The announcement came about a week after leaked drafts for HISD’s “Special Education Success Programs” were made public by local news outlets, and just days after HISD announced the program publicly.

According to OCR, the allegations involve HISD “centralizing certain special education services and proposing to separate students with disabilities from the larger student population beginning in the 2026-27 school year, despite parental concerns that their children should be in general education classrooms where their social skills improve more significantly around their peers.” OCR also noted parent concerns about students facing longer transportation times, which “would be challenging for children with medical and behavioral needs.”

Leaked Documents & What HISD Says Its Doing

According to Houston Chronicle, HISD Deputy Superintendent Kristen Hole indicated that “While most of the district’s roughly 20,000 special education students will remain at their current schools, some students who spend most of their day in self-contained classrooms may transfer to one of 150 designated campuses next year as the district relocates and consolidates classes.”

In an earlier article, Houston Chronicle reported parent concerns that the plan could segregate students with disabilities and move them far from home. It shared the following quote from David DeMatthews, an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin:

“This really is kind of re-institutionalizing kids,” DeMatthews said. “Children who have those disabilities are going to live in a world where there are people without disabilities. We intentionally build classrooms within neighborhood schools so students with more severe disabilities can get what they need in a very targeted way.”

The district says its “Special Education Success Programs” will “support students whose Individualized Education Program requires a self‑contained setting, including Early Childhood Special Education, Skills for Living and Learning, Structured Learning Classroom–Alternate, Structured Learning Classroom–Standard, and Behavior Support Class programs.”

Not HISD’s—or Texas Education Agency’s—First Time on U.S. Department of Education’s Radar

This is not the first time federal officials have had to look hard at special education in Texas.

Texas Education Agency

In 2016, Houston Chronicle launched its series “Denied: How Texas keeps tens of thousands of children out of special education”, shining a light on massive state-wide systemic noncompliance.

In 2017, United States Department of Education (ED) “issued a proposed determination that Texas is not eligible for a portion of a future section 611 grant under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in the amount of $33,302,428, because it did not meet its obligation to maintain State financial support for special education and related services in State fiscal year (SFY) 2012. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(18)(A)–(B) and (d)(2).”

October 1, 2021, ED’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued two Differentiated Monitoring Support (DMS) letters to Texas Education Agency (TEA), addressing the state’s continued noncompliance.

In its letter regarding the state’s corrective action response, OSEP states:

“Over the last three years, OSEP has communicated with TEA about, and reviewed documents regarding, TEA’s continued noncompliance with IDEA requirements related to child find, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the exercise of TEA’s general supervision and monitoring responsibilities. OSEP has carefully reviewed the actions TEA has taken toward correcting the identified noncompliance . . .

“Based on this, OSEP concludes that the State has not completed all the required actions necessary to address the findings of longstanding noncompliance. . . .

“As a result of the longstanding nature of the State’s noncompliance with these critical IDEA requirements, OSEP is designating TEA’s FFY 2021 IDEA Part B grant award as subject to specific conditions, pursuant to our authority under 2 C.F.R. 200.208 and sections 603 and 616(g) of IDEA.”

In its letter regarding the maintenance of state financial support of special education, OSEP states:

Texas is not eligible for a portion of a future section 611 grant under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in the amount of $33,302,428, because it did not meet its obligation to maintain State financial support for special education and related services in State fiscal year (SFY) 2012. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(18)(A)–(B) and (d)(2). The purpose of this current letter is to inform you that the determination is now final, and the Department will reduce Texas’s IDEA section 611 award in a future Federal fiscal year due to the State’s failure to maintain State financial support for special education and related services in SFY 2012. The issuance of this final determination was delayed because of discussions between the Department and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding TEA’s settlement proposal, which had initially included the SFY 2012 shortfall.TEA denied that it had capped special education services, telling the U.S. Department of Education that it had never set a cap or limit on the number or percentage of Texas students receiving special education.

