Sept. 16, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) report for Maine. OSEP identified 11 areas of noncompliance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B requirements.
What OSEP Found
OSEP interviewed Maine Department of Education staff in September 2024. It also reviewed state documents and gathered feedback from the public and local staff. Its findings cover state oversight, data reporting, financial management and procedures for resolving disputes.
The following excerpts describe the 11 areas.
1.1. Monitoring Section 619 Preschool Programs
“The State is not monitoring the subrecipients of IDEA funds, which include programs operated by other State agencies, such as preschool programs, to ensure compliance with IDEA Section 619 requirements, including whether special education and related services are being provided consistent with the IEP, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1416, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”
1.2. Monitoring IDEA Early Childhood Transition Requirements
“The State is not monitoring to ensure children participating in IDEA Part C early intervention, and who are potentially eligible for preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and effective transition to those programs, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(9), 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”
1.3. IEP and Placement Decisions for IDEA Part B Section 619 Preschool Programs
“The State has a policy that establishes a maximum amount of IDEA Section 619 preschool program services based solely on the child’s age, without regard for the child’s identified needs for that service. This policy is inconsistent with the individualized decision-making required in both the IEP and placement process requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 through 300.116, 300.320, and 300.321.”
1.4. Monitoring Private School Placements by the Public Agency
“The State has not monitored all programs providing special education and related services, including private schools or facilities that the public agency has referred to or placed a child with a disability, such as nonpublic out-of-state schools or residential facilities, to ensure compliance with IDEA Part B, as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(11) and 616, 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(E), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.115, 300.149, 300.325(c), 300.600 through 300.602, and 300.606 through 300.608.”
2.1. Data Reporting: Indicators 11—Child Find
“The State is not reporting valid and reliable data for SPP/APR Indicator 11. Specifically, the State is not ensuring the data collected and reported reflects actual practice, performance, and compliance, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(B), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.”
2.2. Data Reporting: Indicator 13—Secondary Transition
“The State is not reporting valid and reliable data for SPP/APR Indicator 13. Specifically, the State is not ensuring the data collected and reported reflects actual practice, performance, and compliance, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(B) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b), and 300.640 through 300.646.”
3.1. Internal Controls: Segregation of duties
“The State does not have a system of internal controls in place that is reasonably designed to ensure the segregation of duties between MDOE as the SEA, and CDS as the primary subgrantee for IDEA Section 619 preschool program funds, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.149, 2 C.F.R. § 200.303, and the GAO-14-704G: Principle 10.”
3.2. Fiscal Monitoring: Section 619 Preschool Programs
“The State does not have a system in place that is reasonably designed to ensure that MDOE monitors IDEA and cross-cutting fiscal requirements for all IDEA Section 619 preschool programs, including but not limited to identifying and verifying correction of noncompliance as a part of the State’s system of fiscal monitoring, required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.149 and the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329(a) and 200.303. Specifically, MDOE does not perform fiscal monitoring over CDS, the State’s largest subgrantee of IDEA Section 619 preschool funds.”
3.3. Single Audit Responsibilities: Correction of Noncompliance
“The State does not have internal controls in place that ensure that MDOE, as the SEA and pass-through entity, is responsible for follow-up and corrective action of single audit findings for the IDEA Section 619 preschool programs, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.508(c) and 200.511(a). Specifically, MDOE does not ensure prompt follow-up and corrective action related to single audit findings issued to CDS for the Preschool program.”
4.1. Filing a Due Process Complaint
“The State’s regulations and notice of procedural safeguards do not make clear that a due process complaint may be filed by parents or a public agency consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1415(b)(6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.507.”
4.2. Confidentiality of Mediation Discussions
“Under the State’s mediation guidance, parties may be required to sign a confidentiality pledge before participating in mediation which is inconsistent with the voluntary nature of IDEA’s mediation process and the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8).”
What Happens Next
OSEP set deadlines for Maine to submit corrective-action documents and show that its changes are being used. The first submissions are due Dec. 15, 2026. Evidence of implementation is due as soon as possible, but no later than Sept. 16, 2027.
For example, Finding 1.3 requires Maine to submit revised draft rules and related documents by Dec. 15. Maine must also provide written assurances of compliance and notify CDS, school districts, parent groups and others about the proposed changes.
What This Means for Families
For parents facing noncompliance identified by OSEP, this report is more ammunition to bring to IEP meetings. The report by itself doesn’t prove that every district violated IDEA or that every child was denied services. However, it does identify noncompliance and parents can use it to point out the noncompliance to any schools engaging in it.
The findings also raise a harder question. How many times must the same problems be identified before families stop facing them?
Some warnings were already in writing nearly six years ago. An Oct. 30, 2020, review by Public Consulting Group, commissioned by the Maine State Legislative Council, described children waiting for IEP services because providers weren’t available. OSEP cited that review in its 2026 report. These weren’t all new concerns.
Maine didn’t have to wait for OSEP to tell it to oversee these programs. That duty already existed.
The mediation history goes back even further.
In guidance issued July 23, 2013, OSEP explained that signing a confidentiality pledge can’t be a condition for entering mediation. It repeated that position in a July 31, 2020, letter. IDEA already protects the confidentiality of mediation discussions.
OSEP then identified this problem in Virginia’s March 13, 2024, DMS report. Its Dec. 5, 2024, close-out letter said Virginia had submitted revised regulations and resolved that finding.
So . . .
Guidance was released in 2013 and 2020, and then OSEP specifically addressed Virginia in 2024. How is it that Maine wasn’t addressed until 2026?
Parents shouldn’t have to carry a 2013 federal explanation into a 2026 dispute to defend the same right.
Checking other states for the same problem could help catch it before more families face it. That would mean reviewing actual rules, forms and practices, not collecting another promise to comply.
Given ED’s SPPO office has repeatedly required states to confirm compliance with FERPA, why isn’t the same occurring each time another example of IDEA noncompliance is found in a state? Why isn’t something issued requiring each state to confirm compliance? Seems such an approach would streamline the process and perhaps help decades of other families avoid facing the same noncompliance.