covered by the corrective procedures without knowing the individual student’s campus.

OCR Redacts and Publishes Facts About the Same Complaint

Orange County Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-25-1178

OCR’s Jan. 30, 2026, findings letter issued to Orange County Public Schools in Virginia redacts the alleged retaliatory conduct in its opening paragraph. Page 5 prints the allegation in a heading, identifying pay docking and an employee improvement plan.

A reader must reach page 5 to identify conduct concealed in the opening allegation.

Friendship Aspire Academy Public Charter School—OCR Case No. 07-25-1555

OCR’s April 21, 2026, resolution letter issued to Friendship Aspire Academy Public Charter School in Arkansas redacts parts of the retaliation account. Its analysis identifies a concern about transfer to another campus.

The analysis supplies important context absent from the earlier account, without revealing every deleted word.

Suffolk Public Schools—OCR Case No. 11-24-1441

OCR’s May 4, 2026, findings letter issued to Suffolk Public Schools in Virginia names the “Spanish teacher” in its opening allegations (page 1), redacts that role in parts of the factual account (pages 2 and 3), and names the “Spanish Teacher” again in the analysis (page 4).

The inconsistent wording impacts readers’ ability to track the same staff role through the letter.

Beach Public School District 3—OCR Case No. 05-23-1663

OCR’s May 6, 2026, findings letter issued to Beach Public School District 3 in North Dakota redacts the number of other students in a program on page 5:

“The Principal said there was [redacted content] other student in the Program, [redacted content].”

Page 7 specifies the number of other students in the program as one:

“The decision to place Student A in the Program with only one other special education student also failed to ensure that Student A was educated in the least restrictive environment as required by the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c).”

OCR Inconsistently Redacts Student Supports

Academy of Hope Adult Public Charter School—OCR Case No. 11-23-4055

OCR’s Dec. 16, 2025, findings letter issued to Academy of Hope Adult Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., repeatedly redacts the requested communication service and the student’s language. It preserves Zoom transcription (page 3) as the school’s alternative and leaves “cost of interpreters” (page 4) visible in the analysis. The agreement doesn’t supply the specific language or full-service description.

Readers can understand the broad communication dispute but can’t fully examine the aid the student requested. Since the discrimination identified included a decision based on funding instead of individual need, the redactions limit other similarly situated students to compare their own needs with the aid that was denied.

St. Johns County School District—OCR Case No. 04-21-1442

OCR’s Nov. 19, 2025, resolution letter issued to St. Johns County School District in Florida identifies an IEP and school years but redacts therapy and service descriptions. The agreement identifies 2021-22 while withholding additional months covered by the possible remedy.

Williamson County Schools—OCR Case No. 04-25-1454

OCR’s April 16, 2026, resolution letter issued to Williamson County Schools in Tennessee redacts medical conditions while preserving the physician’s explanation of the need for one-to-one nursing. The agreement names nursing staff and administrators required to receive training.

Blue Springs R-IV School District—OCR Case No. 07-24-1597

OCR’s Sept. 25, 2025, resolution letter issued to Blue Springs R-IV School District in Missouri redacts diagnoses while preserving the principal’s account of discussions about the requested animal and what it would do for the student.

Readers can examine the request and the district’s reasoning without being given the diagnoses.

Read more

Can schools block students who use accommodations from receiving academic and other honors?

Answer:

No, not just because a student uses disability-related accommodations. Schools can set compliant rules for who qualifies for an honor. An individualized education program (IEP) or Section 504 plan doesn’t guarantee an award. It also isn’t a reason to deny one. Schools can’t discount a qualified student’s achievement simply because the student received needed support.

Supporting Documents and/or Regulations

Section 504 and Title II

Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act bars disability discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) bars disability discrimination by public entities, including public school districts. These protections cover school-sponsored field trips, sports teams, clubs, and other activities beyond the classroom.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, schools can’t deny qualified students equal access to benefits because they have a disability.