In 2022, OSEP was still imposing specific conditions on Texas’s IDEA Part B grant. OSEP said that the noncompliance dated back to the February 2017 monitoring visit and January 2018 findings, and that TEA had not taken all necessary actions to correct previously identified noncompliance.

In June 2023, OSEP stated “Texas has resolved the Specific Conditions imposed on TEA’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award” and in July 2023, advised Texas:

“We have approved Texas’s application for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023 funds under Part B or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Part B).”

HISD

TEA’s Intervention

TEA itself had already taken issue with HISD’s special education system.

Since June 1, 2023, HISD has been governed by a TEA-appointed Board of Managers, and Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath appointed Mike Miles as superintendent.

According to TEA, in December 2020, it appointed a Special Education Conservator Team to address HISD’s “systematic SpEd failures.”

In a March 15, 2023, letter to HISD, Morath announced TEA’s intent to appoint a Board of Managers and mentioned TEA first notified HISD in 2019 that it intended to appoint a Board of Managers and superintendent, but a court injunction blocked that action until the Texas Supreme Court vacated the injunction. He also said:

“The district’s approach to supporting students with disabilities also continues to violate state and federal law. Starting with internal reviews going back to 2011, there has long been recognition from Houston ISD itself of problems in this area. Substantive action was not taken until a management team of conservators was appointed. Since then, Houston ISD has seen some improvements related to basic Child Find obligations. But there are still significant systemic compliance problems, including an ongoing inability to provide special education services to students without delays, which harms their academic progress.”

May 30, 2025, Morath said:

“Under current district leadership, the future of the district is bright. However, even though the district has made significant progress toward meeting its exit criteria, the district has not yet met any of the three specific requirements. Accordingly, I am hereby extending the authority of the board of managers for two additional years, until June 1, 2027.

“On or around June 1, 2027, I will announce the transition timeline for the return of elected trustees to the district’s governing board, as is required by law. Ultimately, two years has not been enough time to fix district systems that were broken for decades. The extension of this intervention will allow the district to build on its progress and achieve lasting success for students once the board transitions back to elected leadership.” [emphasis added]

So . . .

TEA says special education compliance is one of the conditions for returning HISD to elected local control. Yet OCR is now investigating allegations that HISD’s current special education restructuring discriminates against students with disabilities.

This is notable because this is not happening in a district operating under ordinary local governance. It is happening under state-appointed leadership that was supposed to help fix HISD’s special education problems.

AND: OCR just opened what smells like a similar investigation into New Home Independent School District in Texas a few weeks back

OCR

Below are a few examples of past OCR investigations into HISD.

In one HISD investigation, OCR determined:

“HISD discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by failing to provide him with an aid, benefit, or service that was as effective as that provided to others, failing to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford the Student an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity, and by failing to give primary consideration to the Student’s request for XXXX XXXX as required by the regulations implementing Title II.”

In the resolution agreement for another OCR investigation, HISD agreed to invite a student to re-enroll, conduct a Section 504 evaluation, and have a knowledgeable group determine whether compensatory or remedial services were needed “as a result of the HISD’s failure to provide services determined necessary for the Student under Section 504 during the 2015-2016 school year.”

In the resolution agreement for yet another OCR investigation, HISD agreed to convene an ARD committee to determine whether a student needed compensatory or remedial educational services “as a result of any failure to provide appropriate regular and/or special education or related services in his [**redacted**] classes during the 2016-2017 school year”

Another HISD OCR resolution agreement required training on Section 504 and Title II obligations to provide FAPE, respond to disability-based harassment, and prohibit retaliation against people who raise disability discrimination complaints, and to “convene a meeting of a group of persons knowledgeable about the Student to determine whether the Student needs compensatory and/or remedial services as a result of the following incidents in the 2016-2017 school year: 1) any failure to provide the Student with related aids and services necessary to meet the Student’s educational needs; 2) any disability based harassment suffered by the Student from students, faculty, and/or administrators at the School; and 3) any threats of discipline against the Student by the School’s Assistant Principal.”

