| A | B | C | D | E | F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | State | Year | Critical Element | Category | Findings | Required Actions/ Next Steps | |
2 | Alaska | 2023 | General Supervision | Identification of Noncompliance | State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure the State’s examination of data collected through its data system to determine LEA compliance is being used for the purposes of identifying noncompliance and verifying correction. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(e). The State does not issue findings of noncompliance within a reasonable period of time after the noncompliance is identified through a review of its supplemental data collection as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures documenting the State’s process for reviewing the information in its data system to determine compliance. In addition, the State must submit monitoring policies which reflect when the State will examine data collected from its data system to determine LEA compliance with IDEA requirements (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or annually). Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of timely identification and verification of correction of noncompliance consistent with the State’s updated policies and procedures for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner using its data system, including examples from the State’s Supplemental Workbook where an LEA’s data demonstrated noncompliance and evidence of how the State responded (i.e., a letter or report of noncompliance, evidence of correction such as a CAP, individual child-level correction, or other mechanisms the State uses to verify correction). | |
3 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Procedural Safeguards | State does not have a system in place to ensure that mediation agreements that result in IEP facilitation are formalized in written mediation agreements as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(6). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
4 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State's Model Forms | State’s model form and instructions do not meet the content requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) for filing a due process complaint. Specifically, the State’s model form entitled, “Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing” requires “Student Address/Phone,” and the form does not make clear that inclusion of a phone number is either optional or only required as available contact information in the case of a child or youth experiencing homelessness or a student who has reached the age of majority. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
5 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | State does not have mechanisms in place to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable time set by the State as required under IDEA, 34 C.F.R §§ 300.149, 300.511 through 300.514, and 300.600. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
6 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Resolution Meetings | State does not have procedures to ensure that LEAs are convening a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a) and does not have a mechanism to track the 30- day resolution period requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
7 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | State is not, pursuant to its general supervisory responsibility under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, ensuring that the public agency involved in the due process hearing implements the hearing officer’s decision in a timely manner, unless either party appeals the decision. Finally, if necessary to achieve compliance from the LEA, there is no evidence of DEED using any appropriate enforcement actions consistent with its general supervisory responsibility under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 and 300.608. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
8 | Alaska | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | State’s policies and procedures related to State complaints do not address the award of a remedy for the denial of appropriate services, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement; 2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; 4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. | |
9 | Alaska | 2023 | Fiscal Management | Subrecipient Monitoring | State does not have a reasonably designed system, policies and procedures, and internal controls for its subrecipient monitoring process consistent with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.332(b), (d)-(f) and (h), 200.339, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Policies and Procedures for fiscal monitoring consistent with the requirements of IDEA and the Uniform Guidance Requirements at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.332(b), (d)-(f) and (h) and 200.339, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. The following requirements are examples of topics that could be included in fiscal monitoring policies and procedures: a) Allowable costs consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(a) and (g); b) Time and Effort charges for personnel duties consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.430(b); c) Prior written approval process under 2 C.F.R. § 200.407; d) Records and Information management to ensure fiscal records are maintained in compliance with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.303(e), 200.333, and 200.336(a); e) Equipment and inventory of items purchased using Federal IDEA Part B funds consistent with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.313 and 200.314; and f) The activities carried out in implementing coordinated early intervening services under 34 C.F.R. § 300.226; and Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence that it has implemented its fiscal monitoring procedures as described under the first corrective action. Evidence should include completed fiscal monitoring reports, checklists or other tools developed by the State to document fiscal monitoring activities, and any letters of findings and documentation to verify the correction of any noncompliance that the State has developed and implemented. | |
10 | Alaska | 2023 | Fiscal Management | Subaward/Subrecipient | State is unable to ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient and includes the required information consistent with 2 C.F.R § 200.332(a). Specifically, OSEP’s review found that DEED’s Grant Award Notice (GAN) does not include the subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date as required under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of revised IDEA GANs that include the information as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a), specifically the period of performance as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v). | |
11 | Alaska | 2023 | Miscellaneous | Early Childhood Transition (General Supervision) | OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed general supervision system which ensures children with disabilities 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 to those preschool programs in a manner consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(9) and (11) and 616(a), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Policies, procedures, and protocols for: a. Monitoring LEAs including protocols or reviews for ensuring that the child find process being implemented year-round; b. Validating SPP/APR early childhood transition data for Indicator 12; and c. Implementing key IDEA early childhood transition requirements consistent with the requirements found at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, including procedures for documenting LEAs’ attendance in early childhood transition conferences. 2. A revised State policy (and updated Special Education Handbook) requiring that all parents of potentially eligible children with disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1) upon initial referral by IDEA Part C for children transitioning from Part C to Part B. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence that the State has monitored its LEAs on the implementation of the early childhood transition requirements through new or revised practices in the revised MOA such as, notification letters, monitoring reports, letters of findings, examples of findings related to early childhood transition, close-out reports and/or verification of correction letters, or other supporting documentation demonstrating oversight of its LEAs; 2. Examples of actual notifications from Part C to Part B and documentation of the provision of the procedural safeguards to parents upon notification, transition meetings and IDEA Part B eligibility meetings being held within timelines; 3. The State will provide with its FFY 2022 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2024, an explanation of how its data for Indicator B-12 are valid and reliable and reflect the measurement. The explanation should include a discussion of the methodology used by the State to verify the validity and reliability of the data for B-12 (the percentage of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays); and 4. Documentation demonstrating the State level training provided to LEAs on the early childhood transition procedures such as, presentation materials, attendance logs, calendar and dates of trainings provided. | |
