U.S. Department of Education Found Pennsylvania at Fault for Four Counts of Noncompliance with IDEA
Pennsylvania corrected every identified problem before OSEP issued the reports, leaving no open findings and raising questions about why the reports weren't issued and made public earlier.
June 18 and July 14, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued separate Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) reports addressing Pennsylvania’s implementation of Parts C and B of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The findings fall within the two general areas of dispute resolution and fiscal management.
What OSEP Reviewed
In September 2025, OSEP conducted interviews for its monitoring activities of both Parts B and C.
For both its Part B and Part C monitoring, OSEP conducted interviews with representatives from various state agencies, and “reviewed publicly available information, policies, procedures, and other related documents submitted by the State”. In the case of its Part B monitoring, OSEP “solicited feedback from parents, members of the public, and local-level staff to obtain a broad range of perspectives regarding the State’s implementation of IDEA Part B.” In the case of its Part C monitoring, “OSEP solicited feedback from interested parties and local-level staff to obtain a broad range of perspectives regarding the State’s implementation of IDEA Part C.”
OSEP’s previously-released DMS reports for other states have stated that its review “did not include an examination of the implementation of IDEA Part B requirements by all local educational agencies (LEAs)”. Hence, OSEP couldn’t determine “whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these requirements without reviewing data at the local level.” The missing disclaimer doesn’t establish that OSEP conducted a deeper review in the case of Pennsylvania, but the report does leave the scope unclear.
What OSEP Found
OSEP made the following key findings:
Part B
1.1 Grant Award Notifications (GANs)
In the three years of sample GANs provided by the State to OSEP prior to the monitoring visit, OSEP identified the State’s IDEA Part B subgrant notifications did not include:
1. The federal grant award date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(iv);
2. The correct subaward period of performance start and end date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v); and
3. The correct subaward budget period start and end date as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(vi).
2.1 Dispute Resolution Procedures
During OSEP’s review of the State’s dispute resolution procedures, OSEP noted that the State offers a separate IEP Facilitation process. Although the State’s IEP Facilitation process is listed on the State’s website as a non-IDEA-mandated option, this distinction was not clearly reflected on the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) request form for Mediation and IEP Facilitation.
OSEP also noticed during our review inconsistencies in the procedural safeguards and on the due process model form in what the State required and what is required by IDEA. OSEP notes specifically on the due process model form, individually and within the procedural safeguards, that the State requires LEA information, but not the name of the school the student attends, OSEP also notes that the state does not list the question related to homelessness, required by the McKinney-Vento Act, as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.508.
2.2 Model form for Filing a State Complaint
The State’s model form for filing a State complaint is included on the State’s website and embedded in the State’s procedural safeguards. The State’s model form, and State Code, 55 Pennsylvania Code § 3800, included the following statement, “Is the child publicly placed in the educational program by a Judge or Child Welfare Agency?”
The State’s requirement that additional components be included when filing a State complaint may limit an individual or organization’s ability to file a State complaint. Further, the SEA may inappropriately dismiss complaints that do not include those additional components but otherwise meet the IDEA Part B filing requirements.
Part C
1.1 Dispute Resolution
OSEP’s analysis is based on a review of the documents and information provided by the State, and interviews with State staff and other interested parties. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that the State’s written procedures for the timely administrative resolution of complaints through mediation, State complaints, and due process hearing procedures are inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(e), 1439(a)(1) and (a)(8), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.431 through 303.438.
What Happens Next
Unlike DMS reports that require future corrective-action deadlines, these reports don’t require Pennsylvania to submit additional evidence. Every identified item was corrected and closed before OSEP issued the reports.
“Closed” doesn’t mean OSEP found Pennsylvania’s original forms and procedures complied with IDEA. It means OSEP identified noncompliance and accepted Pennsylvania’s revisions as sufficient correction.
Why Were the Reports Issued After the Findings Were Closed?
The reports don’t explain the timing.
OSEP conducted the Pennsylvania monitoring in September 2025. Pennsylvania submitted several revised documents between September 9 and September 11, 2025, but it didn’t submit all the materials OSEP relied on to close the findings until March 2026. OSEP then issued the Part C report June 18 and the Part B report July 14.
That means OSEP issued the reports about nine and ten months after monitoring, but only about three and four months after Pennsylvania submitted its final revisions.
For context, OSEP monitored New Hampshire in August 2025, one month before Pennsylvania, and issued its Part B report in May 2026. That report identified seven findings and imposed corrective-action deadlines extending into 2027.
Another example: OSEP monitored Nebraska in October 2024, almost a year before Pennsylvania. It issued the initial Nebraska report April 16, 2026, and reissued it June 18, 2026. Only one of Nebraska’s seven findings had been closed before the initial report was issued.
One possible explanation is that OSEP allowed Pennsylvania to correct paperwork problems before issuing the reports, avoiding a separate round of corrective-action submissions and close-out letters.
That may be administratively efficient. But it comes with a transparency cost.
Until OSEP issued the reports, families didn’t have public findings identifying the federal concerns. They couldn’t use those findings to compare OSEP’s concerns with their own experiences or provide feedback targeted to the identified problems before OSEP closed them. Neither report says OSEP sought renewed parent or stakeholder feedback after Pennsylvania made the revisions.
Another example: June 2020, OSEP released a DMS report for Virginia. In it, OSEP found problems with VDOE’s mediation system. VDOE issued a response saying that OSEP was wrong. However, parents contacted OSEP and journalists with hard evidence of the noncompliance. Had the reports not been made public, the parents wouldn’t have had the opportunity to weigh in and make OSEP aware of the continued noncompliance.
Why This Matters for Families
The Part B model-form finding is frustrating because OSEP has warned states for years that model forms can’t add filing requirements or make optional information appear mandatory.
In 2013, OSEP sent national dispute-resolution guidance to chief state school officers and state special education directors. The guidance explained that when a state complaint form asks for information not required by IDEA, the form must identify that information as optional. The guidance didn’t create a new requirement. The regulations themselves prohibit state educational agencies and local educational agencies from requiring use of the model forms.
OSEP made a related finding against Virginia in 2024 after Virginia Department of Education required state complaints to “contain all relevant documents.” OSEP concluded that the requirement exceeded IDEA’s filing standard and could discourage people from filing complaints.
The Pennsylvania and Virginia findings weren’t identical, but both involved state-created requirements that exceeded, or appeared to exceed, IDEA’s minimum filing standards.
Parents shouldn’t have to wait for OSEP to correct the same or similar problems one state at a time. When OSEP identifies recurring noncompliance, it should conduct a nationwide compliance check and ask every state educational agency and Part C lead agency to review its forms and provide evidence of compliance.
That wouldn’t replace state-specific monitoring, but it could prevent a known barrier from remaining in place until the next federal review.
U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office has already provided an example. In 2025, SPPO requested that each state educational agency submit documentation assuring that the agency and its local educational agencies were complying with FERPA and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment in specified priority areas. If SPPO can do this, why not OSEP?
Pennsylvania corrected its materials before OSEP issued the reports. That matters. The next question is whether those revisions change what families experience in practice.
A finding closed on paper isn’t necessarily a system fixed in practice.
As I recently reported, a Virginia parent encountered a mediation practice similar to one VDOE had previously told OSEP it corrected years ago.
Oversight and transparency matter.
Look at VDOEs Closeout Letter. Links to the 'corrected policies' which ONLY were for those identified by JLARC and not since. Those links were broken/non-functional within months. VDOE is as Non-Compliant as ever.