In the resolution agreement for a directed investigation involving website accessibility, HISD agreed “to ensure that individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in the District's programs and activities offered through the District's website by making the online content and functionality accessible,1 or, if necessary, providing equally effective alternate access.”

Final Words

OCR opening an investigation within about a week of local reporting on leaked draft documents is a good sign that OCR is paying attention to disability discrimination concerns in real time.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey’s role is worth watching. ED’s current leadership directory lists her as Assistant Secretary for OCR and Assistant Secretary for OSERS (which includes OSEP). ED also states that Richey previously served at the Department from 2017 to 2021—during the years of ED’s previous investigations into Texas. She’s definitely not coming to Texas oversight cold.

Additional Reading:

April 8, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-23-1119

207KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The complaint was filed November 23, 2022, against the Miami-Dade County School District.

The complainant alleged that a school discriminated against a student on the basis of disability.

OCR investigated two issues:

“1. Whether the District has denied a Student a free appropriate public education in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

“2. Whether the District discriminated against a Student by treating her differently from students without disabilities as alleged, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, MDCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. Under that process, OCR may resolve allegations before issuing a final determination when the recipient expresses interest in resolving the allegations and OCR determines that its investigation has identified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement. This case had another wrinkle. According to OCR:

“Based upon recently obtained information, OCR has determined that it no longer has consent to proceed with the investigation of the individual issues. However, based upon evidence obtained during the investigation OCR has identified a systemic concern that can be addressed through a resolution agreement.”

What Happened

According to OCR:

“District witnesses told OCR that for students transferring into the School, they had followed accommodations on IEPs that were given to them for the students. However, the individual student at the center of OCR’s investigation transferred to the School with an expired IEP that was provided to teachers, and while there was some conflicting evidence of a newer IEP being generated, no information received by OCR to date confirms a meeting was held to reevaluate the student and their IEP.”

That’s a problem.

Students don’t stop needing supports because they transfer schools—and they don’t lose disability rights because the paperwork is old.

AND: Teachers can’t implement a current plan if nobody gives them a current plan.

Where MDCPS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 10, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-22-1662

323KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated three issues:

“1. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the School gym, an accessible route to the gym, or accessible seating within the gym, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“2. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the baseball field and an accessible route to the baseball field, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“3. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the football field, an accessible route to the football field, and an accessible route to the football field restrooms and concessions, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, LCSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. March 3, 2026, the district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified accessibility concerns that could be addressed through an agreement.

What Happened

The complaint alleged that individuals who have disabilities could not access East Lawrence High School’s gym, baseball field, and football field in the same way nondisabled people could access these facilities.

School access doesn’t stop at the classroom door. Students and family members attend games. Students participate in athletics, band, cheer, clubs, ceremonies, and school events. If the school hosts the event, accessibility matters.

OCR reviewed the gym, baseball field, and football field under the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design because the facilities had been renovated after 2012. OCR noted that the gym was built in 1978 and that the gym bleachers were replaced approximately 10 years ago. OCR also reviewed documentation showing later additions and renovations to the baseball field and football field, including football stadium renovations as recently as November 2020.

That matters because when a school alters part of a facility, the altered portion has to be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible.

Schools do not get to keep updating facilities for everyone else while ignoring access for people who have disabilities.

Where LCSD Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 16, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-25-1454

194KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated the following legal issue:

“Whether the District discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability, in violation of Section 504 and Title II.”

The parent alleged that in April 2025, the district “discontinued the Student’s services in the school setting due to his disabilities.” More specifically, the parent alleged the following:

“[T]he District required the Student’s physician to provide real time, oral responses to its questions about the Student’s disabilities and, because the physician will only provide written responses to the District’s questions, the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) team determined it will no longer serve the Student at his school.”