12 | Alaska | 2023 | Miscellaneous | Early Childhood Transition (Procedural Safeguards) | OSEP finds that the State does not have policies and procedures in place which ensure that all parents of potentially eligible children with disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Policies, procedures, and protocols for: a. Monitoring LEAs including protocols or reviews for ensuring that the child find process being implemented year-round; b. Validating SPP/APR early childhood transition data for Indicator 12; and c. Implementing key IDEA early childhood transition requirements consistent with the requirements found at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, including procedures for documenting LEAs’ attendance in early childhood transition conferences. 2. A revised State policy (and updated Special Education Handbook) requiring that all parents of potentially eligible children with disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1) upon initial referral by IDEA Part C for children transitioning from Part C to Part B. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence that the State has monitored its LEAs on the implementation of the early childhood transition requirements through new or revised practices in the revised MOA such as, notification letters, monitoring reports, letters of findings, examples of findings related to early childhood transition, close-out reports and/or verification of correction letters, or other supporting documentation demonstrating oversight of its LEAs; 2. Examples of actual notifications from Part C to Part B and documentation of the provision of the procedural safeguards to parents upon notification, transition meetings and IDEA Part B eligibility meetings being held within timelines; 3. The State will provide with its FFY 2022 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2024, an explanation of how its data for Indicator B-12 are valid and reliable and reflect the measurement. The explanation should include a discussion of the methodology used by the State to verify the validity and reliability of the data for B-12 (the percentage of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays); and 4. Documentation demonstrating the State level training provided to LEAs on the early childhood transition procedures such as, presentation materials, attendance logs, calendar and dates of trainings provided. | |
13 | Alaska | 2023 | Miscellaneous | State Advisory Panel | State does not have a State advisory panel (SAP) as required by IDEA Sec. 612(a)(21) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 300.169. | Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must provide evidence of an established SAP that meets the requirements under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 300.169. | |
14 | Alaska | 2023 | Miscellaneous | Significant Disproportionality | While DEED was able to describe how it tracked expenditure of CCEIS funds through its grant reimbursement system, it was unclear whether there is ongoing monitoring of implementation of the LEAs’ CCEIS plans to ensure the CCEIS funds were used to address the factors contributing to the significant disproportionality. | While DEED described its system for identifying and addressing significant disproportionality, the State should consider the potential benefit of additional oversight over LEAs’ use of CCEIS funds. Specifically, OSEP recommends DEED: 1. Consider additional monitoring of the implementation of LEAs’ CCEIS plans to ensure the reserved funds are spent in a timely and appropriate manner and that LEAs use these funds to address the factors they identified which contribute to significant disproportionality. | |
15 | Arizona | 2023 | General Supervision | Part C to B Transition | 1. That ADE failed to exercise its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities related to transition from IDEA Part C early intervention programs to IDEA Part B preschool programs, because it did not have sufficient policies and procedures in place to ensure that children with disabilities 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 to those preschool programs in a manner consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(9) and (11) and 616(a), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E); and 2. That ADE failed to exercise its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities related to IDEA Section 619, because it did not have sufficient policies and procedures for public education agencies (PEAs) to follow in implementing the requirements of IDEA Section 619, as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(11) and 616(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A). | On February 14, 2022, OSEP issued a response to ADE through a subsequent DMS letter (Enclosure A), in which OSEP approved the State’s corrective action plan based on OSEP’s review of the documents and information submitted by ADE and discussions with ADE. OSEP also determined that ADE had taken appropriate steps to complete Required Actions A.1 through A.3 and B.1 through B.3, related to the submission of the corrective action plan and the adoption and implementation of policies and procedures to reasonably ensure a smooth and effective transition to IDEA Part B preschool programs for children with disabilities who are participating in the IDEA Part C early intervention programs and found eligible for IDEA Part B services, and to exercise its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities regarding IDEA Section 619 requirements. However, OSEP noted that ADE had not sufficiently completed Required Action B. 4 (evidence of dissemination of, and training on, the final version of the revised policies and procedures) and Required Action C (evidence of implementation of the revised monitoring procedures). | |
16 | Arizona | 2023 | Fiscal Management | Section 611/ Section 619 | 1. The State must submit to OSEP documentation of its plan to ensure that any LEA that received less than the amount of section 611 or section 619 funds to which it was entitled in FFYs 2014, 2015, and/or 2016 will be made whole. Consistent with the request made in the State’s February 21, 2018 letter, the State may use any available FFY 2018, FFY 2019, FFY 2020, FFY 2021, and FFY 2022 section 611 and/or section 619 State set-aside funds for this purpose. 2. The State must submit to OSEP revised State policies and procedures that describe how ADE allocates IDEA section 611 and section 619 funds to eligible LEAs, consistent with statutory and regulatory formulas in IDEA sections 611(f) and section 619(g) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705 and 300.815. The policies and procedures must document how ADE fulfills its responsibilities for each of the following actions, consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements: a) determines the LEA’s eligibility to receive a subgrant based on the submission of a plan that includes required assurances; b) calculates base payments; c) calculates base payment adjustments, when required; d) calculates the allocation of remaining funds based on population and poverty; e) calculates subgrants to eligible charter school LEAs that open or significantly expand their enrollment; f) reallocates funds to eligible LEAs, including charter school LEAs, consistent with requirements and in the appropriate year; and g) ensures that section 619 allocations are made consistent with IDEA requirements, including when allocations to States for section 619 grants are below the 1997 appropriation level. In addition, the policies and procedures must include relevant policies and procedures of any ADE organizational units that have a role in calculating, issuing, or otherwise ensuring the distribution of section 611 and/or section 619 funds to eligible LEAs, including eligible charter school LEAs. | In response to OSEP’s July 3, 2018, DMS letter, ADE submitted written documentation to address the two corrective actions. On September 28, 2018, and October 1, 2018, ADE submitted documentation addressing the first corrective action, regarding a plan to ensure that any LEA that received less than the amount of section 611 or section 619 funds to which it was entitled in FFYs 2014, 2015, and/or 2016 will be made whole. On November 25, 2019, ADE submitted LEA allocation procedures consistent with the information requested in the second corrective action. Based on OSEP’s review of these documents, OSEP has determined that ADE has taken appropriate steps to complete the two required actions listed above. | |
17 | Arizona | 2023 | Fiscal Management | Subrecipient Monitoring | In addition to reviewing the findings cited in the May 5, 2016, monitoring letter, OSEP also completed additional fiscal monitoring on the subrecipient monitoring requirements and made the following finding: Criterion 2.1: Based on the review of documents and interviews with ADE staff on September 14, 2017, ADE does not ensure that each IDEA section 611 and section 619 subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the required information at the time of the subaward as specified in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). OSEP made requests to review ADE’s notifications to subrecipients to ensure their consistency with 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). ADE did not provide the requested documentation | OSEP’s July 3, 2018, DMS letter required ADE to submit to OSEP documentation demonstrating that section 611 and 619 subaward notifications include the information as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). Under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a), ADE must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information specified in 34 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(i)-(xiv) at the time of the subaward, and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. There are 14 required items that must be included in the Federal subaward notification. On July 29, 2020, ADE submitted an example of a project summary identifying some of the 14 items required under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). Other items, however, were either missing or included in a spreadsheet that is separate from the grant award notice. OSEP addressed this issue during monthly calls with the State and ADE agreed it would revise its grant award system to include an annual notice which includes all of the required items in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). To date, ADE has not provided examples of its revised grant award notices. Therefore, within 30 days of the date of this letter ADE must: Submit to OSEP documentation demonstrating that section 611and 619 subaward notifications include the information as required by 2 CFR §200.332(a) | |
