DMS

REPORT 

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATE VIRGINIA

DATE MARCH 13, 2024 

IDEA PART B 

CONTENTS

LETTER ...................................................................................................................................1

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................6

STATE COMPLAINTS ......................................................................................................6

MEDIATION ..................................................................................................................17

DUE PROCESS ..............................................................................................................19

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS: PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE ................................................23

CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................................................................26

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS .......................................................................30

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................35
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DIRECTOR

LETTER

March 13, 2024 

By Email

Honorable Lisa Coons 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 2120 

Richmond, Virginia 23218 

Email: lisa.coons@doe.virginia.gov

Dear Superintendent Coons: 

The purpose of this monitoring report is to provide a summary of the results of the Differentiated Monitoring 

and Support (DMS) activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP). As part of the DMS process, States are monitored on their general 

supervision systems which encompass States’ responsibilities to ensure that States and their subgrantees and 

contractors meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Those 

requirements include: 1) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, 

children, and youth with disabilities; and 2) Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under 

Parts B and C of the IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to 

improving educational results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. 

OSEP selects States for monitoring in two ways: 1) OSEP uses a cyclical process to assign States to cohorts

through its DMS process; and 2) OSEP identifies States with emerging issues that require out-of-cycle 

monitoring. In letters dated February 17, 2023, and May 12, 2023, OSEP informed Virginia’s State educational 

agency (SEA), the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), that the State was selected for DMS targeted 

monitoring and summarized the status of findings issued in a letter to the State dated June 23, 2020.1

Specifically, OSEP had new or continued concerns with the State’s implementation of general supervision, 

dispute resolution, and confidentiality requirements under the IDEA Part B. 

Based on feedback from the public and other interested parties, additional information in the State’s corrective 

actions for the 2020 monitoring report findings, and a January 2023 phone call (at the State’s request), OSEP 

identified concerns related to the implementation of the IDEA Part B that, while related to the 2020 findings, 

went beyond the scope of those original findings, and required additional monitoring activities. A description of 

the additional monitoring areas included:

1 OSEP is providing a separate letter on the status of the findings and corrective actions in OSEP’s June 23, 2020 letter. 
Page 2—Chief State School Officer

1. General supervision procedures for the identification and correction of noncompliance

(34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600).

• OSEP examined the implementation of the revised policies, procedures, and practices VDOE

developed in response to OSEP’s June 23, 2020 DMS report and its February 17, 2023 letter. 

VDOE demonstrated and provided evidence to OSEP of a reasonably designed general 

supervision system. This system included multiple components such as monitoring to — (1) 

improve educational results and functional outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and their families and children with disabilities; and (2) ensure that local educational agencies 

(LEAs) meet the requirements under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600 through 300.604, and 

300.608. No further action is required in this area.

2. State complaint policies, procedures, and practices (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153).

• Based on its review of available documents, including a review of OSEP-selected State 

complaint files, information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has identified three findings of 

noncompliance with the IDEA Part B State complaint requirements at the conclusion of our 

monitoring activities. 

3. Due process complaint and hearing procedures (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.516).

• Based on its review of available documents, including a review of OSEP-selected due process 

complaint files, information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has identified two findings of 

noncompliance with the IDEA Part B due process requirements at the conclusion of our 

monitoring activities. 

4. Confidentiality of information procedures, particularly parent consent before the disclosure of 

personally identifiable information (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.611 through 300.626).

• Based on its review of available documents, information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has 

identified two findings of noncompliance with the IDEA Part B confidentiality requirements at 

the conclusion of our monitoring activities.

5. Independent educational evaluation (IEE) policies, procedures, and practices (34 C.F.R. § 300.502).

• Based on its review of available documents, information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has 

identified one finding of noncompliance with the IDEA Part B IEE requirements at the 

conclusion of our monitoring activities. 

Additionally, during OSEP’s targeted monitoring activities, based on its review of available documents, 

information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has identified one finding of noncompliance with the IDEA Part 

B requirements related to mediation (34 C.F.R. § 300.506) and one finding of noncompliance related to prior

written notice (34 C.F.R. § 300.503). OSEP is making the findings, listed below, and described in more detail 

further in the monitoring report, including any required actions. As part of its required actions, the State must 

review Sections II.A.6, 8, and 11 of its Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2024 IDEA Part B grant application to ensure 

that, for any finding for which a specific assurance is needed, the State’s responses are consistent with its 

specific assurances. 