Before OCR issued findings, WCS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. April 14, 2026, WCS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified concerns that could be addressed through a resolution agreement.

What Happened

During the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 school years, the student attended a WCS school “until his IEP team placed him on homebound services April 21, 2025.”

OCR’s letter says the student’s primary care physician wrote a March 11, 2024, letter explaining that she manages a team of specialists for the student’s “multiple complex medical conditions.” The physician wrote that the student required “highly skilled, one-on-one nursing care by an RN” and that only “a one-on-one registered nurse” supervising the student “on a moment-to-moment basis” would allow him to safely access the education he was entitled to receive.

The student also had health care plans. OCR said the student had a Private Duty/Contract Nurse Individual Health Plan, signed by the school nurse April 29, 2024, stating that “only a private duty nurse would provide medical services” to the student at school.

The student’s January 16, 2025, IEP included services such as:

• “adaptive art tools to increase engagement and independence in the academic setting”;

• “adaptive seating throughout the classroom”;

• “30 minutes of language therapy twice per week”; and

• “20 minutes of occupational therapy twice per week.”

The IEP meeting minutes also showed that the parent raised the nursing issue directly. The parent told the team that because the school was not providing nursing, the student was only attending three days per week. The parent also stated that physicians had determined the student needed one-to-one medical supervision to attend school.

A district staff member responded that the student could still come to school, but that attending only three days was the parent’s choice. The parent responded that doctors wanted “RN eyes on him 24/7” and that the school was refusing to provide that nursing support.

Then, in February 2025, the parent sent district staff 49 “District Physician and Medication Authorization” forms completed by the student’s physician. These forms represented the procedures and medications the student needed on a daily basis.

Where WCS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 17, 2025, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No 04-24-1233

172KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated one allegation:

“[T]he District retaliated against [redacted content] (the Complainant) when it fired her on [redacted content] from [redacted content] (School) after she sent the District an email on [redacted content] that included her concerns with the newly adopted practices for special education students and documentation that showed students’ IEPs not being followed.”

OCR found sufficient evidence to support the retaliation allegation.

April 15, 2026, FCPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

What Happened

The complainant was a teacher with 33 years of experience, a master’s degree, and math certification (grade range for the certification was redacted). She had previously worked at the school, and the principal described her in an employment reference as having a positive attitude, great rapport with students and families, and being a strong teacher the principal would hire again.

The teacher later returned when a math teacher position opened up at the school:

“According to District Employment policies because she was starting over at the School the Complainant was a probationary employee for the first year.”

During the 2023–2024 school year, the school adopted a new practice for IEP meetings. Each grade level had a designated day of the week for IEP meetings. Seventh-grade IEP meetings were held on Wednesdays.

According to OCR’s letter:

“The Assistant Principal (AP) stated that under this practice, support facilitators who are staff that provide support to their Exceptional Student Education in reading and math blocks, were meant to schedule their IEP meetings for those days based on the grade level of the student who needed a meeting. If they had a meeting on that day, support facilitators would not be in their scheduled 90-minute general education classroom to provide support to students. However, if they did not have a meeting, they were meant to attend their scheduled class to provide support to ESE students. If a support facilitator were to miss a class due to an IEP meeting, they were supposed to make up those support minutes by being available to the ESE students for extra support during the 50-minute Eagle Advisory classes, which was a homeroom class each student had every day. If the support facilitator was not in a scheduled class on a given day, they were meant to work together with the general education teacher to make sure the ESE students were receiving their accommodations.”

Read more

April 21, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 07-25-1555

158KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated two allegations:

1. “. . . parking for the Friendship Aspire Academy – Pine Bluff Downtown campus is not accessible to individuals with disabilities . . .

2. “. . . the School retaliated against the Complainant after she complained about the parking.”