18 | Arkansas | 2023 | General Supervision | Identification of Noncompliance | The State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to identify noncompliance in a timely manner as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602. Specifically, the State was not issuing its written notifications of noncompliance (i.e., a findings) to its LEAs, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance. Further, the State may not use the “pre-finding” flexibility to allow its LEAs an indiscriminate amount of time to correct any noncompliance prior to a finding being issued. “Pre-finding correction” should generally occur within three months of the State’s monitoring. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. 1. Updated policies and procedures documenting its process for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner to include issuing a written notification of noncompliance (i.e., a finding) to LEAs, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance unless the LEA immediately (i.e., before the State issues a finding) corrects the noncompliance and the State is able to verify the correction. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of timely identification of noncompliance consistent with the State’s updated policies and procedures for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance, including notification letters, evidence of integrated monitoring activities and letters of findings to its LEAs. | |
19 | Arkansas | 2023 | Miscellaneous | Significant Disproportionality | ADE has in effect written policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, as required under IDEA section 612(a)(24) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.173, those policies and procedures do not explicitly describe all of the required activities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646(c) and (d) for LEAs identified with significant disproportionality and the relevant deadlines for completing those required activities. | OSEP recommends that the State: 1. Revise its written policies and procedures regarding significant disproportionality to reflect the State practices related to timelines and deadlines for all required activities for LEAs identified with significant disproportionality; and 2. Establish a team of personnel responsible for conducting the review of, and providing approval for, the CCEIS Tool and CCEIS Application submitted by LEAs identified with significant disproportionality. | |
20 | Florida | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | As reported in OSEP’s December 18, 2020, letter, OSEP found that: 1. Absent the complainant’s written agreement to withdraw the complaint based on the State’s written acceptance of a proposal to resolve the complaint, FDOE’s practice of accepting a proposed resolution of the complaint without reviewing all relevant information and making an independent determination as to whether the public agency was violating a requirement of Part B of IDEA or its implementing regulations, was inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(4). Further, under these circumstances, FDOE’s practice of not issuing a written decision that addressed each allegation in the complaint and contained findings of fact and conclusions and the reasons for the State Education Agency’s final decision, was inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5); and 2. The FDOE, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, State Complaints–General Information document; and Filing a State Complaint–Frequently Asked Questions document, are not fully consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151–300.153. | Based on OSEP’s review of the supportive documentation and information submitted by FDOE, OSEP has determined that FDOE has taken appropriate steps to address the following corrective actions: 1.1 including, 1.1(a) and 1.1(b), related to revising its procedures governing its IDEA Part B State complaint resolution system to be consistent with the requirements under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.152(a)(4) and 300.152(a)(5). 1.2, related to copies of complaint resolutions filed from January 2019 through July 1, 2020, where the State accepted the district’s or complainant’s proposal to resolve the complaint and concluded the complaint resolution without the agreement of the complainant to withdraw the complaint and without complying with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(4) and (5). Documentation for such complaints that the State sought the complainant’s permission to either formally withdraw the complaint or to reopen the complaint and issue a decision in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5 1.3, related to documentation of the withdrawal of complaints filed after July 1, 2020, if any, where FDOE has accepted the proposal to resolve the complaint, and all complaint resolution decisions of complaints filed after July 1, 2020, if any, in which FDOE has accepted the proposal to resolve the complaint. 1.4, related to the notification to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups and other interested parties advising them of the State’s responsibility to comply with all applicable IDEA Part B complaint resolution procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151–300.153; and 1.5, related to FDOE’s technical assistance materials and the revisions of the State Complaints–General Information; and Filing a State Complaint–Frequently Asked Questions documents. | |
21 | Florida | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Mediation | Florida’s Rule 6A-6.03311(4) regarding mediation is inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.506. Specifically, the Rule is inconsistent with IDEA’s provisions that mediation must be available to: a. Resolve any matter arising under Part B of IDEA, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint; and b. Parties to disputes under Part B of IDEA, which are parents and public agencies, not merely school district personnel. | OSEP has determined that FDOE has taken appropriate steps to address the following corrective actions: 2.1, related to Florida’s Rule 6A-6.03311(4) regarding: (1) matters that can be the subject of a mediation; (2) the parties to mediation; and (3), that a State complaint may allege that a public agency, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.33, has violated a requirement of Part B of IDEA or the IDEA Part B regulations. 2.2, related to FDOE’s written assurance that pending all necessary amendments to the referenced rules, FDOE will ensure that the State and its public agencies implement mediation under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 and the State complaint procedures in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151(a) and 300.153(b)(1); | |
22 | Florida | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Florida’s Rule 6A-6.03311(5) regarding State complaints is inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151(a) and 300.153(b)(1) because it does not provide that a complaint may allege that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of IDEA or the IDEA Part B regulations.; and | 2.1, related to Florida’s Rule 6A-6.03311(4) regarding: (1) matters that can be the subject of a mediation; (2) the parties to mediation; and (3), that a State complaint may allege that a public agency, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.33, has violated a requirement of Part B of IDEA or the IDEA Part B regulations. 2.2, related to FDOE’s written assurance that pending all necessary amendments to the referenced rules, FDOE will ensure that the State and its public agencies implement mediation under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 and the State complaint procedures in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151(a) and 300.153(b)(1); | |
23 | Florida | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Procedural Safeguards | Florida’s Part B Notice of Procedural Safeguards for Parents and Students with Disabilities is inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. §1415(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(c) because it did not include a full explanation of the procedural safeguards available to the parents of a child with a disability. | 2.3, related to FDOE’s adoption of the Department’s IDEA Part B Procedural Safeguards Notice model form in place of FDOE’s Notice of Procedural Safeguards to comply with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(c); and 2.4 and 2.5, related to FDOE’s notification to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups and other interested parties advising them of the State’s intent to amend the Florida Administrative Code, Rule: 6A-6.03311(4) and (5)—Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Students with Disabilities and FDOE’s intent to revise its Notice of Procedural Safeguards. | |