This DMS targeted monitoring report summarizes OSEP’s review of the IDEA Part B requirements regarding 

the above-mentioned monitoring areas. Monitoring activities included interviews regarding the State’s process 

to monitor its LEAs for compliance with the IDEA Part B requirements, and how the State identifies and 

verifies the correction of noncompliance. Interviews with the State also included VDOE’s mediation, State 
Page 3—Chief State School Officer

complaint, and due process hearing oversight. In addition to these interviews, OSEP reviewed publicly available 

information, policies and procedures, and other related documents VDOE submitted to OSEP. The targeted 

monitoring activities did not include discussions regarding data or fiscal management as issues related to these 

components were not the underlying rationale for the targeted monitoring activities. 

OSEP conducted virtual and onsite interviews with representatives from VDOE during the month of September 

2023. The interviews included staff from VDOE’s Office of Program Improvement, Office of Dispute 

Resolution, Office of Facilities and Family Engagement, Office of Instructional Services, Early Childhood 

Quality and Workforce, and the Office on Department of Policy and Communications. OSEP also conducted 

interviews with a group of due process hearing officers and other interested parties, including parents of 

children with disabilities and military connected families, and groups that represent the families and 

communities served by Virginia through engagement with the Parent Educational Advocacy Center, the OSEPfunded Parent Training and Information Center for Virginia, and Formed Families Forward, the Community 

Parent Resource Center for Virginia. Local engagement also included targeted interviews with local-level staff, 

teachers, specialized instructional support personnel, Section 619 (preschool) coordinators, and related service 

providers to better understand how the LEAs are applying State and local policies, procedures, and practices in 

the implementation of IDEA of a select group of LEAs within the State. OSEP’s engagement occurred through 

targeted interviews, conversations, and other appropriate means of collecting information, such as meeting with 

Virginia’s State Special Education Advisory Committee, and a focus group of LEA special education directors 

organized by the Virginia Council of Administrators of Special Education. OSEP would like to acknowledge 

the efforts of Dr. Samantha Hollins in collaborating with OSEP to coordinate and carry out the targeted 

monitoring activities.

A summary of OSEP’s 10 findings is listed below and described in more detail further in the monitoring report, 

including any required actions. In addition, OSEP plans to provide technical assistance to VDOE related to the 

State’s funding of, and provision of services to, two-year-old children with disabilities to ensure consistency 

with the requirements of Parts C and B of the IDEA. OSEP’s review of monitoring priorities and components of 

general supervision did not examine the implementation of the IDEA Part B requirements by all LEAs within 

the State, and OSEP cannot determine whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these 

requirements without reviewing data at the local level.

Summary of Monitoring Priorities and Outcomes 

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

1. State Complaints 1.1 OSEP finds that the State’s regulations and State complaint 

procedures contain provisions that are inconsistent with the

following IDEA requirements: 

a. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 and 300.153(b); 

b. 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b); 

c. 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and OSEP’s IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution Procedures guidance; and

d. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) and 300.152(a). 

1.2 OSEP finds that, in resolving State complaints, the State does not 

consistently identify and require correction of all noncompliance 

with IDEA requirements identified through complaint resolution 
Page 4—Chief State School Officer

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

when the noncompliance was not specifically alleged in the 

complaint. This practice is inconsistent with the requirements in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.151, 300.153, 300.600 through 300.602, 

and OSEP guidance. 

1.3 OSEP finds that the State’s model form for State complaints is 

inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.509(a) in that it requires 

information beyond what is required by the IDEA regulation at 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b) without designating the additional 

information requested as optional. 

2. Mediation 2.1 OSEP finds that the State’s procedure requiring parties to sign a 

confidentiality pledge prior to the commencement of mediation, as 

permitted in 8VAC20-81-190.E.3, is inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8) and OSEP guidance. 

3. Due Process 3.1 OSEP finds that the 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. 

3.2 OSEP finds that the State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.P.9.b. 

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). 

4. Prior Written Notice 4.1 OSEP finds that the State’s guidance indicating that prior written 

notice is not required after an individualized education program 

(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). 

5. Confidentiality 5.1 OSEP finds that the State’s Frequently Asked Questions (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 Family Education Rights and 

Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) definition at 34 C.F.R § 99.3. 