Title II also requires reasonable modifications to rules, practices, or procedures when needed to avoid disability discrimination. A public school may refuse a change if it can show that the change would fundamentally alter the program or activity. Two examples follow below.

• In its Jan. 25, 2013, “Dear Colleague” letter, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) gave an example of 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.

• In the same letter, OCR gave an example of a fundamental alteration a school could refuse. Adding an extra base in baseball would change the game.

Schools also can’t use eligibility rules that screen out students with disabilities unless those rules are necessary for the program or activity.

Reydon Public Schools’ Valedictorian Policy

May 15, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued its letter for OCR Case No. 07-26-1328, involving Reydon Public Schools (RPS) in Oklahoma. The student’s father said RPS ruled his child out for valedictorian because the student’s IEP allowed extra time on tests. He said the student had earned all A grades for two years and otherwise qualified.

The district’s policy required students to complete coursework “without modifications.” After OCR began its investigation, RPS named the student valedictorian. The principal apologized to the student and father and gave OCR a draft handbook with the disputed words removed.

RPS signed a resolution agreement before OCR finished its investigation. It agreed to revise its valedictorian and salutatorian policies and review those honors for the 2021–22 through 2025–26 school years. For students who qualified but were unlawfully excluded under the old policy because of disability, RPS agreed to provide notice and correct their records.

OCR’s Honor-Roll Finding

OCR’s Annual Report to Congress for fiscal years 2007–08 describes a complaint alleging that a district did the following:

“[D]iscriminated against special education students at a middle school on the basis of disability by excluding special education students from recognition on its A and B honor roll or comparable honor roll.”

OCR didn’t name the district.

According to the report:

“OCR found that the district was selectively applying its unwritten honor roll policy by treating severely disabled students who met the honor roll criteria differently without a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The district agreed, among other things, to develop a written honor roll policy that is consistent with Section 504 and Title II and to submit evidence to OCR showing that the school uniformly applied the honor roll policy in effect and provided equal recognition to all eligible honor roll students for the previous six-week grading period, regardless of their disability status.”

OCR’s Special Education Math and Awards Case

OCR’s 2000 Annual Report to Congress describes a student who was kept off the honor roll because he took a special education math class. OCR didn’t name the district.

OCR’s review showed that the problem went beyond this student. Students receiving special education had been:

“categorically excluded from all award and recognition activities.”

This was a blanket exclusion, not a decision limited to one student’s math grade. Under an agreement with OCR:

“the district agreed to work with parents in designing a program to recognize the academic accomplishments of special education students.”

Moorestown’s Valedictorian Dispute

Read more

OCR investigated whether KUSD denied the student an equal opportunity to participate, whether KUSD denied her a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to follow her plan, and whether KUSD properly handled discrimination complaints filed on her behalf. The case number is 09-23-1715.

KUSD signed a resolution agreement July 14, 2026, before OCR finished its investigation. OCR raised concerns but didn’t make a final finding that KUSD violated the law.

Heavily Redacted Resolution Letter

KUSD’s resolution letter is heavily redacted. This limits what readers can learn about the student’s plan, her supports, KUSD’s duties and its response to the complaint.

A few examples:

• Readers can’t tell whether the student had an individualized education program (IEP) or a 504 plan.

• OCR redacted statements made by KUSD employees, including the superintendent. Readers can’t review those explanations or see how they relate to OCR’s concerns.

• The types of some meetings are redacted, making it hard to follow what happened.

Yet OCR shared these details in the School District of Phillips (SDP) field trip case in Wisconsin. Its SDP resolution letter identifies the student’s IEP and describes required check-ins, executive-functioning instruction, and occupational therapy consultations. It also gives the superintendent’s explanations about services, work completion, grades and the field trip exclusion. Other resolution letters and agreement offer a similar level of access.

OCR’s resolution letter for KUSD includes a general privacy statement but doesn’t explain why these specific details were redacted.

What Happened

Read more

When U.S. Department of Education (ED) rolled out its redesigned site in 2024, broken links took up residence where federal oversight once lived. Pages that once housed documents such as Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) reports, guidance documents, and Dear Colleague letters now redirect—or vanished entirely.