OCR said its investigation “raised concerns that the School was not providing accessible parking at the School as required by the 2010 Standards, and that the Principal had retaliated against the Complainant by transferring her to another campus.” Prior to OCR concluding its investigation, FAAPCS expressed an interest in resolving the complaint and OCR “determined that a voluntary resolution is appropriate.”

April 17, 2026, FAAPCS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

What Happened

The complainant told OCR that she is mobility-impaired and has a placard showing she is allowed to park in an accessible parking space. She alleged that the principal and the principal’s secretary usually parked in the two accessible parking spaces near the school’s front entrance, even though they did not have disabilities. Because of that, the complainant said she was forced to park farther from the entrance.

According to OCR’s letter of findings, the complainant also told OCR:

“ . . . one time when she was able to park in the accessible space, the Principal told her to move her vehicle because the two spaces were reserved for the Principal and her secretary. The Complainant moved her vehicle to avoid any confrontation with the Principal. The Complainant stated that she later complained to the Superintendent of the school about not being allowed to park in an accessible space.”

After the complainant complained to the superintendent, FAAPCS advised the principal that she and her secretary could not park in the accessible spaces.

Where FAAPCS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 28, 2026, OCR Letter of Findings

193KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The student had a Section 504 Plan and had tried out for a school team for the 2024–2025 school year. OCR investigated two allegations:

1. “[T]he Division discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by not affording her an equal opportunity to participate on the [redacted content] Team for the 2024-2025 school year. . .”

2. The division “fail[ed] to respond appropriately to a complaint of disability-based harassment the Complainant made on April 26, 2024.”

OCR found insufficient evidence to support the first allegation—but did identify concerns with the second allegation.

April 24, 2026, WCPS entered into a resolution agreement requiring a reinvestigation, staff training, and a memorandum reminding staff to route possible disability-discrimination complaints to the Section 504 coordinator.

Read more

Parents can choose to sign it.

What the mediator can’t do under IDEA is tell parents that signing a pre-mediation agreement or confidentiality document is required before they can participate in mediation.

That is the problem here.

The Problem

IDEA does not allow public agencies to make signing a separate pre-mediation agreement to mediate or confidentiality document a condition of participating in mediation. Between 2020 and today, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has found or flagged this issue in multiple states and required corrective action.

Yet Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) paper fix has not consistently made it into practice.

In a 2026 email to a parent and Prince William County Public Schools, a Virginia special education mediator stated: “You must sign, date, and return the Agreement to Mediate prior to the day of the mediation.” Later in the same communication, the mediator told the parties to read the agreement to mediate before mediation, said they “will be expected to agree to it and return it,” and stated that “[a]ll participants are bound by this agreement.”

Read more

They file them because something has already gone wrong.

A service was not provided. An evaluation was not completed. An IEP was not implemented. A child was denied what federal and state law require. By the time a parent files a state complaint with Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), the parent is usually already exhausted, frustrated, and trying to preserve a record before timelines expire.

So when VDOE fails to send a Notice of Complaint (NOC) in response to a parent’s state complaint, this is not a harmless “oops.”

It is a breakdown in one of the few oversight systems parents are told to use.

And it happened again.

Another Complaint, Another County, Another Failure

January 31, 2025, I wrote about VDOE issuing a November 26, 2024, Letter of Findings (LOF) in which VDOE found itself in noncompliance with IDEA. That earlier complaint involved VDOE’s own handling of a state complaint against Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia and its failure to provide the complainant the required response to her complaint (the NOC), even though it did provide a NOC to FCPS. VDOE’s “correction” was to state that the matter had been “self-corrected” and that no further corrective action was required.

Now, about a year and a half later, another parent—this time in Prince William County Public Schools—experienced another missing NOC.

According to records provided, the parent filed her complaint March 19, 2026, and submitted a supplement the next day. She then sent multiple follow-up communications to VDOE. The NOC was not issued until she asked about it.

VDOE’s explanation?

“Due to technological error, the Notice of Complaint was not sent.”

