U.S. Department of Education Finds New Hampshire at Fault for Seven Counts of Noncompliance with IDEA
The issues relate to IDEA Part B monitoring and improvement, data, fiscal management, and dispute resolution.
May 6, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) report for New Hampshire. OSEP found seven areas of noncompliance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements. The findings fall under the following four areas: monitoring and improvement, data, fiscal management, and dispute resolution.
What OSEP Found
August 2025, OSEP conducted interviews with representatives from various state agencies, “reviewed publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents the State submitted to OSEP” and “solicited feedback from various groups of parents, the public, and local level staff to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s system of general supervision.”
OSEP stated its review “did not include an examination of the implementation of IDEA Part B requirements by all local educational agencies (LEAs)”. Because of this, OSEP said it couldn’t determine “whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these requirements without reviewing data at the local level.” However, OSEP did make the following key findings:
“Monitoring and Improvement
“1.1 OSEP finds that the State is not timely identifying noncompliance when monitoring LEAs, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602.
“1.2 OSEP finds that the State allows LEAs to self-select evidence and files for review when determining the LEAs’ compliance with IDEA and verifying correction related to SPP/APR Indicator B-13 of the SPP/APR, which is inconsistent with. 20 U.S.C. § 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e).
“1.3 OSEP finds that the State does not have a system to monitor compliance with the IDEA Part B 619 preschool requirements to ensure that children participating in early intervention programs under IDEA Part C, and who will participate in preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and effective transition, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149(b), 303.209(d)(1)(i) and (ii), 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.
“1.4 OSEP finds that the State does not consider correction of identified noncompliance and other data available about the LEA’s compliance with IDEA to include any relevant audit findings when making an annual determination on the performance of each LEA, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(d)(2), 1434, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(a)(2) and 300.603(b).
“Data
“2.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have policies and procedures to meet the data reporting requirements of IDEA Sections 616 and 618 and 20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(f), 1416, 1418, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.
“Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility
“3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed general supervision system, including policies and procedures, for subrecipient monitoring and fiscal management, consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600 through 300.602, 300.604, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(b), (d)‑(f) and (h).
“Dispute Resolution
“4.1 OSEP finds that the State, in resolving State complaints, does not consistently identify and require correction of all noncompliance to address the needs of the child and appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities in State complaint decisions, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1221e-3 and 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b).”
What Happens Next
OSEP gave New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) concrete deadlines for implementing corrective actions.
For example, one of the more mind-boggling findings relates to NHDOE’s practice of allowing “LEAs to self-select evidence and files for review when determining LEAs’ compliance with IDEA and when verifying correction related to SPP/APR Indicator 13.” In other words . . . NHDOE isn’t verifying correct implementation of regulatory requirements. It’s allowing LEAs to submit data that reflects what the LEA wants to portray, which may differ from reality.
In this instance, OSEP is requiring NHDOE to take the following actions:
“Policies and Procedures—the State must submit to OSEP by Aug. 4, 2026:
“1. Policies and procedures to ensure the correction of noncompliance by verifying that the LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through integrated monitoring activities or the State’s data system, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e).
“Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than May 6, 2027, the State must submit to OSEP:
“1. A copy of the notification issued to all LEAs advising them of the State’s revised policies and procedures to ensure the correction of noncompliance by verifying that the LEA has demonstrated systemic compliance, as described above.
“2. Documentation that the State reviewed updated data and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through monitoring activities or the State’s data system.”
Why This Matters for Families
A requirement is not optional. States are required to carry out general supervision duties under IDEA. Opting out, delaying findings, or relying on weak systems is not an option.
OSEP identified multiple weaknesses in the systems NHDOE uses to monitor LEAs, verify corrections, report data, oversee IDEA funds, and resolve state complaints. Those systems are supposed to catch problems and help fix them. They are not supposed to become another problem families have to fight through.
This report gives NHDOE a roadmap for repair. It also gives families concrete language they can use to advocate for their children, ask better questions, and hold both NHDOE and their individual LEAs accountable.