To safeguard access, Special Education Action has begun archiving DMS reports and status letters directly on its site instead of linking to unstable USDOE URLs. (Additional Reading: We Need to Preserve What U.S. Department of Education Continues to Remove)

About the List Below

The following documents were taken from both the old DMS Part B page (still accessible as of 11.10.25 2.10.26 no longer available) and the new Parts B and C DMS page (which as of 4.16.26 now redirects to a database formatted page). As of 9.18.26, the new DMS page is missing all DMS reports and associated updates/close-outs issued in 2018 or earlier, as well as numerous reports and updates/close-outs issued during subsequest years. For example, OSEP issued a DMS report to Virginia in 2020, yet that report and subsequent reports and updates/close-outs are missing. I’m working to locate and add downloadable versions for the links still listed below.

Important: This is not a complete collection. In addition to the missing records discussed above, ED often posts DMS reports and letters years late—or not at all. If a record isn’t listed, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. For this reason, I’m working on adding notes under states with missing materials. For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs section includes a 2021 closure letter addressing only some of the issues identified in 2019. Where are the corresponding status reports or closure letters for the remaining issues? Are the remaining issues even closed? If not, why not?

Request: If you have DMS records not listed below or missing from the downloads, please consider sharing them so they can be added to the list.

Please Check Back: I’ll continue adding records as they’re found. Please check back periodically for updates.

Updates

2.4.26: When USDOE updates its website, a timestamp appears on any page that has been modified. Between September 26, 2025, and January 21, 2026, the timestamp in the lower corner of the DMS webpage remained unchanged. On January 22, 2026, the timestamp updated to January 22, 2026; however, no substantive changes to the page content are apparent. The screenshots below, taken on September 30, 2025, and January 22, 2026, document the page’s identical content on both dates.

2.10.26: USDOE added its December 17, 2025, letter and report to Louisiana Department of Health for noncompliance with IDEA Part C. This has been added to the list below.

4.16.26: Added OSEP’s March 25, 2026, closeout letter for South Carolina; March 25, 2026, DMS report for Utah; February 29, 2026, DMS report for Maine; February 18, 2026, closeout letter for Alaska; February 18, 2026, closeout letter for Idaho; and updated content under the “About the List Below” section.

9.18.26: Although the bottom of ED’s DMS page previously noted the date it was last updated, that is no longer the case. As of 9.18.26, the 6.22.26 timestamp has remained at the bottom of the page, even though the page has been updated numerous times since then. The following are dates I checked the site and noticed changes, and the number of records appearing on the site at the time: 5.13.26, 77 records; 6.22.26, 79 records; 7.22.26, 80 records; 9.7.26, 83 records; 9.17.26, 84 records.

Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) Reports

Alaska

Part B DMS Reports

• September 25, 2023: Alaska DMS Monitoring Report

  

  September 25, 2023: Alaska Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  567KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • May 16, 2024: Alaska Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    May 16, 2024: Alaska Part B DMS Status Letter

    382KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • February 18, 2026: Alaska Part B DMS Closeout Letter

  

  February 18, 2026: Alaska Part B DMS Closeout Letter

  351KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

American Samoa

Part B DMS Reports

• April 2, 2024: American Samoa OSEP and OESE Fiscal Monitoring Report

April 2, 2024: American Samoa OSEP and OESE Fiscal Monitoring Report

280KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

• May 16, 2025: American Samoa Part B DMS Monitoring Report

May 16, 2025: American Samoa Part B DMS Monitoring Report

599KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• March 29, 2024: American Samoa OSEP and OESE Fiscal Monitoring Report

March 29, 2024: American Samoa OSEP and OESE Fiscal Monitoring Report

280KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

• September 12, 2024: American Samoa Part C DMS Monitoring Report

September 12, 2024: American Samoa Part C DMS Monitoring Report

460KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Arizona

• DMS Monitoring Report of Sep. 11, 2020 | PDF (308KB)