Read more

What Else You Need to Know

What She Did Say

During her viral comment, Mehlman‑Orozco alleged that division officials offered her a $20,000 settlement on the condition that she drop her complaints and sign a nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her and her student from discussing alleged violations. She claimed she recorded a conversation with a teacher who acknowledged violations of her daughter’s rights but warned that she would deny the conversation if questioned. Mehlman‑Orozco further asserted that instead of addressing the problems, the board spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys to bury the complaints while offering a “pittance” settlement to secure her silence.

The parent also said former board member Willie Deutsch texted her that the administration isn’t prioritizing students. Mehlman-Orozco provided Special Education Action the following screenshot.

At the time of this writing, to my knowledge the school board has not publicly responded to these specific allegations, and no independent verification of the alleged settlement offer has been made public. In a previous media statement, the division stated, “Due to privacy laws, PWCS does not comment on any specific student and does not comment on ongoing litigation. PWCS remains committed to providing an inclusive and excellent education for every student.”

What She Didn’t Say

She’s successfully filed and prevailed in numerous state complaints against the division—as have numerous other parents within the same division. (See the “Additional Reading” list at the end of this article to access complaints, due process documents, and other information.)

She also served as the advocate for another family during a due‑process hearing. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents and ordered PWCS to reimburse private‑school tuition. When the district appealed, U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. upheld the decision and specifically noted that “at the hearing, the Parents were represented by Dr. Kimberly Mehlman‑Orozco, a non‑attorney advocate”.

Mehlman‑Orozco didn’t mention other spending by the division and the invoices obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to the invoices, the law firm Sands Anderson invoiced PWCS more than $530,000 in the months leading up to the due process appeal the county filed against the family Mehlman-Orozco represented (and lost). Below is a breakdown of some of the spending between January and November 2025. Many of the larger invoices are unrelated to Mehlman-Orozco’s family. Without access to the itemized invoices, it is impossible to determine exactly how much of the spending related to the appeal. Nonetheless, the amounts illustrate how legal costs can accumulate:

For professional services rendered through January 31, 2025:

• $105.00, Invoice No. 711055

• $7,160.00, Invoice No. 710795

• $164,100.19, Invoice No. 708411

• $1,848.70, Invoice No. 708412

For professional services rendered through February 28, 2025:

• $175.00, Invoice No. 716441

• $167,214.97, Invoice No. 713877

• $20,438.06, Invoice No. 716491

For professional services rendered through March 31, 2025:

• $1,053.00, Invoice No. 721879

• $2,449.82, Invoice No. 719259

For professional services rendered through April 30, 2025:

• $240.00, Invoice No. 724693

• $351.00, Invoice No. 727312

For professional services rendered through May 31, 2025:

• $60.00, Invoice No. 729922

• $2,449.82, Invoice No. 719259

• $960.00, Invoice No. 732923

For professional services rendered through June 30, 2025:

• $5,356.00, Invoice No. 741678

For professional services rendered through July 31, 2025:

• $3,027.00, Invoice No. 747502

For professional services rendered through August 31, 2025:

• $15,058.00, Invoice No. 753396

• $8,036.48, Invoice No. 753393

For professional services rendered through September 30, 2025:

• $21,205.00, Invoice No. 764556

• $4,221.00, Invoice No. 764553

For professional services rendered through October 31, 2025:

• $50,397.25, Invoice No. 770077

• $3,157.50, Invoice No. 770080

• $8,554.74, Invoice No. 770075

• $4,886.50, Invoice No. 770079

For professional services rendered through November 30, 2025:

• $30,229.30, Invoice No. 775296

• $3,038.00, Invoice No. 772759

• $6,976.50, Invoice No. 775293

• $531.00, Invoice No. 775300

• $546.00, Invoice No. 775301

Final Words

Dr. Kimberly Mehlman‑Orozco’s viral comment and ongoing advocacy highlight a broader struggle between parents and a school district over transparency and compliance with special‑education laws. Her remarks have found a larger audience. As she prepares to address the board again, families will be watching to see whether the district engages with her concerns and the concerns of others—or continues to litigate them.

