Unpacking the Appeal Decision for VDOE State Complaint C25-302
Special Education Action previously unpacked VDOE’s LOF for State Complaint C25-302 and flagged errors in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions. Today's focus is the appeal reviewer's decision.
A few weeks ago, Special Education Action unpacked Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) Letter of Findings (LOF) for State Complaint C25-302 and flagged errors in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions.
Today’s focus? The parent’s appeal of that LOF and the appeal reviewer’s decision upholding VDOE’s LOF.
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.