  • DMS Corrective Action Plan of Feb, 14, 2022 | PDF (379KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of Mar, 1, 2023 | PDF (1.1 MB)

• DMS Letter of July 3, 2018 | PDF (289KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — SSIP | PDF (184KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (113KB)

  • LEA Allocations | PDF (250KB)

  • DMS Notice | PDF (255KB)

Arkansas

Part B DMS Reports

• September 28, 2023: Arkansas Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  September 28, 2023: Arkansas Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  1000KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • March 21, 2024: Arkansas Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    March 21, 2024: Arkansas Part B DMS Status Letter

    432KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • January 16, 2025: Arkansas Part B DMS Close-out Letter

    

    January 16, 2025: Arkansas Part B DMS Close-out Letter

    391KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

Part C DMS Reports

• January 12, 2023: Arkansas Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  January 12, 2023: Arkansas Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  676KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • July 5, 2023: Arkansas Part C DMS Status Letter

    

    July 5, 2023: Arkansas Part C DMS Status Letter

    315KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • July 17, 2024: Arkansas Part C DMS Status Letter

  

  July 17, 2024: Arkansas Part C DMS Status Letter

  641KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Bureau of Indian Education

Part B DMS Reports

• October 23, 2018: DMS Notice

  • Missing: The October 23, 2019, report below states: “On October 23, 2018, OSEP sent the BIE’s DMS notice to Jeffrey Hamley and Donald Griffin. . . . We have attached a copy of the DMS notice for your convenience.” The report is attached to the 2019 report as mentioned, but—as of 11.10.25—doesn’t appear on either the old or current OSEP DMS pages. Why?

• October 23, 2019: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  October 23, 2019: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  952KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • September 8, 2021: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Close-out Letter

    

    September 8, 2021: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Close-out Letter

    221KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • September 8, 2021: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Summary Chart

    

    September 8, 2021: Bureau of Indian Education Part B DMS Summary Chart

    253KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • Missing: OSEP’s Close-out Letter and Summary Chart indicate it closed some of the issues, but not all. Required corrective actions and additional documentation were required “by the BIE to close the remaining DMS findings.” Where is the Status Letter and/or Closure Letter noting status, continued required actions, and/or closure of monitoring?

California

• DMS Letter of Nov. 22, 2017 | PDF (208KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (89KB)

Colorado

Part B DMS Reports

• May 16, 2024: Colorado Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  May 16, 2024: Colorado Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  621KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • June 18, 2026: Colorado Part B Close-Out Letter

    

    June 18, 2026: Colorado Part B Close-Out Letter

    742KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

Part C DMS Reports

• April 29, 2024: Colorado Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  April 29, 2024 Colorado Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  327KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • December 20, 2024: Colorado Part C DMS Status Letter

December 20, 2024: Colorado Part C DMS Status Letter

317KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

District of Columbia

• DMS Monitoring Report of Jan. 15, 2021 | PDF (552KB)

Florida

• DMS Monitoring Report of Dec. 18, 2020 | PDF (633KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of Mar. 2, 2023 | PDF (428KB)

Hawaii

• DMS Monitoring Report of Sept. 11, 2019 | PDF (502KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of July 20, 2020 | PDF (204KB)

Idaho

Part B DMS Reports

• October 20, 2023: Idaho Part B DMS Letter

  

  October 20, 2023: Idaho Part B DMS Letter

  506KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • June 25, 2024: Idaho Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    June 25, 2024: Idaho Part B DMS Status Letter

    301KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • Missing: Where is the Status Letter and/or Closure Letter noting status, continued required actions, and/or closure of monitoring?

