When Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) issued its March 6, 2026, Letter of Findings (LOF) for State Complaint C26‑303, it found Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS) in noncompliance on two issues and in compliance on another. Notably, several allegations raised by the parent were omitted from VDOE’s Notice of Complaint (NOC) and never investigated.

A review of the parent’s complaint and VDOE’s NOC and LOF revealed flaws in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions.

VDOE’s Analysis and My Unpacking

Below you’ll find VDOE’s analysis from the LOF, quoted as VDOE wrote it (but with personally identifiable information redacted), and a corresponding analysis—an unpacking—of its logic and legal conclusions. Documents referenced appear at the end of the article.

REMINDER:

Just a reminder before we get going here: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am a mother who turned skills developed during 20+ years in the book publishing and documentary film industries toward special education after Dyslexia and Co. joined her family.

Subissues 1A–1C: Annual IEP Development and Review

VDOE’s Finding

Noncompliance.

VDOE determined PWCPS failed to convene the student’s annual IEP meeting by the December 12, 2025, deadline and allowed the program to continue without a full team review.

VDOE’s Framing of the Parent’s Complaint

PWCPS denied that it violated regulations requiring periodic review of the IEP and argued it offered multiple dates for the meeting before the December 12, 2025, deadline. The division asserted the parent repeatedly proposed meetings on holidays or during winter break and accused the parent of trying to induce a procedural violation.

VDOE’s Analysis

VDOE determined that the last IEP was reviewed December 12, 2024, and therefore an annual meeting was due by December 12, 2025. It emphasized that local educational agencies must periodically review IEPs and that parents must be meaningfully involved, and also noted that schools may proceed without the parent when efforts to secure participation fail.

VDOE determined that while PWCPS documented multiple attempts to schedule an IEP meeting, it still did not convene the meeting by the due date. The LOF faulted both parties. It faulted the parent for counter‑offering dates in a way that “frustrated the process” and the division for failing to convene the meeting without the parent.

Unpacking

The LOF correctly notes that the annual IEP meeting must occur within twelve months of the previous review. Simply offering dates does not satisfy the obligation to convene the meeting. IDEA requires districts to work with parents “at a mutually agreed on time and place” when scheduling IEP meetings and to keep detailed records of attempts if meetings go forward without a parent. However, VDOE’s analysis contains several gaps:

• No mapping of subissues: The LOF lumps Subissues 1A, 1B and 1C under one heading and never identifies which allegation corresponds to which subissue. The complaint alleged that the failure to hold the meeting (1) allowed the IEP to continue without updated data, evaluations or team input and (2) deprived the student of timely determinations about placement and services. The LOF does not address these distinct harms separately and instead reduces the violation to a scheduling dispute.

• Misplaced blame on the parent: VDOE accepts PWCPS’s characterization of the parent as attempting to “induce” a procedural violation. IDEA requires the IEP team meeting to be scheduled “at a mutually agreed on time and place”, and when a meeting is held without the parent the district must maintain records of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreeable time and place. The complaint noted that PWCPS continued to propose meetings at Montclair Elementary School despite the parent’s disability‑related request for a neutral location. The LOF does not analyze whether the division’s proposed times and locations were reasonable or whether it documented its attempts, and instead shifts blame to the parent for declining unsuitable dates.

• Failure to recognize procedural harm: VDOE treats the missed meeting as a harmless scheduling glitch because the student continued to attend Linder Academy. This reasoning ignores that the IDEA’s procedural safeguards are not mere formalities. The annual IEP meeting is the forum where updated data are considered and services and placement are revisited. Courts have emphasized that certain procedural missteps—such as unilaterally amending an IEP without parental consent—are structural errors that vitiate the parent’s right to participate. Even where a “per se” rule does not apply, the Fourth Circuit and other courts hold that a procedural violation denies FAPE if it results in the loss of educational opportunity or significantly impedes parental participation. Thus, a district cannot simply point to ongoing private placement and claim no harm. It must demonstrate that the absence of a timely meeting did not deprive the parent of meaningful participation or the student of timely determinations. VDOE’s analysis does not engage with this inquiry and thus minimizes the significance of the missed meeting.

Bottom line: While VDOE properly found noncompliance, its analysis minimizes the significance of the missed meeting, fails to map allegations to subissues and shifts blame to the parent without examining whether the division’s scheduling offers were reasonable.

Subissues 1D–1E: Parent Participation and FAPE

VDOE’s Finding:

Read more

• Unpacking the VDOE Letter of Findings in Complaint C26‑303

Issues Investigated:

• IEP development and review: The complaint alleged Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS) failed to convene the student’s annual IEP meeting by the December 12, 2025, deadline. As a result, the educational program continued without updated data, evaluations or team input. The complaint also alleged that this failure deprived the student of timely determinations on placement, services and evaluations.

• Parent participation and FAPE: The complainant asserted that failing to hold the annual IEP meeting denied the parent meaningful participation and resulted in loss of educational opportunity and benefit, constituting a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

• Implementation of a hearing‑officer’s order: The complaint alleged PWCPS failed to implement an October 7, 2024, hearing officer’s order requiring reimbursement of private placement tuition, provision or reimbursement of transportation, and convening of a new IEP meeting.

• Implementation of corrective‑action plan (CAP): The complaint alleged PWCPS ignored a November 21, 2025, Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) letter of findings that directed the division to convene a corrective IEP meeting and submit documentation, thereby impeding parent participation and depriving the student of educational benefit.

