Read more

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

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

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

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

What Happened

Read more

April 16, 2026: OSEP DMS Report for Nebraska

578KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

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

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

“Monitoring and Improvement

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

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

“Dispute Resolution

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

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

“Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

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

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

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

What Happens Next

OSEP gave Nebraska concrete deadlines for implementing corrective actions.

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

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

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

“IDEA Part B:

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

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

“IDEA Part C:

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

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

“a. The Governor,

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

“c. The Nebraska Auditor of Public Accounts,

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

“e. LEA superintendents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why This Matters for Families

This report is more than paperwork.

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

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

OCR investigated two allegations:

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

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

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

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

What Happened

Read more

OCR investigated one allegation:

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

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

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

What Happened

Read more

April 27, 2026, Letter of Finding for OCR Case Number 15-23-1526

229KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated three allegations:

1. “The District failed to provide certain accommodations documented in the Student’s Section 504 plan, including a) books for home use; b) breaks; and c) positioning at the front of the line and front of the school bus;

2. “The District did not allow the Student to play with his peers during recess because of his disability-related behaviors; and

3. “The District retaliated against the Student by not providing suspension document and homework after the April 27, 2023, suspension because of a prior OCR complaint.”

OCR found insufficient evidence to support the retaliation allegation but did identify concerns with the first two allegations.

Before OCR completed its investigation into those issues, LPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. April 24, 2026, LPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified issues that could be addressed through a resolution agreement.

Read more

Read more

“Shocking Overuse of Seclusion and Restraint”

DOJ found that SSD abused restraint and seclusion, using it as a routine response to student behavior. For example, “In one incident, a second-grade student was secluded for one and a half hours for knocking over her teacher’s coffee. In another, a seclusion was used because a second-grade student refused to go into music class. Another student was secluded for three and a half hours for drawing on her chair, cursing, and “being disrespectful.””

• During the 2022‑23 and 2023‑24 school years, SSD secluded over 300 students almost 4,000 times. At Litzsinger School (which had fewer than 100 students), 91% of students were secluded and the school used seclusion 1,667 times.

• SSD restrained nearly 150 students 777 times. One student at Northview High School was restrained 372 times over two years.

• Children as young as first and second grade were secluded dozens of times, resulting in hundreds of hours of lost instructional time: “Ackerman secluded a first grader 49 times for over 20 hours total. The District secluded four second graders more than 40 times each. These five students experienced a combined total of 308 reported seclusions for a total of 111 hours of lost instructional time.”

Read more

“Students with disabilities should never be discriminated against by experiencing the trauma of seclusion or improper restraint.

“Parents have the right to expect that the school systems they entrust with educating their children do not instead punish their children.”

DOJ found over 2,400 instances of seclusion and restraint—routinely used for discipline, not just emergencies—violating Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Key Findings

According to the settlement agreement, DOJ opened an investigation March 22, 2023, and found that MAISD “discriminated against students on the basis of disability by denying them the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the District’s education program . . . and failing to make reasonable modifications to avoid disability discrimination in the District’s program.”

DOJ investigation uncovered:

• Excessive use: Over 2,400 documented incidents of seclusion and restraint.

• Misuse: “Seclusion and restraint used improperly, including using emergency crisis responses as punishment for normal classroom discipline issues.”

• Discriminatory impact: Students with disabilities were discriminated against, constituting a civil-rights violation under ADA.

Examples of Key Corrective Actions

Read more

Read more

Read more

October 4, 2024, United States Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a differentiated monitoring support (DMS) letter and report addressing the findings of its investigation of NDE. Th…

Read more

DOJ's investigation found that LPS requires students it believes need Am…

Read more

Read more

Read more