• May 16, 2025: Idaho Part B DMS Monitoring Report

May 16, 2025: Idaho Part B DMS Monitoring Report

585KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• Sept. 17, 2024: Idaho DMS Part C Monitoring Report

  

  Sept. 17, 2024: Idaho DMS Part C Monitoring Report

  545KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • February 18, 2026: Closeout Letter

    

    February 18, 2026: Closeout Letter

    383KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

Illinois

• DMS Letter of Dec. 28, 2016

  

  Dec. 28, 2016: Illinois DMS Letter

  205KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • DMS Visit Summary — Results

    

    August 29–31, 2016: Illinois Differentiated Monitoring and Support Visit and Next Steps

    225KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument

Fiscal Monitoring Instrument

174KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Indiana

Part B DMS Reports

• May 23, 2025: Indiana Part B DMS Monitoring Report

May 23, 2025: Indiana Part B DMS Monitoring Report

539KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• July 28, 2025: Indiana Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  July 28, 2025: Indiana Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  568KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Iowa

Part B DMS Reports

• July 16, 2025: Iowa Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  July 16, 2025: Iowa Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  539KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Part C DMS Reports

• June 18, 2025: Iowa Part C DMS Monitoring Report

June 18, 2025 Iowa Part C DMS Monitoring Report

427KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Kansas

Part B DMS Reports

• July 10, 2025: Kansas Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  July 10, 2025: Kansas Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  734KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Part C DMS Reports

• July 24, 2025: Kansas Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  July 24, 2025: Kansas Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  508KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Kentucky

Part B DMS Reports

• April 29, 2024: Kentucky Part B DMS Monitoring Report

April 29, 2024: Kentucky Part B DMS Monitoring Report

609KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• April 12, 2024: Kentucky Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  April 12 2024 Kentucky Part C DMS Monitoring Report.pdf

  337KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • January 8, 2025: Kentucky Part C DMS Status Letter

January 8, 2025: Kentucky Part C DMS Status Letter

361KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Louisiana

Part B DMS Report

• DMS Monitoring Report of Dec. 22, 2020 | PDF (763KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of Jan. 21, 2022 | PDF (382KB)

• DMS Monitoring Report of February 23, 2026

February 23, 2026: DMS Monitoring Report

558KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Report

• DMS Monitoring Report of Dec. 17, 2025

  

  December 17, 2025, DMS Report

  9.3MB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Maine

Part B DMS Reports

• DMS Monitoring Report of September 16, 2026

September 16, 2026: Maine, Part B DMS Report

583KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• DMS Monitoring Report of Feb. 19, 2026

  

  February 19, 2026: DMS Monitoring Report

  648KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Massachusetts

Part B DMS Reports

• DMS Letter of Feb. 2, 2018 | PDF (286KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Compliance | PDF (322KB)

• DMS Letter of Aug. 27, 2018 | PDF (204KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Compliance | PDF (225KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (169KB)

  • Enclosure B | PDF (87KB)

  • Enclosure C | PDF (130KB)

• OSERS’ Decision on Massachusetts Private School Officials’ Complaint of Aug. 15, 2019 | PDF (442KB)

• Letter to Johnston of Sep. 29, 2023 | PDF (343KB)

• January 16, 2025: Massachusetts Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

January 16, 2025: Massachusetts Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

578KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Michigan

Part C DMS Reports

• DMS Monitoring Report of June 26, 2020 | PDF (532KB)

  • DMS Closeout Letter of Oct. 12, 2023 | PDF (437KB)

• January 12, 2023: Michigan Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  January 12, 2023: Michigan Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  605KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • November 21, 2023: Michigan Part C DMS Status Letter

    

    November 21, 2023: Michigan Part C DMS Status Letter

    301KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • March 12, 2024: Michigan Part C DMS Close-out Letter

  

  March 12, 2024: Michigan Part C DMS Close-out Letter

  383KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Mississippi

Part B DMS Reports

• July 23, 2025: Mississippi Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

July 23, 2025: Mississippi Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

667KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• May 19, 2025: Mississippi Part C DMS Monitoring Report

May 19, 2025: Mississippi Part C DMS Monitoring Report

616KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Montana

Part B DMS Reports

• May 16, 2024: Montana Part B DMS Monitoring Report

May 16, 2024: Montana Part B DMS Monitoring Report

568KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

• September 10, 2025: Montana Part B DMS Monitoring Close-out Letter

September 10, 2025: Montana Part B DMS Monitoring Close-out Letter

396KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• January 24, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  January 24, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  489KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • August 10, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Status Letter