24 | New Jersey | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | 1.1 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has established procedures to ensure that ALJs who serve as hearing officers calculate the 45-day timeline for issuing final decisions in due process hearings based on calendar days rather than ‘Federal days.’ 1.2 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has established procedures to ensure that ALJs who serve as hearing officers grant adjournments as set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:6A-9.2 (extensions as set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c)) only at the request of a party to the hearing and for a specific period of time. 1.3 The State must provide a copy of the notification to be issued to all ALJs who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy groups and other interested parties advising them that the State has revised its due process hearing timeline procedures to be consistent with Part B regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c), as described above. 1.4 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has reviewed its due process hearing data collection process and revised it, as necessary, to ensure that, consistent with the information set forth above, it will be able to provide accurate data on fully adjudicated hearings and hearing decisions with allowable extensions for the IDEA section 618 dispute resolution data submission for the School Year 2019-2020 data collection (reporting year is defined as July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020). | 1.1 - FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED To complete Required Action 1.1, within 60 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must: 1.1.1. Revise its policies and procedures to reference the IDEA’s due process hearing timeline as 45 ‘calendar days,’ as described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and § 300.11(a), in each of the documents referenced above and any other relevant documents the State identifies. 1.1.2. Remove all references to ‘Federal days’ from existing publicly available documents, including from the Special Education Dispute Resolution Manual. 1.1.3. Provide to OSEP the final issuance of the Special Education Due Process Prehearing Guidelines. Additional Concern OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding evidence of implementation of the NJDOE/OAL MOA. 1.2 - CLOSED Additional Concerns OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the implementation of its procedures which include the monthly publishing of extensions to the 45-day timeline, on its website as described in the document, Revised Procedures for Conducting Special Education Hearings. Additionally, OSEP intends to follow up regarding the State’s oversight in addressing extensions to the 45-day timeline with the OAL. 1.3 - FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED To complete Required Action 1.3, within 60 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must provide a copy of the notification to all ALJs who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy groups and other interested parties advising them that the State has revised its due process hearing timeline procedures to be consistent with Part B regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c) regarding the meaning of "days" in the 45-day timeline. 1.4 - CLOSED Additional Concerns OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the State’s data collection process to ensure that it provides accurate data on all IDEA Part B Section 618 data collection requirements related to dispute resolution, as outlined in OSEP’s data documentation requirements. | |
25 | New Jersey | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Resolution Meetings | 2.1 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to ensure that: 2.1.1 the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint; unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or use mediation. 2.1.2 if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of noncompliance. | 2.1 - CLOSED | |
26 | New Jersey | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Child's Status During Proceedings | 3.1 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has revised the procedures in New Jersey’s Special Education Dispute Resolution Procedures Manual and the explanation on pages 20 and 21 of its Parental Rights in Special Education Handbook by removing the language limiting the application of the pendency (also known as “stay-put") provision to due process complaints filed within 15 calendar days of the proposed change in the child’s program or placement and including the explanation of the stay-put provision described above. 3.2 The State must provide a copy of the notification to be issued to all ALJs who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them that the State has revised its stay-put or pendency provisions to be consistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.508, as described above. | 3.1 - CLOSED Additional Concerns OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the implementation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.518. 3.2 - CLOSED | |
27 | New Jersey | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has revised its procedures for expedited due process hearings to ensure that: 4.1.1 ALJs who serve as hearing officers do not permit parties to challenge the sufficiency of an expedited due process complaint; and 4.1.2 ALJs who serve as hearing officers will no longer grant ‘adjournments’ (extensions) which are inconsistent with the shortened timelines governing expedited due process complaints. 4.2 The State must provide a copy of the notification to be issued to all ALJs who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them that the State has revised the expedited due process hearing procedures found in NJDOE’s Special Education Dispute Resolution Manual to be consistent with the Part B regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 300.532, as described above. 4.3 The State must provide documentation demonstrating that the State has reviewed its expedited due process hearing data collection process and has revised it, as necessary, to ensure that it will be able to provide accurate data for its IDEA section 618 dispute resolution data submission for the School Year 2019-2020 data collection (reporting year is defined as July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020). | 4.1.1 - CLOSED 4.1.2 - CLOSED Additional Concerns OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the implementation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.532. 4.2 - CLOSED 4.3 - CLOSED Additional Concerns OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the implementation of the State’s expedited due process hearing data collection process. | |
28 | New York | 2023 | General Supervision | LEA Annual Determinations | OSEP finds that NYSED does not consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators; (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with IDEA, including any relevant audit findings, when making annual determinations about the performance of its LEAs. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations. These procedures must include the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators; (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. Evidence of Implementation (ASAP, no later than 1yr): 1. The State’s IDEA annual LEA determinations with any underlying protocols or rubrics that were used in completing the determinations. | |
29 | New York | 2023 | General Supervision | Timely Identification of Noncompliance | OSEP finds that NYSED does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to identify and verify correction of noncompliance in a timely manner using its different components, as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures, documenting its process for identifying and verifying correction of noncompliance in a timely manner. Evidence of Implementation (ASAP, no later than 1yr): 2. Evidence of implementation of the State’s revised monitoring policies and procedures such as, notification letters, tools to conduct the monitoring, monitoring reports, letters of findings, root cause analysis, technical assistance, examples of finding close-out and verification of correction, or other supporting documentation. | |