5.2 OSEP finds that the 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. 

6. Independent Educational 

Evaluation (IEE)

6.1 OSEP finds that the State has not ensured that its LEAs are 

implementing the IEE requirements in the State’s revised 
Page 5—Chief State School Officer

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

regulation at 8VAC20-81.170.B.2.a and c, and IDEA’s 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502. 

OSEP appreciates VDOE’s continued efforts to improve the implementation of IDEA and recognizes the 

challenges in developing a reasonably designed general supervision system which balances ensuring 

compliance and improving results. VDOE’s investment in establishing and implementing a reasonably designed 

general supervision system ensures Statewide accountability that swiftly identifies and corrects noncompliance

and the full implementation of IDEA to improve educational results for children with disabilities. If you have 

any questions or would like to request technical assistance, please contact your OSEP State Lead. 

Sincerely,

Valerie C. Williams

cc: Part B State Director

Enclosure: 

DMS Monitoring Report 

Appendix 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 6 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

STATE COMPLAINTS

1.1 Procedures for Filing a State Complaint

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151, the State must adopt written procedures for resolving any complaint, including a complaint filed by an organization or 

individual from another State, that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.153. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153, the complaint, among other 

requirements, must be in writing and signed and contain a statement alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or 

the Part B regulations, including the facts on which the statement is based.

a. Parties to a State 

Complaint

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151, 

the State must adopt written 

procedures for resolving any 

complaint, including a 

complaint filed by an 

organization or individual 

from another State, that meets 

the requirements of

34 C.F.R. § 300.153. Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153, the 

complaint, among other 

requirements, must be in 

writing and signed and 

contain a statement alleging 

that a public agency has 

violated a requirement of Part 

B of the Act or the Part B

regulations, including the 

facts on which the statement

is based. (Emphasis added). 

The State’s regulations and complaint 

procedures restrict the parties subject to the 

State complaint procedures. By using the term 

“LEA” or “school division,” individuals and 

organizations do not have notice that the IDEA 

complaint procedures are available to resolve 

allegations against not only LEAs, but also the 

SEA and other agencies included in the 

definition of public agency at 

34 C.F.R. § 300.33. 

“Complaint” as defined by the State in the 

State regulations, the Regulations Governing 

Special Education Programs for Children with 

Disabilities in Virginia, at 8VAC20-81-10, 

means a request that the SEA investigate an 

alleged violation by a “local educational 

agency.” (Emphasis added). The State’s

regulation at 8VAC20-81-200.B.3 requires 

that a State complaint “contain a statement that 

a local educational agency has violated the 

Act or these special education regulations.” 

(Emphasis added). 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s regulations and 

State complaint procedures 

contain provisions that are

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 

and 300.153(b). 

Specifically, the State’s 

regulations at 8VAC20-81-10 

and 8VAC20-81-200.B.3 and 

its complaint procedures apply 

to “LEAs” or “school 

divisions” rather than to all of 

the entities listed under 

IDEA’s definition of “public 

agency” as required by 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 7 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.33, the 

definition of public agency 

includes the SEA, LEAs, 

educational service agencies 

(ESAs), nonprofit public 

charter schools that are not 

otherwise included as LEAs 

or ESAs and are not a school 

of an LEA or ESA, and any 

other political subdivisions of 

the State that are responsible 

for providing education to 

children with disabilities.

In its State complaint procedures, VDOE states 

that the purpose of the procedures is to 

provide, among other things, “an opportunity 

for school divisions and complainants to 

mutually resolve differences.” (Emphasis 

added). See Complaint Resolution Procedures

(Revised Jan. 2022). 

IDEA’s State complaint procedures are 

available to resolve allegations that a public 

agency violated a requirement of Part B of 

IDEA or its implementing regulations. 

(Emphasis added). IDEA defines public 

agency to include the SEA, LEAs, ESAs, 

nonprofit public charter schools that are not 

otherwise included as LEAs or ESAs and are 

not a school of an LEA or ESA, and any other 

political subdivisions of the State that are 

responsible for providing education to children 

with disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.33. 

OSEP notes that the State’s procedural 

safeguards document properly states that the 

IDEA State complaint procedures may be used 

to file a complaint alleging a violation of any 

IDEA requirement “by a school division, the 

VDOE, or any other public agency.” See Your 

Family’s Special Education Rights (Sept. 