Findings and Related Documents:

Read more

• Can Schools Refuse Digital Consent and Require “Wet Ink” Signatures?

  ---

Allegations Investigated:

• Child Find—Procedures

• Evaluation/Reevaluation/Eligibility—Evaluation Procedures

• Procedural Safeguards—Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

Findings:

Read more

Today’s focus? The parent’s appeal of that LOF and the appeal reviewer’s decision upholding VDOE’s LOF.

C25-302 Appeal

135KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

C25-302 Appeal Decision

64.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Background: What Was Complaint C25-302 About?

A parent filed a state complaint against Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS), alleging multiple violations, including issues with parental consent to terminate services, Extended School Year (ESY), IEP development and revision, IEP implementation, progress reporting, and denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

VDOE investigated and issued a LOF, finding PWCPS in noncompliance on one issue and in compliance on several others.

The parent appealed, identifying errors of fact and law in VDOE’s LOF.

Starting with the Conflicts

We’ll break down the entire appeals decision, but let’s start with the following from the appeal reviewer:

“VDOE weighed conflicting information and exercised its specialized oversight expertise. If there is information in the complaint record to support the findings, I lack authority to substitute my judgment for that of VDOE. There is information in the complaint investigation record to support VDOE’s findings, and VDOE’s analysis is consistent with applied authority.”

Concern:

In a previous decision, the same appeal reviewer said:

“. . . each administrative complaint is considered on the weight of the information provided at the time, ofttimes with competing factual versions. For this reason, a LOF does not provide precedential authority from one complaint to the next.”

Yet, in C25-302, VDOE refused to investigate the distinct allegations and timeframes for Subissues 1C and 1D because it claimed:

“ . . . how service minutes are provided (SDI) including compensatory services, was previously investigated and LEA was found in compliance in the Letter of Findings issued on November 26, 2024, related to complaint C25-057, the Letter of Findings issued on December 24, 2024, related to complaint C25-095, and the Letter of Findings issued on March 4, 2025, related to complaint C25-146.”

Had VDOE and/or the appeals reviewer paid attention to the timeline, they would have realized Complaint C25-302 focused on service delivery during November–December 2024, while two of the three referenced LOFs predate that period and none address the specific allegation of SDI time being replaced by general education math instruction.

• C25-057: LOF issued November 26, 2024. It could not have addressed incidents that occurred later in November or in December 2024, since the complaint was filed months prior.

• C25-095: VDOE states the LOF was issued December 24, 2024. The LOF has an issue date of December 30, 2024. The Notice of Complaint was issued November 12, meaning it could not have covered most of November or any of December 2024. Furthermore, while C25-095 addressed math-related issues, it focused on the denial of accommodations in math and other courses. (VDOE found PWCPS in noncompliance.)

• C25-146: VDOE received this complaint January 3, 2025, and issued a LOF March 4, 2025. However, the issues it tackles are PWNs, progress reports, refusal of a backpack accommodation, refusal to provide goals for the additional service hours provided to student, denial of accommodations, and denial of a trial iPad in a timely manner. It doesn’t tackle the issues VDOE claims in support of dismissing the complaint.

Under IDEA, each complaint must be resolved on its own allegations and time period.

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) supports this:

“Time limit; minimum procedures. Each SEA must include in its complaint procedures a time limit of 60 days after a complaint is filed under §300.153 to—(1) Carry out an independent on-site investigation, if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary; (2) Give the complainant the opportunity to submit additional information, either orally or in writing, about the allegations in the complaint; (3) Provide the public agency with the opportunity to respond to the complaint, including, at a minimum—(i) At the discretion of the public agency, a proposal to resolve the complaint; and (ii) An opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily engage in mediation consistent with §300.506; (4) Review all relevant information and make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of Part B of the Act or of this part; and (5) Issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint and contains—(i) Findings of fact and conclusions; and (ii) The reasons for the SEA’s final decision.”

Using earlier LOFs to refuse investigation contradicts the reviewer’s own “case-by-case” principle and undermines § 300.152(a)(5)’s requirement to supply reasons tied to this record.

This isn’t relitigation. In her appeal, the parent stated:

“The parent respectfully requests that Subissues 1C and 1D be reinstated or remanded. VDOE wrongly dismissed these concerns as previously addressed in LOFs for prior complaints (C25-057, C25-095, and C25-146) filed by the parent. While those complaints involved missing service minutes and vague documentation, none investigated whether the LEA substituted general education math remediation during the student’s IEP-designated special education time for reading and study skills—a distinct allegation involving implementation failure and content substitution. The concern in complaint C25-302 raises a legally separate violation.”

If LOFs truly aren’t precedent, VDOE couldn’t use earlier LOFs to sidestep fresh facts and a new timeframe. If LOFs are precedent now, the appeal reviewer departed from his earlier position. Either way, he didn’t address the inconsistency.

Read more

A review of the parent’s complaint, the evidence, and VDOE’s LOF revealed flaws in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions.

VDOE’s Analysis and My Unpacking

Below you’ll find VDOE’s analysis from the LOF, quoted as VDOE wrote it (but with personally identifiable information redacted), and a corresponding analysis—an unpacking—of its logic and legal conclusions. While quotes from each of VDOE’s analysis points are presented as written, a few do not appear in the same order as they appear on the LOF. However they do appear under the subissue under which they appear on the LOF.

Documents referenced appear at the end of the article.

REMINDER:

Just a reminder before we get going here: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am a mother who turned skills developed during 20+ years in the book publishing and documentary film industries toward special education after Dyslexia and Co. joined her family.

