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

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

Heavily Redacted Resolution Letter

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

What Happened

Read more

July 14, 2025: Utah Part B DMS Monitoring Report

446KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 24, 2026: Utah Part B DMS Close-Out Letter

341KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP conducted monitoring activities in November 2024, which resulted in its 2025 report. The report identified three monitoring and improvement findings and one dispute resolution finding.

Utah’s monitoring focused on individual student files without examining local policies, procedures, and practices. The state also let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found these practices didn’t meet Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements.

In addition, Utah didn’t track all due process resolution requirements, including the 15-day resolution meeting deadline and written agreements to waive the meeting.

Why OSEP Closed the Findings

According to OSEP, Utah revised its monitoring procedures and submitted records showing how it used them, including monitoring reports and evidence that state staff selected files for review. The state also submitted examples of updated data used to verify correction of violations. OSEP accepted these materials as meeting the relevant requirements.

For due process, Utah revised its resolution procedures before the original report was issued. OSEP accepted the changes as meeting IDEA requirements and required no further action.

Final Words

A corrected file isn’t the same as a corrected system.

Utah let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and choose evidence to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found that these practices didn’t meet IDEA requirements. The problem wasn’t just whether the selected files showed compliance. It was whether they reflected what was happening across the agency.

These weren’t just minor errors at a local level. They were part of the state’s oversight system. OSEP said Utah’s method for checking correction conflicted with its “longstanding position.” Neither the DMS report nor the close-out letter identify which leaders approved these practices or what they knew. Still, it raises questions for those in charge. How were staff trained? Who checked their work? How did these practices become part of the system meant to catch violations?

Utah later submitted revised procedures and evidence showing that state staff selected files and reviewed updated data. OSEP accepted the submissions as meeting the relevant requirements.

However . . .

Proof that a new process is being used doesn’t, by itself, prove a lasting change in culture. Culture includes what leaders expect, what staff accept, and what happens when someone flags a problem. The close-out letter doesn’t address whether the habits that allowed the old practices to stay in play for so long have changed for the long term.

The letter also isn’t a statewide clean bill of health. OSEP’s original report warned that it hadn’t reviewed IDEA implementation in every local educational agency. Closing these findings doesn’t establish that every district complies with IDEA.

October 4, 2024: Nevada Part B DMS Report

475KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

349KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP conducted monitoring activities in October and November 2023, which resulted in its 2024 report. The report identified two fiscal management findings and one dispute resolution finding.

Nevada lacked an adequate system for monitoring recipients of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds, and its grant award notices lacked required information. In addition, Nevada didn’t have a system in place to ensure due process hearing decisions met hearing officer deadlines or, when none was given, a reasonable deadline set by the state.

Why OSEP Closed the Findings

According to OSEP, Nevada revised its fiscal monitoring procedures and submitted records showing how it used them, including its review of Clark County School District. The state also submitted corrected grant award notices. OSEP accepted these materials as meeting the relevant requirements.

For due process, Nevada revised its tracking procedures. OSEP’s letter states Nevada submitted training materials, an agenda, and attendance logs Sept. 18, 2025. OSEP accepted the policies and evidence of implementation as meeting IDEA requirements.

Final Words

Pay attention to the dates.

Nevada had until Oct. 4, 2025, to submit evidence that it was carrying out its fiscal monitoring procedures. Aug. 6, 2025, OSEP reminded the state that it needed records showing those procedures were being used. Yet . . . The close-out letter identifies July 10, 2026, as the date Nevada submitted the additional evidence OSEP accepted. That was more than nine months after the original deadline.

Yes, that submission date doesn’t prove every problem lasted until then. Still, why the late submission? The letter describes earlier submissions and OSEP’s request for more proof. It doesn’t explain the gap.

Keep in mind that the close-out letter isn’t a statewide clean bill of health.

OSEP’s original report warned that OSEP hadn’t reviewed IDEA implementation in every local educational agency. So, closing three findings doesn’t establish that every district complies with IDEA.

Virginia offers an example of how noncompliance can continue after closure. In December 2024, OSEP closed a finding about requiring signed confidentiality pledges before mediation. Yet in August 2025, a state-contracted mediator again told participants they had to sign before mediation.

Virginia Department of Education later acknowledged that the mediator’s instruction was wrong. After a state complaint was filed against VDOE for its failure to properly train, oversee, monitor, and ensure compliance in Virginia’s state-sponsored special education mediation system, VDOE nevertheless found in favor of itself for the complaint.

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 09-24-1234 and investigated the following allegations:

“1. Whether the District discriminated against the Student based on disability when it revoked his Inter-district Permit; and

“2. Whether the District denied the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to follow adequate procedures for evaluation and placement of the Student.”

Before OCR completed its investigation or made a compliance determination, LLCSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. June 19, 2026, LLCSD entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

The agreement states that it’s not an admission by LLCSD that it violated Section 504, Title II, or any other law enforced by OCR.

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, it identified concerns that the District may have removed the student because of disability-related behavior without adequately evaluating him under Section 504.

