August 24, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a close-out letter for Utah’s July 14, 2025, Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) report. The close-out letter marks all four findings of noncompliance closed. Three are listed as closed Aug. 24, 2026. The dispute resolution finding had already been closed July 14, 2025.
What OSEP Found
OSEP conducted monitoring activities in November 2024, which resulted in its 2025 report. The report identified three monitoring and improvement findings and one dispute resolution finding.
Utah’s monitoring focused on individual student files without examining local policies, procedures, and practices. The state also let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found these practices didn’t meet Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements.
In addition, Utah didn’t track all due process resolution requirements, including the 15-day resolution meeting deadline and written agreements to waive the meeting.
Why OSEP Closed the Findings
According to OSEP, Utah revised its monitoring procedures and submitted records showing how it used them, including monitoring reports and evidence that state staff selected files for review. The state also submitted examples of updated data used to verify correction of violations. OSEP accepted these materials as meeting the relevant requirements.
For due process, Utah revised its resolution procedures before the original report was issued. OSEP accepted the changes as meeting IDEA requirements and required no further action.
Final Words
A corrected file isn’t the same as a corrected system.
Utah let local educational agencies choose files for certain compliance reviews and choose evidence to show violations had been corrected. OSEP found that these practices didn’t meet IDEA requirements. The problem wasn’t just whether the selected files showed compliance. It was whether they reflected what was happening across the agency.
These weren’t just minor errors at a local level. They were part of the state’s oversight system. OSEP said Utah’s method for checking correction conflicted with its “longstanding position.” Neither the DMS report nor the close-out letter identify which leaders approved these practices or what they knew. Still, it raises questions for those in charge. How were staff trained? Who checked their work? How did these practices become part of the system meant to catch violations?
Utah later submitted revised procedures and evidence showing that state staff selected files and reviewed updated data. OSEP accepted the submissions as meeting the relevant requirements.
However . . .
Proof that a new process is being used doesn’t, by itself, prove a lasting change in culture. Culture includes what leaders expect, what staff accept, and what happens when someone flags a problem. The close-out letter doesn’t address whether the habits that allowed the old practices to stay in play for so long have changed for the long term.
The letter also isn’t a statewide clean bill of health. OSEP’s original report warned that it hadn’t reviewed IDEA implementation in every local educational agency. Closing these findings doesn’t establish that every district complies with IDEA.