This milestone capped a review process that had started more than three years earlier. OSEP’s monitoring activities that took place in November 2022 led to the April 24, 2024, DMS report.

The 2024 DMS Monitoring Report

The April 24, 2024, DMS monitoring report identified six findings of noncompliance with IDEA Part B.

April 24, 2024: DMS Monitoring Report

807KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OSEP concluded that the state’s general supervision system was not reasonably designed to identify all instances of noncompliance; the state was not verifying that LEAs corrected the noncompliance it did find; and it was not considering all required compliance indicators and valid data when issuing annual determinations for LEAs. In addition, the monitoring team found that SCDE’s mediation procedures did not ensure mediators were selected on a random or impartial basis, that its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document described mediation in a way that could discourage its use, and that the state’s policies regarding the reasonable progress flexibility for significant disproportionality were inconsistent with IDEA.

OSEP’s report imposed strict timelines. Within 90 days South Carolina had to submit updated policies, procedures and training materials addressing each finding. Within one year of the report’s date the state was required to provide evidence that the corrective actions had been fully implemented.

December 5, 2024: Partial Closeout

In a status letter dated December 5, 2024, OSEP acknowledged progress based on materials submitted on July 23 and September 13, 2024, and following an October 15, 2024, conference call.

December 5, 2024: Status Letter

316KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The letter noted that SCDE had updated its policies to ensure mediators are selected on a random, rotational or otherwise impartial basis and had revised its FAQ and website to describe mediation consistently with federal requirements and to remove language implying that participants must sign a confidentiality pledge. Those changes resolved the mediation‑related findings.

Most other findings, however, remained open. OSEP was still reviewing South Carolina’s revised policies on general supervision, verification of noncompliance corrections, annual determinations and significant disproportionality. The letter reminded the SCDE that evidence of implementation was required as soon as possible, despite the fact that initial deadlines had already passed.

March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

The March 25, 2026, closeout letter refers to additional submissions from April 2 and April 21, 2025, and states that all remaining findings have been resolved.

March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

366KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The letter does not explain why nearly a year elapsed between those submissions and the issuance of the closeout.

It does confirm that SCDE’s revised monitoring policies—including timely issuance of findings, monitoring beyond SPP/APR indicators and comprehensive notification content—are consistent with IDEA. OSEP also accepted evidence showing that the state now verifies that LEAs reach full compliance, considers all required indicators when making annual determinations, has corrected its mediation procedures and public guidance, and has aligned its reasonable‑progress standard for significant disproportionality with federal requirements. With these issues resolved the monitoring report was officially closed.

OSEP used the closeout letter to stress that maintaining transparent systems for identifying and correcting noncompliance and protecting parental rights through effective dispute‑resolution processes is essential to improving outcomes for children with disabilities.

Final Words

Roughly three and a half years past between OSEP’s monitoring activities and the final closeout letter—and it took multiple rounds of policy revisions and evidence submissions to convince OSEP that the state had fully implemented all corrective actions.

This timeline raises questions about the capacity of state education agencies to self‑monitor and suggests that ongoing federal oversight remains vital.

It also raises the question of why there isn’t a different system for ensuring corrective actions are implemented nationwide as they are identified within each state. For example, the inconsistent mediation language and practices in South Carolina were addressed in Virginia years prior. If one state is held accountable, why aren’t others held accountable at the same time? Why was there an almost four-year gap between when OSEP called out Virginia and South Carolina on similar noncompliant mediation practices?

For families and advocates, the closure of the DMS report is welcome news but not a guarantee of flawless practice.

According to the agency’s press release, the district voted to discontinue its Elementary Life Skills program for the 2026‑2027 school year, then reassigned students to classrooms about 30 miles away—without reevaluating the students or notifying families.

