Unpacking VDOE’s Letter of Findings in Complaint C25-302
A review of the parent’s complaint, the evidence, and VDOE’s LOF revealed flaws in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions.
When Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) issued its Letter of Findings (LOF) for Complaint C25-302, it found Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS) in noncompliance on one issue and in compliance on several others, including how the district handled Extended School Year (ESY) services. VDOE also declined to investigate two issues and made a finding of compliance on another despite admitting it had not investigated.
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 58th percentile on his Fall VGA and in 20th 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