30 | New York | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | OSEP finds that the NYSED does not ensure that public agencies issue timely due process hearing decisions as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515. OSEP finds that NYSED does not provide adequate written notice to parents regarding the differences in the rights afforded to parents in IDEA due process hearings as compared to the rights afforded to parents who elect to participate in the accelerated review process including the IDEA due process rights that parents forfeit if they participate in the accelerated review process. 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(c). OSEP finds that NYSED does not have mechanisms in place to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable time set by the State as required under IDEA, as required in 34 C.F.R §§ 300.511through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600. | Required Action (within 90 days): 1. Quarterly dispute resolution data from NYCPS, which will be publicly reported, and include: a. The total number of pending due process hearings in NYCPS. b. Of the total provided in (a), the current number of pending due process hearings that are overdue. c. Of the total provided in (a), the number of new hearing requests received within the last reporting period. d. Of the total provided in (a), the number of hearing requests received that have not been assigned a hearing officer. e. Of the total provided in (a), the number of hearing requests filed under State law rather than IDEA. f. The number of due process hearing requests resolved by NYCPS during the most recent reporting period. Please provide the number of hearing requests resolved through mediation, resolution meeting, settlement agreements, withdrawals, dismissals, and hearing officer decisions. g. Of the total provided in (e), the number of hearing requests resolved within the required timelines. h. Of the total provided in (e), the number of hearing requests resolved within extended timelines. i. The range of days the due process hearing requests that have not been resolved in a timely manner are overdue. j. For due process hearing requests that were not resolved in a timely manner, provide: i. The reasons for the delay (e.g., hearing officer assignment, pendency request, etc.); and ii. The number of due process hearing requests that are overdue for each reason identified. 2. Ensure that the PSN provided to parents of children in NYCPS includes a description of the differences between the rights under the accelerated review process and the IDEA due process hearing rights and those hearing rights that parents would forfeit if they participate in the accelerated review process. 3. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: a. Track the implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and b. Monitor LEAs to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600. Evidence of Implementation (ASAP, no later than 1yr): 1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 2. Evidence that the PSN for NYCPS includes a full explanation of the differences between a due process hearing and an accelerated review process, including those hearing rights that parents would forfeit. | |
31 | New York | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | OSEP finds that NYSED does not have reasonable procedures to ensure that State complaints held in abeyance pending a due process hearing decision are properly resolved. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 and 300.152(c). OSEP finds that NYSED does not ensure that State complaints, which allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is received, are ultimately investigated and resolved as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c). | Updated policies and procedures documenting the State’s process to resolve any issues in a State complaint the State set aside under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c) because they had also been raised in a due process hearing request but were not ultimately addressed in the final due process hearing decision. Specifically, the revised policies and procedures must: 1. Accurately reflect the SEA’s obligation to ensure that State complaints held in abeyance pending a due process hearing decision are properly resolved under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 and 300.152(c); and 2. Ensure that State complaints, which allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is received, are ultimately investigated and resolved as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c), regardless of when the pending due process hearing decision is issued. Evidence of Implementation (ASAP, no later than 1yr): 1. Evidence that reflects the revised procedures for all State complaints received after the date of this letter in which a due process hearing has also been requested, including a copy of the notification issued to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the State’s responsibility to comply with all applicable IDEA Part B complaint resolution procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151through 300.153, including the State complaint set aside provisions; 2. Documentation demonstrating the mechanism used by the State to track the resolution of State complaints that are set aside because of pending due process hearings. 3. Documentation of State complaints filed from school year 2021-2022 to the date of this letter that were set aside because the issue also was raised in a due process hearing request. NYSED must determine whether those State complaints were properly resolved. 4. Documentation for set aside State complaints that were filed from school year 2021-2022 to the date of this letter and were not properly resolved, which shows that NYSED retroactively sought the complainant’s permission to either formally withdraw the complaint or to reopen the complaint and issue a decision in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 and 300.152(c). | |
32 | Virginia | 2023 | General Supervision | Monitoring | Based on the review of documents, analysis data, and interviews with the State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to enable the State to exercise general supervision over all educational programs for children with disabilities administered within the State, to endure that all such programs meet the requirements of Part B of IDEA, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and (b), 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (e), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and 2 C.F.R. § 200.332. | However, the consistent implementation of these practices and procedures remains an area of concern. Further, as noted in our September 1, 2022 letter, OSEP intends to continue to monitor the State’s implementation of its general supervision and monitoring system through State-reported data and has reserved the right to revisit the matter based on future, additional information OSEP may receive. OSEP intends to further investigate implementation of VDOE’s general supervision system in our additional monitoring activities and may require additional corrective actions based on new analyses and findings, if any. | |
33 | Virginia | 2023 | General Supervision | IEE | Based on a review of documents and interviews with State personnel, for the reasons set forth above, OSEP concludes that the provision of Virginia’s regulation, 8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) and (e), are inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502, because the State’s regulation restricts a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense to only those areas in which the public agency had previously evaluated the child. | OSEP intends to further investigate compliance and implementation of IEE procedures in our additional monitoring activities and may require additional corrective actions based on new analyses and findings, if any. | |
34 | Virginia | 2023 | General Supervision | Provision of FAPE | Provision of FAPE and Compensatory Services during the pandemic. | AS result of the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) November 30, 2022 letter to Fairfax County, OSEP is concerned about the potential for similar issues in other LEAs in Virginia. OSEP intends to further investigate this issue in our additional monitoring activities and may require additional corrective actions based on new analyses and findings, if any. | |
35 | Virginia | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that: 1. The State is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11)(A) and 1416(a) and 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(a) and (b) and 300.600(a) and (d)(2) with regard to the following: a. VDOE does not ensure and document that LEAs track the implementation of the timelines for the resolution process for due process complaints filed by parents in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510 and for calculating the beginning and expiration of the 45-day due process hearing decision timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), unless under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c), a hearing officer grants a specific extension of the 45-day timeline at the request of a party to the hearing; and to properly track due process hearing decision timelines. | Closed. Findings 1 (a) and (b): No further action is required. | |
36 | Virginia | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that: 2. The State is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11)(A) and 1416(a) and 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(a) and (b) and 300.600(a) and (d)(2) with regard to the following: a. VDOE does not ensure and document that LEAs track the implementation of the timelines for the resolution process for due process complaints filed by parents in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510 and for calculating the beginning and expiration of the 45-day due process hearing decision timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), unless under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c), a hearing officer grants a specific extension of the 45-day timeline at the request of a party to the hearing; and b. VDOE does not ensure that its LEAs track the implementation of the resolution timelines in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(e)(3) and that hearing officers track the implementation of the expedited due process hearing timelines in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(e)(2) in order to properly track due process hearing decision timelines. 3. Consequently, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to ensure a timely resolution process for due process complaints filed by parents or the timely adjudication of due process complaints that result in due process hearings, or a timely resolution process for expedited due process complaints, and the timely adjudication of expedited due process hearings. 4. Because the State does not have a mechanism to reliably determine the date on which the 45-day due process hearing timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) commences, the State is unable to report valid and reliable data on the adjudication of due process complaints as required under Section 618(a)(1)(F) of IDEA. 5. Because the State does not have a mechanism for reliably determining whether expedited hearing timelines are met, the State is unable to report valid and reliable data on expedited due process hearings in accordance with Section 618(a) of IDEA. | ||