What Happened

Read more

OSEP stated that the purpose of the letter was to notify CDE that OSEP had completed its review of the corrective actions associated with OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS monitoring report and that all findings identified in that report were closed.

OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS report identified 12 findings of IDEA Part B noncompliance. The report required CDE to submit revised policies and procedures, or other required documentation, within the deadlines stated in the report. For many findings, OSEP also required evidence of implementation as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of the monitoring report.

The June 18, 2026, close-out letter responded to documents CDE submitted throughout the corrective action period. Based on CDE’s submissions, OSEP determined that “Colorado has completed all required actions identified in OSEP’s May 16, 2024, DMS monitoring report.”

Of note: Page two of the close-out letter states there were 10 original findings, even though OSEP’s May 16, 2024, report identified 12 findings. Attachment A to the close-out letter addresses all 12 numbered findings.

Read more

OCR investigated the following allegation:

“whether the District discriminated and retaliated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) from the [redacted content] to [redacted content].”

Before OCR completed its investigation, BSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. May 5, 2026, BSD entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

OCR did not issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated that it had “a concern that the District may have discriminated and retaliated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the Student a free appropriate public education.”

What Happened

Read more

April 24, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 09-22-1263

234KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated three issues:

1. “Whether the District failed to provide the Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to implement his Section 504 plan in his [redacted content] language course (the Course) from November 2021 to June 2022;

2. “Whether the District discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability when the Student’s teacher (the Teacher) subjected the Student to alleged harassment based on disability in late January or early February 2022, creating a hostile environment for the student; and

3. “Whether the District failed to respond promptly and equitably to an internal complaint, made on behalf of the Student on or about March 2022, alleging discrimination based on disability and a failure to implement his Section 504 plan.”

OCR found insufficient evidence to support the disability-based harassment allegation—but it did identify concerns with the first and third issues: whether the student’s 504 plan was clear enough to be implemented consistently, whether the teacher’s class-wide extended-time policy actually met the student’s individual disability-related needs, and whether the district responded promptly and equitably to the complainant’s internal complaints.

Before OCR completed its investigation and made final compliance determinations on those issues, SBCUSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR, without admitting to any violation of law.

What Happened

During the 2021-2022 school year, the student had a Section 504 plan “on the basis that his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) substantially impacts his major life activities of focusing on and completing assignments.”

The student’s November 4, 2021, 504 plan listed five accommodations:

1. “extended time on assignments;

2. “the opportunity to stand while working;

3. “seating options;

4. “a soundless stress device to squeeze in the classroom; and

5. “extended time to re-do assignments.”

Sounds simple, right? Nope. OCR pointed out that the plan did not specify the amount of extended time or the process for using the extended-time accommodations:

“The Student’s Section 504 plan does not specify the amount of time or process for implementing the two extended-time accommodations (i.e., whether teachers will offer them or the Student will request them). As a result, the School employees had varying understandings of the meaning of and process for implementing these accommodations. The Vice Principal, who attended the Student’s Section 504 meeting on November 4, 2021, told OCR that the Section 504 team did not agree on the amount of extended time for assignments and left these decisions to the discretion of the Student and his teachers. According to the Teacher, the Student did not request additional time for any assignments and did not attend after-school tutoring. The Teacher implemented a class-wide extended-time policy whereby all students had an extra week to complete assignments and students who requested additional time beyond this week were asked to attend after-school tutoring.

“The Complainant and the Teacher also described varying understandings of the meaning of and process for implementing the Student’s opportunity-to-stand accommodation. The Complainant told OCR that she understood this accommodation to allow the Student to take a walk when requested. The Teacher, on the other hand, understood this accommodation as written, but offered the Student an opportunity to take a walk in lieu of the opportunity to stand because the Student was disruptive when he stood in class. According to the Teacher, the Student regularly accepted her offer to take a walk or use the restroom in lieu of standing and did not express concern about this alternative.”

Where San Bernardino Ran into Trouble

Read more

March 25, 2026: DMS Monitoring Report, Part C

628KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP’s DMS review covered early‑intervention services, monitoring and improvemen…

Read more

The report set specific deadlines for Idaho to address the noncompliance. Policies had to be submitted within 90 days of the monitoring report (deadline=December 16, 2024) and evidence of implementation was due as soon as possible, but not later than one year from the date of the monitoring report (deadline=September 17, 2025). Yet the follow‑up submissions stretched beyond the deadlines. OSEP ultimately issued a close‑out letter February 18, 2026, indicating that all findings were resolved.

Read more

The report set specific deadlines for Alaska to address the noncompliance. Policies had to be submitted within 90 days of the monitoring report (deadline=December 24, 2023) and evidence of implementation was due as soon as possible, but not later than one year from the date of the monitoring report (deadline=September 25, 2024). Yet the follow‑up submissions stretched beyond the deadlines. OSEP ultimately issued a close‑out letter February 18, 2026, indicating that all findings were resolved.

Read more

DOJ determined Utah is violating ADA "by unnecessarily segregating youth and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) during the day, instead …

Read more

Read more

“OSEP finds…

Read more

This follows OCR's January 12, 2021, announcement that it would investigate LAUSD, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia, an…

Read more