Subissue 1A: Parental Consent and ESY Termination

VDOE’s Finding

Compliance

VDOE’s Framing of Parent’s Complaint

“Parent believes ESY services should not have ended in January 2025 without parental consent as they are an essential part of his ongoing services to meet his special education needs. Student has received ESY services monthly since the 2023-2024 SY. Student’s IEP also stated that the team would meet in January to discuss ESY. Parent alleged the IEP team did not meet in January to discuss ESY services. The team did not meet until March and during that meeting according to the Parent, the LEA stated, “..there was not enough data…” to make a determination and the team would reconvene in May 2025.”

VDOE’s Analysis

“LEA denies the allegation related to discontinuation of ESY, stating, “The Parent is in error when she claims that PWCS discontinued [Student’s] ESY services in January 2025 without parental consent and/or did so ‘abruptly.’ As demonstrated by Exhibit 39, page 13 of 18, and page 15 of 18, the Parent consented to an IEP addendum that proposed ESY for a finite period of time.”

“As noted above, the IEP must be implemented as soon as possible following parental consent. The Student’s IEP must be implemented as written. The October IEP included language that the team would “reconvene at the end of the second quarter to review [Student’s] progress and determine continued need for extended school year services.” The ESY services had an end date of January 17, 2025.”

“Parent provided consent to the January 28, 2025, IEP amendment which included ESY ending on January 17, 2025.”

“Based on the record, ESY was not last agreed upon placement. ESY services ended on January 17 and absent parental consent to continue services, the LEA was not required to continue to provide services.”

Unpacking

VDOE’s conclusion ignores that the October 10, 2024, IEP Addendum explicitly required the team to reconvene to review data and ESY needs at the end of the second quarter, and fails to recognize that the parent’s consent was limited to the finite ESY period conditioned on that reconvening and review.

Direct quotes from the IEP Addendum

Page 13:

“[STUDENT] received extended school year services for the area of writing for 60 minutes a week from April 2022 to the end of the 2023-2024 school year. [STUDENT] resumed ESY services in the area of writing when school reconvened for 120 minutes monthly. The team determined that due to degree of progress and consistency that [STUDENT] requires 60 minutes weekly of ESY services in the area of writing. This is an increase from the 120 minutes monthly. [STUDENT] also met the criteria for ESY services in the area of reading due to degree of progress. [STUDENT]'s oral reading fluency was benchmarked at the beginning of the school year and fell in the 8th percentile. He will receive 60 minutes a week in this area.

“The team will reconvene at the end of the second quarter to review [STUDENT]'s progress and determine continued need for extended school year services.”

Page 17 (PWN):

“The team proposed a change in [STUDENT]'s extended school year services to increase his writing to 60 minutes a week due to his progress in the area of encoding. The team also added extended school year services in the area of reading for 60 minutes a week due to a degree of progress. These services will continue to the end of the second quarter (January 2025) and the team will reconvene to review data and determine the continued need for extended school year services.”

Page 18 (PWN):

“[STUDENT] is owed 60 minutes of writing and 60 minutes of reading (fluency) services due to missed services from the first 2 weeks of the 2024-25 school year. These services will be made up with a mutual provider who has already agreed to complete the services.”

These are clear commitments—not optional check-ins. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c), the district had a responsibility to “ensure that. . . special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP.” The January 17th date was not a termination. It was a checkpoint requiring IEP team action.

The parent consented to a finite ESY period (through January 17), based on repeated written statements in the IEP and PWN that conditioned the end of that period on review of progress and team input.

PWCPS’ calendar shows January 17, 2025, was the final day of the second quarter—the same date the IEP set for ESY services to end and for the team to reconvene. The IEP did not suggest meeting weeks later. It specifically stated, “end of second quarter.”

The ESY goal on page 13 runs through April 10, 2025—well past the January 17 end date. If services were meant to stop in January, why write an ESY goal through April? This suggests the team intended to reconvene and decide on continued services.

VDOE’s Analysis

“Further, LEA stated, “[w]hile [LEA] agrees that the PWN for the October 10, 2024, IEP addendum states that the IEP team would revisit the need for additional ESY services, it is not a violation of the VA Special Education Regulations that the IEP team did not discuss ESY services after his ESY services ended in accordance with the October 10, 2024, consented to IEP addendum. However, it begs the question as to why, as a member of the IEP team, [Parent] did not raise the issue of continuing ESY.”

“Parent sent several emails regarding ESY before the IEP meetings on January 21, January 28, and February 5, 2025. However, during the meetings ESY was not brought up by the Parent, nor was it included in Parent’s email when they provided their list of concerns.”

“The multiple IEP meetings provided Parent with ample opportunities to bring up the issue of ESY during an IEP meeting, yet they did not.”

Unpacking:

VDOE overlooked that the LEA misquoted the PWN. The LEA said the team would “revisit” ESY, but the PWN actually states the team “will reconvene to review data and determine the continued need”—a clear procedural requirement.

Direct quote from the LOF:

“IEP addendum states that the IEP team would revisit the need for additional ESY services. . .”

Direct quote from the PWN:

“. . . the team will reconvene to review data and determine the continued need for extended school year services.”