37 | Virginia | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to implement a mediation process that is consistent with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.506. Specifically, the State’s practice of having its mediation coordinator co-mediate when the mediator is new, and permitting its mediation coordinator to be present at the mediation sessions is inconsistent with the requirement in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(e)(1) that the State’s procedures ensure that a mediator is not an employee of the SEA and has no personal or professional interest that would conflict with the mediator’s objectivity. | Closed, no further action is required at this time. | |
38 | Virginia | 2023 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities to implement its state complaint resolution system in a manner consistent with all the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(A) and 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153 for the following reason: The State does not ensure that it resolves every complaint that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.153 in accordance with the minimum State complaint procedures in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152, specifically in the situation where the State has developed a communication plan with an individual parent-complaint. | Open. Further actions are required to close this finding. OSEP intends to further investigate compliance and implementation of State complaint procedures in our additional monitoring activities and may require additional corrective actions based on new analyses and findings, if any. | |
39 | Texas | 2023 | Miscellaneous | Child Find | Additionally, OSEP met with stakeholders and staff from districts across the State and received their input on the State's progress in meeting the requirements identified above. While onsite, it came to our attention that Austin Independent School District (AISD), specifically its special education department, had been under investigation by TEA for more than one year, due to the district's years-long backlog of special education evaluations, as required by the child find and evaluations requirements (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301-306). | OSEP requests that within 30-days of the date of this letter TEA provide OSEP with a status report on the backlog of evaluations in AISD, as well as its plan for bringing AISD into compliance with IDEA and its implementing requirements. OSEP will schedule a call in the future to discuss these concerns in more detail. | |
40 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Complaint procedures apply to “LEAs” or “school divisions” rather than to all of the entities listed under IDEA’s definition of “public agency” | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of VDOE’s State complaint procedures, revised to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.153(b). 2. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise its regulations at 8VAC20-81-10 and 8VAC20-81-200.B.3, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report, to ensure the regulations are consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.153(b); (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive, to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulations and State complaint procedures to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.153(b) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulations and documentation of the revisions. | |
41 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Requires that a complaint “contain all relevant documents,” and Section I.A.6 of VDOE’s State complaint procedures requires the complaint to “contain all relevant information and supporting documentation,” both of which are not required. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of VDOE’s State complaint procedures, revised to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). 2. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise its regulation at 8VAC20-81-200.B.7, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report, to ensure it is consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b); (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulation and State complaint procedures to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
42 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Do not allow for a case-by-case determination as to whether non-PII in the SEA’s final decision on a State complaint can be shared with a non-parent complainant | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of VDOE’s State complaint procedures, revised to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and OSEP’s guidance. 2. A specific written assurance from the State that shows – (1) The State will revise the State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-200.D.1.c, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report, to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and OSEP’s guidance; (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulation and State complaint procedures to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
43 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Definition of “calendar day” includes components of the IDEA definition of both “day” and “business day,” which is inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) and the requirements in 300.152(a). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of VDOE’s State complaint procedures, revised to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) and 300.152(a). 2. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise its regulation at 8VAC20-81-10, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report, to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) and the requirements in 300.152(a); (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulations and State complaint procedures to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) and 300.152(a) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
44 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | Does not consistently identify and require correction of all noncompliance with IDEA requirements identified through complaint resolution when the noncompliance was not specifically alleged in the complaint. | Within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the revised procedure describing how the State will both review for and ensure the timely identification of all noncompliance with IDEA requirements found through its complaint resolution that was not included in the complainant’s allegations consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.151, 300.153, 300.600 through 300.602 and OSEP guidance. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of OSEP’s monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Examples of actual complaint decisions (redacted) that demonstrate how the State both conducted its review for, and addressed, noncompliance with an IDEA requirement that was not included in the complainant’s allegation if such situations occur within one year of this monitoring report or if there are no such complaint decisions with these remedies, an explanation of how the State implemented its revised procedures. | |
45 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | State Complaints | The State’s model form for State complaints requires information beyond what is required by the IDEA regulation without designating the additional information requested as optional. | Within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the State’s revised model State complaint form that clearly identifies any information requested that is not required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). 2. Notice that the State has posted the revised model form on the SEA’s web site and other appropriate methods to ensure wide dissemination to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties. | |
46 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Mediation | Requires parties to sign a confidentiality pledge prior to the commencement of mediation | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise the regulation in 8VAC20-81-190.E.3, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8) and OSEP’s guidance; (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising that the State will be revising 8VAC20-81-190.E.3 so that parties can no longer be required to sign a confidentiality pledge prior to the commencement of mediation and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
