September 16, 2026: DMS Report for Maine

583KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

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

The following excerpts describe the 11 areas.

1.1. Monitoring Section 619 Preschool Programs

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

1.2. Monitoring IDEA Early Childhood Transition Requirements

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

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

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

1.4. Monitoring Private School Placements by the Public Agency

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

2.1. Data Reporting: Indicators 11—Child Find

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

2.2. Data Reporting: Indicator 13—Secondary Transition

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

3.1. Internal Controls: Segregation of duties

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

3.2. Fiscal Monitoring: Section 619 Preschool Programs

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

3.3. Single Audit Responsibilities: Correction of Noncompliance

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

4.1. Filing a Due Process Complaint

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

4.2. Confidentiality of Mediation Discussions

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

What Happens Next

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

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

What This Means for Families

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

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

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

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

1.93MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

The mediation history goes back even further.

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

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

436KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 31, 2020: OSEP Letter to Anonymous

253KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

So . . .

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

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

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

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

What OSEP Found

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

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

The following are OSEP’s findings:

Read more

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

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

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

What Happened

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

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

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

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

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

The Academic Eligibility Rule

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

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

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

The Grades Weren’t the Whole Story

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

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

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

OCR’s Concerns

Read more

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

A Note About Section 302

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

Under Section 302:

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

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

What Happened

Read more

Complaint and Allegations

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

The complaint alleged the following three violations:

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

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

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

What MDESE Investigated

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

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

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

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

Findings

Read more

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