Next, VDOE and the LEA attempt to shift blame to the parent for not raising ESY in IEP meetings—despite acknowledging the parent raised ESY repeatedly in emails and at least one phone call. Shifting the blame to the parent contradicts the district’s duty to implement the IEP and to initiate IEP meetings when changes are anticipated.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b), the district—not the parent—was required to ensure that the IEP team did the following:

“Reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and (ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address—(A) Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals described in §300.320(a)(2), and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate; (B) The results of any reevaluation conducted under §300.303; (C) Information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as described under §300.305(a)(2); (D) The child’s anticipated needs;”

In addition, the parent did not set the IEP meeting agendas, although she did address concerns prior to the meetings. For example, a facilitated IEP meeting occurred January 28, 2025. PWCPS’ meeting notice restricts that purpose of the meeting to “Other: Consider Compensatory Educational Services”. The January 28, 2025, IEP Amendment’s PWN reconfirms this. It specifically states:

“The purpose of the multiple meetings [1/21/2025; and 1/28/2025] is to consider compensatory educational services as directed by the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) within the Letter of Findings (LOF) dated 11/26/2024.”

Additional correspondence supports the same.

Further, the quote from the LEA is clear that the LEA believed it “is not a violation of the VA Special Education Regulations that the IEP team did not discuss ESY services after his ESY services ended in accordance with the October 10, 2024, consented to IEP addendum.”

The services did not end “in accordance with the October 10, 2024, consented to IEP addendum.” Goals and services are connected. (More on this later in this article.) The second quarter progress report, issued about two weeks after ESY services stopped, shows the student had not met his goals. (More on this later in this article.) Why would PWCPS discontinue services supporting a goal the student failed to achieve?

Even if VDOE and PWCPS continue to argue consent covered service termination, PWCPS was still required to reconvene and review ESY needs. It did not—and blaming the parent doesn’t excuse that failure.

VDOE’s Analysis

“Finally, LEA stated, it “acknowledges that it said in March of 2025 that it did not have enough data to support ESY at that time. However, this is not a violation of the VA Special Education Regulations because the IEP proposed in March 2025, after a series of three (3) IEP meetings, was an annual IEP. New goals and services were proposed so there was not any data on which to base an ESY decision for that IEP.

Unpacking

A lack of data is still data. If the school claims it had no evidence supporting the need for ESY, it also lacked evidence that the student was no longer regressing—especially since the student had not met either ESY goal by quarter’s end.

Here’s what the data showed in the months before ESY was discontinued:

Page 7 of the IEP Addendum:

“[STUDENT] is owed a total of 120 minutes of educational services—60 minutes of reading fluency and 60 minutes of writing—due to missed sessions during the first two weeks of the 2024-25 school year. These services will be scheduled with a mutual provider who has already agreed to fulfill this obligation.

“[PARENT] requested additional reading and study skills services, prompting the team to reach an agreement. They decided to provide an extra 100 minutes of reading services in the special education setting, along with an additional 145 minutes for study skills and organizational support, also within the special education framework. The additional service being added due to [STUDENT]'s reading fluency falling in the 8th percentile on a grade level aimsweb plus assessment. The team determined he requires additional time to remediate his reading goal area. Additional time is being added to service [STUDENT]'s study skills and organization as the team discussed that [STUDENT]'s current organization habits are causing an increase in missing assignments and negatively effecting his academics.”

“[PARENT] requested that [STUDENT]'s extended school year services go back to the same amount of time the services were provided in the previous school year. His current services of 120 minutes a month for writing occur for 60 minutes twice a month. [PARENT] requested that [STUDENT] receive 60 minutes weekly as this is what he received last year and he made progress with this time provided. The school agreed to increase his ESY time for writing. Additionally the team added 60 minutes a week for reading services due to the degree of progress in [STUDENT]'s reading goal.”

Page 9 of the IEP Addendum:

When it comes to testing scores taken this year, on the HMH Growth Measure at the beginning of the year, he scored 615 out of 699 and took it in 15 minutes. His score showed that he is above 2 grade levels below in Reading. Mid-year HMH Growth showed that he scored 613 and took 24 minutes on the assessment. His score still indicates that he lowered by 2 points and is still more than two grades levels below. However, on his Fall VGA [STUDENT] scored a 1621 (58%) and his Mid year [sic] at the end of January scored a 1491 (20%) percentile. This data supports that [STUDENT] is on grade level and is able to do well when focused and not distracted by his peers in the small group setting.

SIDEBAR

The page 9 data was added during the August 21, 2024, IEP Addendum meeting. If “this year” refers to 2023–24, then both Fall and mid-year HMH scores show the student was two years below grade level in reading—and that this score decreased, even though he spent almost 10 minutes longer on the mid-year assessment. Despite this, PWCPS claimed he was on grade level—contradicting its own data.

PWCPS cited the 58^th percentile on his Fall VGA and in 20^th percentile on “his Mid year at the end of January”. The LEA does not state what “his Mid year” is, so the assumption is that it refers to the Winter VGA.

Many students with disabilities pass state tests while reading below grade level, so relying on these scores to claim the student is on grade level is questionable—especially when other data shows his scores declined.

Given the HMH and VGA data is conflicting, why did PWCPS prioritize one assessment over the other? The district failed to explain whether the tests were comparable or assessed the same skills. Without that clarification, relying on one over the other is questionable—especially when other data in the IEP addendum shows the student’s performance declined.

In addition, PWCPS failed to explain how this conflicting data led it to conclude the student was “on grade level” and simply impacted by peer distraction and setting.

VDOE quoted this same data in its response for a separate complaint (C25-146), but did not address the conflicting data there either.