47 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.A and due process complaint procedures apply only to “LEAs” or “school divisions” rather than all of the entities listed under IDEA’s “public agency” definition as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.507. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise its regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.A, as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.507; (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulations and due process procedures and guidance to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.507 throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
48 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Due Process | State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.P.9.b. permits the SEA to provide permits the SEA to provide approval for an extension of the due process hearing timeline when neither party requests an extension of time, which is inconsistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, but not later than when the State submits its FFY 2024 IDEA Part B grant application the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A specific written assurance from the State that shows— (1) The State will revise its regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.P.9.b., as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of OSEP’s 2024 DMS report to be consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.515(a) and (c); (2) The State will issue a memorandum or other directive to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes proposed to the State regulations and due process procedures and guidance to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above and provide a copy to OSEP; and (3) The State will comply with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.515(a) and (c) throughout the FFYs 2023 and 2024 grant periods. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized changes to the State’s regulation and documentation of the revisions. | |
49 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Procedural Safeguards | State’s guidance indicating that prior written notice is not required after an IEP Team meeting if the child’s IEP has not been finalized is inconsistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the State’s revised policy that demonstrates that the State requires its LEAs to issue prior written notice consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a). | |
50 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Procedural Safeguards | State’s FAQ guidance is inconsistent with the State’s regulatory definition of education record. Further, the State’s FAQ guidance is inconsistent with IDEA’s definition of education record in 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b) and in FERPA at 34 C.F.R § 99.3. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. An updated copy of the State’s FAQ guidance document which removes language that is inconsistent with the State’s regulation and with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b) and in FERPA at 34 C.F.R § 99.3. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of a memorandum or other directive that the State has issued to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the change to the State confidentiality procedures and FAQ guidance. | |
51 | Virginia | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Procedural Safeguards | State has not provided the required content in its notice to parents in a manner that is adequate to fully inform parents under 34 C.F.R. § 300.612. The inclusion of multiple website locations for just part of one (of the four) content requirements (e.g., record retention) is not reasonably designed or adequate to fully inform parents under 34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a)(3). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the State’s revised notice that includes all of the content in 34 C.F.R. § 300.612. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, after 90 days, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence that the State has issued (and provided to OSEP a copy) a memorandum or other directive that the State has issued to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes made to the State’s notice and any guidance to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above. | |
52 | Virginia | 2024 | Confidentiality | Education Record Definition | State’s FAQ guidance is inconsistent with the State’s regulatory definition of education record. Further, the State’s FAQ guidance is inconsistent with IDEA’s definition of education record in 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b) and in FERPA at 34 C.F.R § 99.3. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. An updated copy of the State’s FAQ guidance document which removes language that is inconsistent with the State’s regulation and with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b) and in FERPA at 34 C.F.R § 99.3. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of a memorandum or other directive that the State has issued to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the change to the State confidentiality procedures and FAQ guidance. | |
53 | Virginia | 2024 | Confidentiality | Notice to Parents | State has not provided the required content in its notice to parents in a manner that is adequate to fully inform parents under 34 C.F.R. § 300.612. The inclusion of multiple website locations for just part of one (of the four) content requirements (e.g., record retention) is not reasonably designed or adequate to fully inform parents under 34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a)(3). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the State’s revised notice that includes all of the content in 34 C.F.R. § 300.612. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, after 90 days, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence that the State has issued (and provided to OSEP a copy) a memorandum or other directive that the State has issued to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties advising them of the changes made to the State’s notice and any guidance to ensure they are consistent with the IDEA requirements as described above. | |
54 | Virginia | 2024 | Independent Educational Evaluations | Independent Educational Evaluations | State has not ensured that its LEAs are implementing the IEE requirements in the State’s revised regulation at 8VAC20-81.170.B.2.a and c, and IDEA’s requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A copy of the finalized monitoring protocols the State will use in its cyclical monitoring to evaluate its LEAs’ compliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 and the State’s revised regulation at 8VAC20-81.170.B.2.a and c. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 1. A summary of the results of the State’s review of the five LEAs’ procedures, including copies of correspondence issued to any LEA with identified noncompliance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502. 2. Documentation that demonstrates the State has evaluated LEAs’ compliance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 as a component of its most recent cyclical monitoring. | |
55 | Kentucky | 2024 | Fiscal Management | Subrecipient Monitoring | State did not ensure that every IDEA Part B subgrant notification is identified as a subaward as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a); the State’s IDEA Part B subgrant notifications did not include an Assistance Listings Number (ALN) as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(xii); and the State’s October 1 IDEA Part B subgrant notification did not include: (a) the amount of Federal funds made available to the LEA on July 1, and (b) the total amount of Federal funds obligated by the State to the LEA, including both the July 1 and October 1 payments, as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(vii)-(viii). However, on November 15, 2023, the State provided OSEP with revised subaward notification templates that include all the information required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). | State has resolved the finding of noncompliance, and no further action is required. - November 15, 2023, the State provided OSEP with revised subaward notification templates that include all the information required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). | |
56 | South Carolina | 2024 | General Supervision | Monitoring | State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to identify noncompliance with all IDEA Part B requirements in a timely manner as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures: a. Documenting the State’s process for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner to include issuing a written notification of noncompliance (i.e., a finding) to LEAs, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance unless the LEA immediately (i.e., before the State issues a finding) corrects the noncompliance and the State is able to verify the correction. b. Demonstrating that the State’s identification of findings of noncompliance accounts for all noncompliance with IDEA Part B requirements and not limited to those requirements included in SPP/APR indicators. c. Demonstrating that the State includes in written notifications of noncompliance all the information to ensure proper notice to LEAs and to promote timely correction of noncompliance, such as the particular requirement of the statute or regulation with which the LEA is in noncompliance, a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting the State’s conclusion that there is noncompliance, and the timeline for correction of the noncompliance. 2. Updated policies and procedures documenting its process to verify that each LEA with noncompliance 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 (systemic compliance). 3. Updated policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of implementation of the State’s revised monitoring policies and procedures, such as notification letters, tools to conduct the monitoring, monitoring reports, letters of findings, root cause analysis, technical assistance, examples of finding close-out and verification of correction, or other supporting documentation. 2. The State’s annual IDEA determinations on the performance of at least 15 LEAs, with any underlying protocols or rubrics that were used in completing the determinations | |