2013), p. 17. 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.33 

and 300.153(b). 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 8 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

regulations and

documentation of the 

revisions. 

b. Required Content for a 

State Complaint

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153, 

the complaint, among other 

requirements, must be in 

writing and signed and 

contain a statement alleging 

that a public agency has 

violated a requirement of 

IDEA Part B or its 

implementing regulations, 

including the facts on which 

the statement is based. 

The complaint must include 

the complainant’s signature 

and contact information. If 

the complaint alleges a 

violation with respect to a 

specific child, the complaint 

also must include the name 

and address of the residence 

of the child; the name of the 

school the child is attending; 

in the case of a homeless 

child or youth, available 

contact information for the 

child and name of the school 

the child is attending; a 

description of the problem of 

the child, including facts 

The State’s regulation and State complaint 

procedures exceed IDEA’s requirements in a 

manner that could limit a parent’s or other 

individual’s right to file a State complaint 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20.81-200.B.7 

requires that a complaint “contain all relevant 

documents.” Section I.A.6 of VDOE’s State 

complaint procedures requires the complaint to 

“contain all relevant information and 

supporting documentation.” These 

requirements exceed IDEA’s requirements for 

filing a State complaint.

The State’s requirement that the complainant 

provide “all relevant information and 

supporting documentation” could limit an 

individual or organization’s ability to file a 

State complaint. Further, the SEA could 

inappropriately dismiss complaints that do not 

include the additional information but 

otherwise, meet IDEA’s filing requirements.

OSEP notes that the content in the State’s 

procedural safeguards document that details 

the requirements for filing a State complaint is 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). See 

Your Family’s Special Education Rights (Rev. 

Sept. 2013), p. 20. 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s regulation and 

State complaint procedures 

contain provisions that are 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). 

Specifically, the State’s 

regulation at 8VAC20.81-

200.B.7 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 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b). 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 9 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

related to the problem; and a 

proposed resolution of the 

problem to the extent known 

and available to the party at 

the time the complaint is 

filed.

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. 

c. Complaints Filed by 

Non-Parent 

Complainants

The State must resolve a State 

complaint regardless of 

whether it has been filed by 

the child’s parent or by an 

The State’s regulation and State complaint 

procedures do not allow for a case-by-case 

determination as to whether non-personally 

identifiable information in the SEA’s decision 

on a State complaint can be provided to a nonparent complainant as required 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

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: 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 10 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

organization or individual 

other than the child’s parent. 

In resolving such a complaint, 

the State would be required to 

follow the minimum State 

complaint procedures in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152 as it 

would for any other State 

complaint that alleges that a 

public agency has violated a 

requirement of Part B of the 

IDEA or the Part B 

regulations. This includes 

issuing a written decision to 

the complainant that 

addresses each allegation in 

the complaint and contains – 

(i) Findings of fact and 

conclusions; and 

(ii) The reasons for the SEA’s 

final decision in 

accordance with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5), 

subject to the conditions 

discussed below.

Under these circumstances, 

parental consent must be 

obtained before the State may 

provide personally 

identifiable information (PII) 

about a child to the nonparent complainant as part of 

the complaint decision. 

by34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and OSEP 

guidance. 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-

200.D.1.c states: 

If the complaint is filed by an individual 

other than the child’s parent(s) and/or 

their legal counsel, VDOE notifies the 

complainant that the parent will be 

provided a copy of the complaint and 

pertinent correspondence. 

The SEA’s decision on the complaint is not 

shared with the complainant unless the 

complainant obtains the parent’s consent and 

files the appropriate consent for release of 

information. 

Similarly, VDOE’s State complaint procedures 

at II.A.5 state: 

If an individual other than a parent, a 

student who has reached the age of 

majority, or their attorney files a 

complaint, [the State’s Office of Dispute 

Resolution and Administrative Services] 

ODRAS notifies the individual of 

VDOE’s receipt of the complaint and 

informs the individual that the parent or 

adult student will be informed of its 

receipt of the complaint and will be 

provided copies of the complaint relevant 

correspondence, if any, and this 

Complaint Resolution Procedures 

document. Unless a release of information 

is on file with ODRAS, the individual 

The State’s regulations and 

State complaint procedures 

contain provisions that are 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and 

OSEP’s IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution Procedures 

guidance. 