Page 9 of the IEP Addendum:

[Student] is making growth given direct instruction during ESY services. [STUDENT] still needs help with homophones and words with unaccented final syllables (i.e., crater, sailor, disloyal).

[STUDENT] has come consistently for oral reading fluency probes. While he has not been on his aimline for the year, he has consistently read above 100 words per minute (12 out of 14 times). With the exception of one outlier of 5 errors, he maintains an error rate of 2 or less. The goal is to get [STUDENT] to read 110 words consistently per minute.

Page 10 of the IEP Addendum:

[STUDENT] earned AB honor for quarters 1 and 2. In quarter three [STUDENT], a shift was seen in [STUDENT], his tardies to class increased, state test scores decreased, and his work habits decreased and then he fell ill which and his grades were impacted his grades and data collect in the month of March. Intermittent Home-Based Services were implemented and met. However, as of 4 days prior to his annual IEP and three school weeks to turn in work post intermittent services [STUDENT] is missing 12 assignments (6) in which he is exempt. [STUDENT] met with his case manger [sic] to go over the assignments, and even reached out to one of his teachers for support but, he still needs to hand in the work. [STUDENT] made insuffient [sic] progress for quarter three.

Page 13 of the IEP Addendum:

[STUDENT] received extended school year services for the area of writing for 60 minutes a week from April 2022 to the end of the 2023-2024 school year. [STUDENT] resumed ESY services in the area of writing when school reconvened for 120 minutes monthly. The team determined that due to degree of progress and consistency that [STUDENT] requires 60 minutes weekly of ESY services in the area of writing. This is an increase from the 120 minutes monthly. [STUDENT] also met the criteria for ESY services in the area of reading due to degree of progress. [STUDENT]'s oral reading fluency was benchmarked at the beginning of the school year and fell in the 8th percentile. He will receive 60 minutes a week in this area. The team will reconvene at the end of the second quarter to review [STUDENT]'s progress and determine continued need for extended school year services.

Page 14 of the IEP Addendum:

[STUDENT] requires instruction in written expression and organization/study skills in the general education setting due to deficits in [STUDENT]'s encoding skills and executive functioning. He will participate in a co-taught Language Arts class to receive his services in these areas. [STUDENT] requires services for reading and study skills and organization in the special education setting. The rest of his day he will participate with general education peers without support.

Page 17, PWN:

The team proposed to add [STUDENT] to a small group special education class to receive additional services in the area of reading due to his degree of progress in reading fluency. [STUDENT] will continue to receive weekly progress monitoring in his reading fluency. [STUDENT]'s oral reading benchmark on aimsweb plus fell in the 8th percentile on grade level oral reading fluency. Since completing the benchmark, [STUDENT]'s weekly progress monitoring has shown an increase from 95 correct words per minutes to 104 correct words per minute.

The team proposed a change in [STUDENT] 's extended school year services to increase his writing to 60 minutes a week due to his progress in the area of encoding. The team also added extended school year services in the area of reading for 60 minutes a week due to a degree of progress. These services will continue to the end of the second quarter (January 2025) and the team will reconvene to review data and determine the continued need for extended school year services.

The data shows a clear pattern of regression—not just over the summer but during the school year. The ESY provider also supported continuing services and repeatedly contacted PWCPS to obtain the needed materials to continue services to the student February 26, 2025, the LEA responded:

“Good Afternoon [ESY PROVIDER], I hope this message finds you well. Just a friendly reminder that in January, his ESY services have ended... Unfortunately, [School] does not utilize this program and we are unable to purchase an additional subscription specifically for you...”

This confirms PWCPS ended ESY before reconvening to review data as required by the IEP Addendum. Moreover, second quarter progress reports issued after ESY services ended show the student had not met his ESY goals.

The student’s ESY goal, as it appears within his IEP is the following:

“Given a writing prompt assignment and/or a spelling [STUDENT] will spell the words correctly when not using word prediction and spell check with 80% accuracy in 3 out of 4 observations by 04/10/2025. Given a grade level passage [STUDENT] will read 137 or higher words per minute with 95% accuracy over 3 consecutive trials by 04/10/2025”

SIDEBAR

Why didn’t VDOE flag issues with this goal?

What is “a spelling”?

A test? An assignment? The phrase lacks clarity—and both goals are vague about what is being measured. Accuracy percentages can vary drastically depending on the length or format of the task. For example, misspelling one word out of ten yields a different percentage than misspelling one word out of 400. In addition, spelling words in isolation on a spelling test may yield a different response from spelling words in context of a paragraph and/or essay.

Reading performance is similarly context-dependent. Student interest, genre, passage length, and formatting can all influence results. What is the student reading? Something he knows a lot about? Something he knows nothing about? Fiction? Nonfiction? Something he’s interested in? Something he tries to avoid? Is he being evaluated end of day when he is tired? Are these isolated paragraphs or full pages of text? Is the font tiny or large? Is there a lot of white space or is the kerning tight? Is he being assessed in all classes, across all subject matter, or is the goal restricted to a certain class and content?

Without specifying these conditions, the goal lacks the precision needed for valid measurement.

In addition, in response to its LOF for a separate complaint filed by the parent (C25-146), VDOE cited the parent’s complaint verbatim in its LOF. It has had this student’s IEP and goals in front of it on multiple occasions and on multiple occasions failed to address this glaring problem.

The second quarter progress report relied on third quarter data to assess a second quarter goal, offering no actual second quarter data to justify ending ESY. Yet the available second quarter data shows the student had not met his goals.