57 | South Carolina | 2024 | General Supervision | Identification of Noncompliance | State is not verifying that each LEA identified with noncompliance is: (1) 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 (systemic compliance) (34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d) and (e)); and OSEP’s State General Supervision Responsibilities under Parts B and C of the IDEA: Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement (July 24, 2023) (OSEP QA 23-01). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures: a. Documenting the State’s process for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner to include issuing a written notification of noncompliance (i.e., a finding) to LEAs, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance unless the LEA immediately (i.e., before the State issues a finding) corrects the noncompliance and the State is able to verify the correction. b. Demonstrating that the State’s identification of findings of noncompliance accounts for all noncompliance with IDEA Part B requirements and not limited to those requirements included in SPP/APR indicators. c. Demonstrating that the State includes in written notifications of noncompliance all the information to ensure proper notice to LEAs and to promote timely correction of noncompliance, such as the particular requirement of the statute or regulation with which the LEA is in noncompliance, a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting the State’s conclusion that there is noncompliance, and the timeline for correction of the noncompliance. 2. Updated policies and procedures documenting its process to verify that each LEA with noncompliance 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 (systemic compliance). 3. Updated policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of implementation of the State’s revised monitoring policies and procedures, such as notification letters, tools to conduct the monitoring, monitoring reports, letters of findings, root cause analysis, technical assistance, examples of finding close-out and verification of correction, or other supporting documentation. 2. The State’s annual IDEA determinations on the performance of at least 15 LEAs, with any underlying protocols or rubrics that were used in completing the determinations | |
58 | South Carolina | 2024 | General Supervision | LEA Annual Determinations | State is not considering performance on compliance indicators and valid and reliable data when making an annual determination on the performance of each LEA under Part B, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.603(b). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures: a. Documenting the State’s process for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner to include issuing a written notification of noncompliance (i.e., a finding) to LEAs, generally within three months of the State’s identification of noncompliance unless the LEA immediately (i.e., before the State issues a finding) corrects the noncompliance and the State is able to verify the correction. b. Demonstrating that the State’s identification of findings of noncompliance accounts for all noncompliance with IDEA Part B requirements and not limited to those requirements included in SPP/APR indicators. c. Demonstrating that the State includes in written notifications of noncompliance all the information to ensure proper notice to LEAs and to promote timely correction of noncompliance, such as the particular requirement of the statute or regulation with which the LEA is in noncompliance, a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting the State’s conclusion that there is noncompliance, and the timeline for correction of the noncompliance. 2. Updated policies and procedures documenting its process to verify that each LEA with noncompliance 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 (systemic compliance). 3. Updated policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data policies and procedures for issuing annual IDEA determinations on the performance of each LEA, that consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators (including Part B Indicators 4B, 9, and 10); (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Evidence of implementation of the State’s revised monitoring policies and procedures, such as notification letters, tools to conduct the monitoring, monitoring reports, letters of findings, root cause analysis, technical assistance, examples of finding close-out and verification of correction, or other supporting documentation. 2. The State’s annual IDEA determinations on the performance of at least 15 LEAs, with any underlying protocols or rubrics that were used in completing the determinations | |
59 | South Carolina | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Mediation | State’s mediation procedures are not consistent with the requirement under 34 C.F.R § 300.506(b)(3)(ii) that the SEA must select mediators on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures that detail the State’s process to ensure that mediators are selected on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis. 2. Updated Frequently Asked Questions document and Dispute Resolution Information webpage that describe mediation consistent with the requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a) and (b)(4). | |
60 | South Carolina | 2024 | Dispute Resolution & Procedural Safeguards | Mediation | State’s Frequently Asked Questions document does not describe mediation consistent with the requirement under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a) (public agencies must ensure procedures are established and implemented to allow parties to disputes involving any matter under IDEA Part B to resolve disputes through mediation); and the State’s “Dispute Resolution Information” webpage does not describe mediation consistent with the requirement under 34 C.F.R. 300.506(b)(4) (States must bear the cost of the mediation process). | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 1. Updated policies and procedures that detail the State’s process to ensure that mediators are selected on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis. 2. Updated Frequently Asked Questions document and Dispute Resolution Information webpage that describe mediation consistent with the requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a) and (b)(4). | |
61 | South Carolina | 2024 | Significant Disproportionality | Policies & Procedures | State’s policies and procedures regarding the reasonable progress flexibility in identifying LEAs with significant disproportionality are not consistent with the requirement under 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(d)(2), which allows States to adopt the flexibility for an LEA that has exceeded the risk ratio threshold and has failed to demonstrate reasonable progress, as determined by the State, in lowering the risk ratio or alternate risk ratio for the group and category in each of the two prior consecutive years. | Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: • Revised policies and procedures that reflect the State’s reasonable progress standard and process for determining whether an LEA met the reasonable progress standard, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(d)(2). Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this letter, the State must submit: • Evidence of revised training available to LEAs explaining the State’s reasonable progress standard and process for determining whether an LEA met the reasonable progress standard. Recommendations: While OSES was able to describe its system for identifying significant disproportionality, the State may wish to consider the use of a more formal review process for examining LEAs’ significant disproportionality data and, if appropriate, the process used to review and, if appropriate, revise LEA policies, practices, and procedures, used in the identification, placement, or disciplinary removal of a child with a disability. The State should also continue to work with its stakeholders to ensure that the State’s current definition of significant disproportionality remains appropriate. Specifically, OSEP recommends that OSES: • Revise the State’s policies and procedures related to the self-assessment process for LEAs identified with significant disproportionality, to include a more consistent and systematic review by the State of the LEAs’ root cause analysis and action plans. • Provide additional training to LEA staff regarding the significant disproportionality data collection requirements. | |
62 | |||||||
63 | |||||||
64 | |||||||
65 | |||||||
66 | |||||||
67 | |||||||
68 | |||||||
69 | |||||||
70 | |||||||
71 | |||||||
72 | |||||||
73 | |||||||
74 | |||||||
75 | |||||||
76 | |||||||
77 | |||||||
78 | |||||||
79 | |||||||
80 | |||||||
81 | |||||||
82 | |||||||
83 | |||||||
84 | |||||||
85 | |||||||
86 | |||||||
87 | |||||||
88 | |||||||
89 | |||||||
90 | |||||||
91 | |||||||
92 | |||||||
93 | |||||||
94 | |||||||
95 | |||||||
96 | |||||||
97 | |||||||
98 | |||||||
99 | |||||||
100 |