    

    August 10, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Status Letter

    411KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • December 20, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Status Letter

    

    December 20, 2023: Montana Part C DMS Status Letter

    375KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • May 21, 2024: Montana Part C DMS Close-out Letter

May 21, 2024: Montana Part C DMS Close-out Letter

282KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Nebraska

Part B DMS Reports

• July 23, 2025: Nebraska Part B DMS Monitoring Report

July 23, 2025: Nebraska Part B DMS Monitoring Report

487KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• April 16, 2026: Nebraska Part C DMS Report

  

  April 16, 2026: Nebraska Part C DMS Report

  578KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • REVISED—June 18, 2026: Nebraska Part C DMS Report

REVISED—June 18, 2026: Nebraska Part C DMS Report

760KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Nevada

Part B DMS Reports

• October 4, 2024: Nevada Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  October 4, 2024: Nevada Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  475KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

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

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

349KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• July 10, 2025: Nevada Part C DMS Monitoring Report

July 10, 2025: Nevada Part C DMS Monitoring Report

527KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

New Hampshire

• DMS Close-out Letter of Dec. 8, 2017 | PDF (163KB)

Part B DMS Reports

• May 6, 2026: New Hampshire Part B DMS Report

Part C DMS Reports

• September 2, 2026: New Hampshire Part C DMS Report

New Jersey

Part B DMS Reports

• May 6, 2019: New Jersey Part B DMS Letter

  

  May 6, 2019: New Jersey Part B DMS Letter

  235KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • August 27, 2018: New Jersey Part B DMS Visit Notice

    

    August 27, 2018: New Jersey Part B DMS Visit Notice

    230KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • August 27, 2018: New Jersey Part B DMS Enclosure

    

    August 27, 2018: New Jersey Part B DMS Enclosure

    180KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • October 20, 2023: New Jersey Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    October 20, 2023: New Jersey Part B DMS Status Letter

    457KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • December 15, 2023: New Jersey Part B DMS Notification of Monitoring Letter

    

    December 15, 2023: New Jersey Part B DMS Notification of Monitoring Letter

    464KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

• July 14, 2025: New Jersey Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

July 14, 2025: New Jersey Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

610KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

New Mexico

• DMS Letter of Jan. 10, 2017 | PDF (259KB)

  • DMS Results | PDF (265KB)

• DMS Letter of June 8, 2018 | PDF (211KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Results | PDF (265KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (128KB)

New York

Part B DMS Reports

• DMS Report of Apr. 26, 2017 | PDF (249KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (133KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Dispute Resolution | PDF (210KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Secondary Transition | PDF (109KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Timely Initial Evaluation | PDF (102KB)

• Sep. 21, 2023: New York Part B DMS Report

  

  Sep. 21, 2023: New York Part B Targeted DMS Monitoring Report

  1010KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • Dec. 21, 2023: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    Dec. 21, 2023: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    489KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • May 8, 2024: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    May 8, 2024: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    219KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • March 26, 2025: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    March 26, 2025: New York Part B DMS Status Letter

    347KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • May 6, 2026: DMS Report Close-Out Letter

  

  May 6, 2026: New York Part B Close-Out Letter

  375KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

Part C DMS Reports

• February 29, 2024: New York Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  

  February 29, 2024: New York Part C DMS Monitoring Report

  1.61MB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • September 24, 2024: New York Part C DMS Status Letter

September 24, 2024: New York Part C DMS Status Letter

340KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

North Carolina

• DMS Monitoring Report of May 14, 2021 | PDF (649KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of Aug. 3, 2022 | PDF (210KB)

North Dakota

Part B DMS Reports

• July 17, 2025: North Dakota Part B DMS Monitoring Report

July 17, 2025: North Dakota Part B DMS Monitoring Report

469KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• July 17, 2025: North Dakota Part C DMS Monitoring Report