This also highlights inconsistent reporting. If general education students receive report cards based on quarterly data, why apply a different standard to students with IEPs?

In the case of the spelling goal, PWCPS provided no data from the second quarter, even though it was required to report as often as parents are informed of progress of children who do not have disabilities. If the second quarter report cards report second quarter data, the second quarter progress reports should similarly report second quarter data.

300.320(a)(3)(ii) states that IEPs must include the following:

“(3) A description of—(ii) When periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided;

The IEP Addendum omitted this. Nowhere does it state when the periodic reports will be provided.

In an IEP draft provided later in 2025, boilerplate language appears: “ Progress reports will be provided at least as often as parents are informed of the progress of children without disabilities.”

This shows the LEA understood its obligation, yet failed to apply it to the IEP governing the ESY goals and services.

The following is the data for the spelling goal:

Date: 01/24/2025

Status: Sufficient Progress

Goal Progress Statement: ESY: [STUDENT] is able to spell words correctly with 75% accuracy (pretest average: 61%; post-test average: 92%).

Date: 01/30/2025

Status: Sufficient Progress

Goal Progress Statement: Q2- Given a writing prompt assignment and/or a spelling [STUDENT] can spell the words correctly when not using word prediction and spell check with 80% accuracy in 3 out of 4 observations, out of the 5 complete daybook prompts. [STUDENT] misspelled 1 word per entry for a total of 5 misspelled words. [STUDENT] misspelled one word on his final discussion check and 1 word on his chapter 12, 18, and 19 quiz. On the Perfect vacation short answer response [STUDENT] spelled 74 out of 75 words correctly. On the final discussion check quiz submitted 1/16. [STUDENT] missed spelled 1 word per question. On question 1 he spelled 56/57 correctly, question 2 he spelled 38/39 correctly. question 3 he spelled 30/31 words correctly, question 4 he spelled 20/20 correctly. question 5 he spelled 17/17 spelled correctly. It should be noted that [STUDENT] often forgets to capitalize the first letter after his sentences.

The following is the data for the reading goal:

Date: 01/17/2025

Status: Sufficient Progress

Goal Progress Statement: Q#2--Given a grade level passage [STUDENT] read 109 or higher words per minute with 99% accuracy over 3 consecutive trials. His last 3 consecutive readings were 130 with 1 error (95% accuracy), 109 words per minute with 1 error (99% accuracy), and 111 words per minute with 1 error (99%) accuracy. [STUDENT]'s current rate of improvement (Trend ROI) is 1.88 points per week on Oral Reading Fluency. To reach the goal score of 139 by 6/1/2025, [STUDENT] will need to improve at an average rate of 1.13 points per week.

Date: 01/24/2025

Status: Sufficient Progress

Goal Progress Statement: ESY: [STUDENT] has read an average of 107 words correct per minute with 99% accuracy (range: 69 to 133 words correct per minute with a range of 98% to 100% accuracy).

VDOE’s Analysis

There was a call on January 16, 2025, between Parent and LEA regarding Student. The conversation included ESY services, compensatory services and other concerns the Parent had.

LEA shared that they thought that based on the call with Parent on January 16th that Parent’s concerns were addressed regarding ESY.

Unpacking

The IEP Addendum required the full team to reconvene to review ESY—not hold a phone call with select staff. VDOE acknowledged the parent continued raising ESY concerns after January 16, showing the issue was unresolved.

Per Letter to Baugh, ESY must be discussed in an IEP meeting.

In at least one previous LOF (for a different complaint filed by a different parent and in a different Virginia school district), VDOE ruled that conversations and decisions made outside of IEP meetings—and not included within the IEP—hold no weight. Why didn’t VDOE rule the same way here?

Subissue 1B Implementation and Science class - Accommodations were not implemented in Science class.

VDOE’s Finding

Noncompliance

Unpacking

VDOE found the LEA in noncompliance, so there’s no analysis and unpacking.

Subissues 1C and 1D

VDOE’s Finding

VDOE dismissed the two issues.

VDOE Framing of Complaint

“Subissue 1C - Implementation of services from November - December 2024 as “…general education math was scheduled during [Student’s] designated SDI time (6th period)…”, and Subissue 1D Failure to implement IEP as written from November - December 2024, with regard to content driven services provided during the self-contained special education class (6th period).”

VDOE’s Analysis

“[LEA] also denies the allegations that it has failed to provide SDI.”

“LEA additional noted, “[w]hile [LEA] objects to the inclusion of this allegation as stated below, just because there was re-teaching of math during [Student’s] self-contained reading strategies class does not mean that [Student] was being deprived of SDI minutes in his sixth (6th) period class. Notably, [Parent] has raised this issue before in another complaint to VDOE under another subtext. It was not a violation of the VA Special Education Regulations under the previous subtext, and it is not a violation of the VA Special Education Regulations under the current subtext. As was explained previously, the Parent’s allegation that Mr. Estlow, the math teacher providing re-teaching during part of [Student’s] sixth (6th) period class, does not mean that [Student] was not receiving all of his SDI as stated in his IEP. While IEPs prescribe how much time the student is instructed in the general education setting or the special education setting, IEPs do not dictate how a school sets up schedule to ensure the consented to service minutes are provided to the student. As such, there is nothing improper about [SCHOOL] splitting up a class period for [Student] to receive general education instruction during part of a class period and special education instruction during another part of the same class period so long as [Student] is receiving all of his service minutes as prescribed by his last consented IEP.”

