U.S. Department of Education Closes Out Monitoring of South Carolina
South Carolina’s long road to IDEA compliance
March 25, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) closeout letter to South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE). In that letter OSEP said it “has determined that the State has satisfied all of the original required actions identified in OSEP’s April 24, 2024, monitoring report.”
This milestone capped a review process that had started more than three years earlier. OSEP’s monitoring activities that took place in November 2022 led to the April 24, 2024, DMS report.
The 2024 DMS Monitoring Report
The April 24, 2024, DMS monitoring report identified six findings of noncompliance with IDEA Part B.
OSEP concluded that the state’s general supervision system was not reasonably designed to identify all instances of noncompliance; the state was not verifying that LEAs corrected the noncompliance it did find; and it was not considering all required compliance indicators and valid data when issuing annual determinations for LEAs. In addition, the monitoring team found that SCDE’s mediation procedures did not ensure mediators were selected on a random or impartial basis, that its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document described mediation in a way that could discourage its use, and that the state’s policies regarding the reasonable progress flexibility for significant disproportionality were inconsistent with IDEA.
OSEP’s report imposed strict timelines. Within 90 days South Carolina had to submit updated policies, procedures and training materials addressing each finding. Within one year of the report’s date the state was required to provide evidence that the corrective actions had been fully implemented.
December 5, 2024: Partial Closeout
In a status letter dated December 5, 2024, OSEP acknowledged progress based on materials submitted on July 23 and September 13, 2024, and following an October 15, 2024, conference call.
The letter noted that SCDE had updated its policies to ensure mediators are selected on a random, rotational or otherwise impartial basis and had revised its FAQ and website to describe mediation consistently with federal requirements and to remove language implying that participants must sign a confidentiality pledge. Those changes resolved the mediation‑related findings.
Most other findings, however, remained open. OSEP was still reviewing South Carolina’s revised policies on general supervision, verification of noncompliance corrections, annual determinations and significant disproportionality. The letter reminded the SCDE that evidence of implementation was required as soon as possible, despite the fact that initial deadlines had already passed.
March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter
The March 25, 2026, closeout letter refers to additional submissions from April 2 and April 21, 2025, and states that all remaining findings have been resolved.
The letter does not explain why nearly a year elapsed between those submissions and the issuance of the closeout.
It does confirm that SCDE’s revised monitoring policies—including timely issuance of findings, monitoring beyond SPP/APR indicators and comprehensive notification content—are consistent with IDEA. OSEP also accepted evidence showing that the state now verifies that LEAs reach full compliance, considers all required indicators when making annual determinations, has corrected its mediation procedures and public guidance, and has aligned its reasonable‑progress standard for significant disproportionality with federal requirements. With these issues resolved the monitoring report was officially closed.
OSEP used the closeout letter to stress that maintaining transparent systems for identifying and correcting noncompliance and protecting parental rights through effective dispute‑resolution processes is essential to improving outcomes for children with disabilities.
Final Words
Roughly three and a half years past between OSEP’s monitoring activities and the final closeout letter—and it took multiple rounds of policy revisions and evidence submissions to convince OSEP that the state had fully implemented all corrective actions.
This timeline raises questions about the capacity of state education agencies to self‑monitor and suggests that ongoing federal oversight remains vital.
It also raises the question of why there isn’t a different system for ensuring corrective actions are implemented nationwide as they are identified within each state. For example, the inconsistent mediation language and practices in South Carolina were addressed in Virginia years prior. If one state is held accountable, why aren’t others held accountable at the same time? Why was there an almost four-year gap between when OSEP called out Virginia and South Carolina on similar noncompliant mediation practices?
For families and advocates, the closure of the DMS report is welcome news but not a guarantee of flawless practice.