OCR said it will examine whether the district’s actions violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protect students from discrimination based on disability

For families in NHISD, this investigation signals that federal officials are paying attention and could ultimately require the district to restore services or provide compensatory education. Yet parents should be aware that OCR’s disability‑discrimination investigations often take years to complete. The hope for NHISD students is that the investigation is completed within record time and leads to prompt remedies.

March 18, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) entered into a resolution agreement with Grundy County Schools (GCS) in Tennessee. Six days later, March 24, 2026, OCR issued its letter of findings to GCS. The underlying complaint, filed in 2022, alleged that the district discriminated against a student with a disab…

Read more

Based on the wording of the findings, it’s assumed the complaint was filed by a parent a…

Read more

Read more

In FCPS’s response to the complaint, SCHS’s special‑education director admitted the school’s practice was to hand out flash passes by the end of the first week, not on day one of the school year. VDOE nonetheless found the school in compliance, concluding that issuing the pass on the third day satisfied the requirement to implement the IEP “as soon as possible”.

In 2024 another freshman entered the same school without receiving a flash pass on the first day or any training on how to access a trusted adult. Within days he became dysregulated. Because he had no pass and did not know how to request a break, the situation escalated until staff restrained him, a school resource officer removed him to the office, and he was suspended. He ultimately missed 5½ weeks of school.

In February 2025, after the student’s mother filed a complaint, VDOE found FCPS out of compliance and determined that the student had been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

At the beginning of the 2025‑26 school year, SCHS finally issued a flash pass to the 2024 student on day one of the school year—seven years after the 2018 parent first alerted VDOE to the systemic delay. However, another FCPS high school still failed to provide a flash pass on day one to a different freshman. The parent for this third freshman declined to file a complaint for fear of retaliation. It remains unclear whether SCHS corrected its practice for all students or only for the student involved in the 2024 case.

Below you’ll find more details about what happened in 2018 and 2024, the striking similarities between the two, and the glaring systemic noncompliance VDOE and FCPS failed to stop.

Read more

Read more

The issues span every corner of the EarlySteps intervention program (provision of early intervention services, monitoring and improvement, data including the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report, fiscal management, and dispute resolution).

Read more

January 11, 2021, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a directed investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) over pandemic‑era special‑education noncompliance. FCPS was noticeably silent after OCR announced the opening of the investigation. Meanwhile, parents were desperate for answers as they watched their children lose services and struggle with an online platform that had repeatedly crashed.

Months later, while waiting in an emergency room with a sick child, I watched Jimmy Kimmel poking fun at Congressman Matt Gaetz over what a public Venmo account revealed. It made me wonder whether similar breadcrumbs existed in my neck of the woods. They did (and continue to).

Read more

Buried Lede

This is one of those cases that contains so many heavyweight issues that choosing where to begin feels like its own injustice. Anything left out of the headline feels like burying the lede, so thank you for sticking with me.

Background

The student in this case has multiple disabilities, including ADD, anxiety, a venous malformation requiring surgeries and causing chronic pain, amblyopia, myopia, and working auditory-memory deficits. Her parents sought support under a Section 504 Plan and then an IEP. After a long struggle with Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS), the parents placed their daughter in a private college prep school and then filed a due process complaint against the district.

February 29, 2024, the due process hearing officer issued a decision, finding a private college preparatory school to be the appropriate placement for the student, and ordering the district to pay for the student’s tuition.

Decisions favoring parents are outside the norm in Virginia, so unprecedented was the word du jour. According to the non-profit Hear Our Voices, hearing officers in Virginia ruled in favor of parents less than 2% of the time during a 20-year period, and approximately 1% of the time in Northern Virginia—and 26 of the 40 hearing officers appointed during the same 20 years had “never ruled, not once, in favor of a disabled or special needs child in a due process case brought under the IDEA.”

PWCSB appealed the decision—and failed to prevail.

Why this Case Matters for Parents

Read more