“Specially designed instruction” means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this chapter, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction: (34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3)) 1. To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and 2. To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the educational standards that apply to all children within the jurisdiction of the local educational Agency.”

“LEA is correct in stating that the allegations related to when and how service minutes are provided (SDI) including compensatory services, was previously investigated and LEA was found in compliance in the Letter of Findings issued on November 26, 2024, related to complaint C25-057, the Letter of Findings issued on December 24, 2024, related to complaint C25-095, and the Letter of Findings issued on March 4, 2025, related to complaint C25-146.”

“For this reason, as allegations related to SDI, implementation, and the compensatory services received in sixth period have already been addressed, they will not be further investigated in this complaint.”

Unpacking

VDOE’s dismissal is flawed. The complaint focuses on service delivery during November–December 2024, but two of the three referenced LOFs predate that period and none address the specific allegation of SDI time being replaced by general education math instruction.

• C25-057: Issued November 26, 2024. It could not have addressed incidents that occurred later in November or in December 2024.

• C25-095: VDOE states the LOF was issued December 24, 2024. The LOF has an issue date of December 30, 2024. The Notice of Complaint was issued November 12, meaning it could not have covered most of November or any of December 2024. Furthermore, while C25-095 addressed math-related issues, it focused on the denial of accommodations in math and other courses. (VDOE found PWCPS in noncompliance.)

• C25-146: VDOE received this complaint January 3, 2025, and issued a LOF March 4, 2025. However, the issues it tackles are PWNs, progress reports, refusal of a backpack accommodation, refusal to provide goals for the additional service hours provided to student, denial of accommodations, and denial of a trial iPad in a timely manner. It doesn’t tackle the issues VDOE claims in support of dismissing the complaint.

SIDEBAR

In complaint C25-095, VDOE frames Subissue 1 in the following manner:

“[T]he Complainant alleges: Student has not been provided the small group test taking and oral retakes accommodations”

VDOE ultimately found noncompliance, but split the issue into two parts for analysis:

• Subissue 1a – Small Group Testing and Oral Retakes

• Subissue 1b – Accommodations in Math Class

Under Subissue 1a, VDOE stated:

“[LEA] denies in part and admits in part that due to a clerical error, [Student] did not receive one of his accommodations in his math class.” LEA denies that other classes do not provide small group testing and oral retakes.”

“It is clear from the record that multiple teachers have not provided small group testing and attempts to provide oral retakes.”

Under Subissue 1b, VDOE states the following:

“[LEA] denies in part and admits in part that due to a clerical error, [Student] did not receive one of his accommodations in his math class.”

“Math teacher categorically does not seem to understand that accommodations for special education are unique to the Student. While some of the accommodations that math teacher provides for all students overlaps with some of Student’s accommodations, it does not encompass all of the accommodations nor show an understanding of IEP implementation. The email shows that the math teacher is not taking into account the specific needs of the Student. The accommodations are unique and tailored to their specific needs of the student.”

“The teacher stated during the IEP meeting on October 31, 2024, that the Student should ask for help rather than the teacher being responsible for ensuring that Student is paying attention. It was also shared that Student receives the same amount of time as other Student’s to complete tests. Chunking of instructions was not covered in the email and it appears that chunking of assignments occurs after a large assignment is provided because the assignment is not due all at once and or is done in class individually or in small groups.”

SUB-SIDEBAR

Under Subissue 1a, VDOE also states:

October 24, 2024, Parent and math teacher emailed. Teacher wrote “[Student] has an accommodation for ‘more time.’ I want to note that all my students get ‘more time’ already built in. …

This supported VDOE’s comment in Subissue 1b that the student receives the same amount of time as other Students.

However, this contradicts a 2019 VDOE decision involving a different district and student. In that case, VDOE accepted a different math teacher’s claim that universally providing extra time to all students satisfied the IEP accommodation for additional time. She claimed, too, that she provided everyone extra time in math, hence the student didn’t need additional extra time.

As far as math and SDI go . . .

As stated previously, VDOE found PWCPS in noncompliance for refusing the student accommodations in math under the LOF for complaint C25-095.

The student’s math class is in the general education setting. This is supported on Page 13 of the IEP Addendum:

Written Language Instruction, 30 minute(s) weekly, General Education Setting

Study and Organizational Skills Instruction, 30 minute(s) weekly, General Education Setting

Reading Instruction, 100 minute(s) weekly, Special Education Setting

Study and Organizational Skills Instruction, 140 minute(s) weekly Special Education Setting”

Study and organizational skills appear in both settings. While Page 7 states the student would receive 145 minutes per week of study and organizational skills in special education, page 13 lists 140 minutes, and page 17 (PWN) also references 140 minutes.

Page 7 (Present Levels):

“[PARENT] requested additional reading and study skills services, prompting the team to reach an agreement. They decided to provide an extra 100 minutes of reading services in the special education setting, along with an additional 145 minutes for study skills and organizational support, also within the special education framework.”

Page 13 (LRE):

Study and Organizational Skills Instruction 140 minute(s) weekly Special Education Setting”

Page 17 (PWN):

Addition of 140 minutes a week of study skills and organization services in the special education setting.

SIDEBAR

The Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance section of the IEP reads like meeting minutes, suggesting the 145 minutes originated there and was later misstated as 140 minutes under the LRE section and again in the PWN.

VDOE cited both figures in a different complaint filed by the parent (Complaint C26-095) for different allegations—140 minutes on page 7 and 145 minutes on page 16.

