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. 01-25-1573 and investigated the following allegation:

“[T]he District is discrimi…

Read more

OSEP stated that the purpose of the letter was to provide an update on the required actions identified in OSEP’s September 21, 2023, DMS monitoring r…

Read more

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

557KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

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

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

“Monitoring and Improvement

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

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

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

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

“Data

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

“Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

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

“Dispute Resolution

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

What Happens Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why This Matters for Families

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

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

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

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

180KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated one allegation:

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

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

What Happened

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

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

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

That is not a small inconvenience.

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

For students, this can directly affect access to instruction.

According to OCR’s letter of findings:

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

That last part should bother everyone.

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

That is where the access issue becomes an education issue.

Where SPS Ran into Trouble

Read more

The issues include monitoring and improvement, data including the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report, fiscal management, and dispute resolution.

Read more

Read more

Read more

DOJ claims "Maine administers its behavioral health service syste…

Read more

Read more

December 21, 2023, United States Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) status letter to New York State Education Department (NYSED).

Differentiated Monitoring and Support Status Letter and Chart

2.68MB ∙ PDF file

Download

December 21, 2023, USDOE OSEP issued a DMS status letter to NYSED.

Download

OSEP Director Valerie Williams states that the purpose of the letter is “to provide an update on the status of the findings …

Read more

October 20, 2023, U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) status letter to New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). OSEP director Valerie Williams states in the letter that it 1) “summarizes the current status of the findings” regarding OSEP’s May …

Read more