July 17, 2025: North Dakota Part C DMS Monitoring Report

469KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ohio

• DMS Letter of May 1, 2017 | PDF (130KB)

  • Fiscal Monitoring Instrument | PDF (203KB)

Oregon

Part B DMS Reports

• June 11, 2025: Oregon Part B DMS Monitoring Report

June 11, 2025: Oregon Part B DMS Monitoring Report

519KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• June 5, 2025: Oregon Part C DMS Monitoring Report

June 5, 2025: Oregon Part C DMS Monitoring Report

423KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Pennsylvania

Part B DMS Reports

• July 14, 2026: Pennsylvania Part B Monitoring Report

July 14, 2026: Pennsylvania Part B Monitoring Report

1.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• June 18, 2026: Pennsylvania Part C Monitoring Report

June 18, 2026: Pennsylvania Part C Monitoring Report

543KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Puerto Rico

• DMS Letter of Nov. 29, 2017 | PDF (214KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Compliance | PDF (190KB)

  • DMS Visit Summary — Results and State Systemic Improvement Plan | PDF (114KB)

South Carolina

Part B DMS Reports

• DMS Letter of April 23, 2024:

  

  April 23, 2024: DMS Monitoring Report

  807KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • December 5, 2024: Closeout Letter

    

    December 5, 2024: Closeout Letter

    316KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

    

    March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

    366KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

Tennessee

Part B DMS Reports

• July 23, 2025: Tennessee Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

July 23, 2025: Tennessee Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

445KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• September 11, 2025: Tennessee Part C DMS Monitoring Report

September 10, 2025: Tennessee Part C DMS Monitoring Report

549KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Texas

• State Special Conditions Letter of July 2, 2022 | PDF (259KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of May 4, 2023 | PDF (259KB)

• DMS Letter of Aug. 27, 2021 | PDF (213KB)

  • Enclosure | PDF (421KB)

  • DMS Letter of Oct. 1, 2021 — Regarding the State’s Corrective Action Response | PDF (619KB)

• DMS Letter of Oct. 19, 2020 | PDF (823KB)

• DMS Letter of Jan. 11, 2018 | PDF (191KB)

  • Enclosure | PDF (317KB)

• DMS Letter of Oct. 19, 2018 | PDF (344KB)

Utah

Part B DMS Reports

• July 14, 2025: Utah Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  

  July 14, 2025: Utah Part B DMS Monitoring Report

  446KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • August 14, 2026: Utah Part B DMS Close-Out Letter

August 14, 2026: Utah Part B DMS Close-Out Letter

341KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part C DMS Reports

• March 25, 2026: Utah Part C DMS Monitoring Report

March 25, 2026: Utah Part B DMS Monitoring Report

628KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Virginia

Part B DMS Reports

• DMS Monitoring Report of June 23, 2020 | PDF (464KB)

  • DMS Status Letter of Jan. 17, 2023 | PDF (226KB)

  • DMS Status Letter of Feb. 8, 2022 | PDF (589KB)

  • DMS Status Letter of Sep. 1, 2022 | PDF (373KB)

    • DMS Summary Chart of Sep. 1, 2022 | PDF (231KB)

  • DMS Response of Feb. 17, 2023 | PDF (264KB)

    • DMS Summary Chart of Feb. 17, 2023 | PDF (231KB)

  • DMS Targeted Monitoring Letter of May 12, 2023 | PDF (220KB)

  • DMS Close-out Letter of Mar. 13, 2024 | PDF (369KB)

• March 13, 2024: Virginia Part B DMS Targeted Monitoring Report

  

  March 13 2024 Virginia Part B Dms Targeted Monitoring Report

  757KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

  • July 18, 2024: Virginia Part B DMS Status Letter

    

    July 18, 2024: Virginia Part B DMS Status Letter

    388KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

  • December 5, 2024: Virginia Part B DMS Close-out Letter

December 5, 2024: Virginia Part B DMS Close-out Letter

417KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

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 Nov…

Read more

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 Sept…

Read more

“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