Page 7:

“Addition of 100 minutes a week of reading services in the special education setting. Addition of 140 minutes a week of study skills and organization services in the special education setting. Increase of study skills and organization minutes from 15 minutes a month to 30 minutes a week in the general education setting. Extended school year services in the area of reading (fluency) and writing for 60 minutes a week.”

Page 16:

“In the October 10, 2024, IEP Meeting the team discussed the Parent’s request for additional assistance. The team decided to provide an “extra 100 minutes of reading services in the special education setting, along with an additional 145 minutes for study skills and organizational support, also within the special education framework.” No new goals were considered.”

VDOE gave no explanation for the conflicting service hours or why it relied on different numbers in the same LOF.

VDOE failed to acknowledge that the IEP Addendum does not place the student in a self-contained math class. Math is listed in the general education setting. Yet PWCPS changed the student’s placement by delivering math instruction during a self-contained class, as reflected in its own statement cited by VDOE:

“[w]hile [LEA] objects to the inclusion of this allegation as stated below, just because there was re-teaching of math during [Student’s] self-contained reading strategies class does not mean that [Student] was being deprived of SDI minutes in his sixth (6th) period class.

Rather than addressing this unauthorized change in placement, VDOE focused only on whether SDI minutes were reduced.

Regarding SDI, the IEP Addendum calls for:

Reading Instruction, 100 minute(s) weekly, Special Education Setting

Study and Organizational Skills Instruction, 140 minute(s) weekly Special Education Setting

That totals 240 minutes/week, or 48 minutes/day.

According to PWCPS, middle school is in attendance for about 6 hours and 40 minutes a day—or 400 minutes a day.

Minus about 25 minutes for lunch and about 12 minutes for two-minute class transitions, 363 instructional minutes remain. Divided over 7 classes, each class is about 52 minutes long. If 48 of those are dedicated to SDI, that leaves just under 4 minutes (3.86) unaccounted for.

If the SDI minutes are flexed across the week during the 6th period class, that still yields only about 19.3 minutes available in a week during the self-contained class. Unless the class is taught bell-to-bell, the instruction time is even less.

Given the reality of a self-contained class—and middle school in general—it is more likely that the about 3.86 minutes a day are used at the beginning/end of class to get students settled and/or ready to go.

So how was the math teacher providing instruction during a self-contained SDI class with almost no available time—and why was this math instruction occurring in a self-contained setting at all?

PWCPS schools stated itself that “there is nothing improper about [SCHOOL] splitting up a class period for [Student] to receive general education instruction during part of a class period and special education instruction during another part of the same class period so long as [Student] is receiving all of his service minutes as prescribed by his last consented IEP.”

How was PWCPS “splitting up” the student’s 6th class period “to receive general education instruction during part of a class period and special education instruction during another part of the same class” if there were less the four minutes available to spare each class?

Subissue 1E: Staff Understanding of SDI and Goals

VDOE’s Framing of Parent’s Complaint

“During multiple recorded IEP meetings (Jan–Mar 2025), PWCPS staff—including Special Education Chair Ms. Hines—admitted they did not understand that IEP goals must be connected to SDI. Ms. Thompson had to explain the definition of SDI, confirming that even key staff lacked basic understanding of IEP implementation.”

VDOE’s Finding

Compliance

VDOE’s Analysis

Read more

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – Generally

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – Transportation

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) - Content

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) - Implementation

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) - Parent Request for Meeting

Findings:

One count of noncompliance:

• Individualize…

Read more

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – Transportation

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) - Implementation

Findings:

• Findings not yet issued

Complainant:

• Parent

Agency Complaint Filed Against:

• Chesterfield County Public Schools (LCPS), Virginia

Investigating Agency:

• Virginia Department of Education (VDOE)

Complaint Filed:

• Jan…

Read more

• Procedural Safeguards – Access to records.

• Procedural Safeguards – Timely Access to records.

• Procedural Safeguards – Reasonable requests for explanations and interpretations

Read more

• State dispute resolution procedures

Findings:

• One finding of noncompliance

Complainant:

• Parent

Agency Complaint Filed Against:

• Virginia Department of Education

Investigating Agency:

• Virginia Department of Education

Complaint Received:

• September 27, 2024

Notice of Complaint Issued:

• October 8, 2024

October 8, 2024, Notice of Complaint

151KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Letter of Findings Issued:

• November 26…

Read more

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)-Generally

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – Extended School Year Services

• Individualized Education Program (IEP)- Development, Review, and Revision.

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) – Parental Request for Meeting; Development, Review, and Revision.

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) –Implementation

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) –IEP Committee Composition

• Procedural Safeguards – Prior Written Notice

• Procedural Safeguards – Access to records

• Individualized Education Program (IEP) –Change of IEP without meeting; Parental

  Participation

• Procedural Safeguards – Parent Consent

Read more

• Student Records

Read more

• Procedural Safeguards—Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE)

  • Funding Limits

  • IEE Report Criteria

Findings:

• Five findings of noncompliance

  • Three findings of systemic noncompliance

  • Two findings of noncompliance specific to two students.

• Four findings of compliance

  • One finding of systemic compliance

  • Three findings of compliance specific …

Read more

• Procedural Safeguards—Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE)

Findings:

• One finding of noncompliance

Complainant:

• Parent

Agency Complaint Filed Against:

• Fairfax County Public Schools

Investigating Agency:

• Virginia Department of Education

Complaint Received:

• August 7, 2020

Notice of Complaint Issued:

• October 8, 2024

Letter of Finding…

Read more