Specifically, the State’s 

regulation at 8VAC20-81-

200.D.1.c and the State 

complaint procedures at II.A.5 

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 nonparent complainant, which is 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(5) and 

OSEP’s IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution Procedures 

guidance. 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 11 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

34 C.F.R. §§ 99.30 and 

300.622. 

If parental consent is not 

obtained, any PII about the 

child who is the subject of the 

complaint must be redacted 

from the SEA’s written 

decision on the complaint. 

Because the complaint 

resolution would likely 

involve the child’s PII, it may 

not be possible for the SEA’s

decision to be released to the 

non-parent complainant. The 

SEA must make this 

determination on a case-bycase basis but should not 

withhold relevant non-PII

from the complainant 

regarding the results of the 

State’s complaint resolution. 

See Question B-11 in OSEP’s 

Questions and Answers on 

IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution Procedures

(July 23, 2013).

receives no further written communication 

resulting from the complaint process. 

The State’s regulation and complaint 

procedures do not provide for a case-by-case 

determination of the information that must be 

withheld when resolving a complaint filed by 

someone other than the child’s parent and the 

parent has not consented to the release of their 

child’s PII. Specifically, when resolving a 

complaint filed by someone other than the 

child’s parent and the SEA does not receive 

the parent’s permission to disclose PII about 

the child, the SEA must make a case-by-case 

determination about information that must not 

be disclosed. OSEP has advised that the SEA 

should not withhold relevant non-PII from the 

complainant regarding the results of the SEA’s 

complaint resolution.

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. 

d. Calculating the 60-Day 

Time Limit for State 

Complaint Resolution

Unless otherwise indicated as 

business day or school day, 

the use of the term “day” in 

the Part B regulations means 

The State’s regulatory definition of “calendar 

day” and “business day” is inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a) and (b), and IDEA’s 60-

day timeline for resolving State complaints as 

required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a). 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-10 

includes a definition of “calendar days” that is 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

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: 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 12 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

calendar day. See 

34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a). 

“Business day” as used in the 

IDEA regulations means 

Monday through Friday, 

exception for Federal and 

State holidays (unless 

holidays are specifically 

included in the designation of 

business day.” See 

34 C.F.R. § 300.11(b). 

Thus, the “time limit of 60 

days” in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) must 

be measured in calendar days.

inconsistent with IDEA requirements. 

Specifically, the State defines calendar days to 

mean: 

consecutive days, inclusive of Saturdays 

and Sundays. Whenever any period of 

time fixed by this chapter shall expire on a 

Saturday, Sunday, or [F]ederal or [S]tate 

holiday, the period of time for taking such 

action under this chapter shall be extended 

to the next day, not a Saturday, Sunday, or 

[F]ederal or [S]tate holiday. 

VDOE’s State complaint procedures at IX.C.1 

state: 

For the purposes of these Complaint 

Resolution Procedures, unless the context 

requires otherwise...business day and 

calendar day shall have the definitions set 

forth in 8VAC20-81-10. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a) the IDEA 

regulation defines day to mean calendar day, 

(which would be inclusive of weekends, 

Federal and State holidays) unless otherwise 

indicated as business day or school day. Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.11(b), the IDEA regulation 

defines business day to mean Monday through 

Friday, except for Federal and State holidays 

(unless holidays are specifically included in 

the designation of business day). 

The State’s definition of “calendar day” 

includes components of both “day” and 

“business day,” which is inconsistent with 

IDEA.

The State’s regulations and 

State complaint procedures 

contain provisions that are 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.11(a) and (b) 

and 300.152(a). 

Specifically, the State’s

definition of “calendar day,” as 

referenced in its regulation in 

8VAC20-81-10 and State 

complaint procedures 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). 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 13 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

OSEP notes that in its review of OSEPselected State complaint decisions, VDOE 

correctly applied IDEA’s definition of 

“calendar day” when calculating the 60-day 

time limit, notwithstanding the State rule and 

language in the State complaint procedures. 

OSEP observed through its review of State 

complaint decisions, that VDOE applies the 

definition at 8VAC20-81-10 when calculating 

the timeline for the State-permitted process to 

appeal the SEA’s decision on a State 

complaint (i.e., extending the timeline to the 

next business day if the 30th day falls on a 

weekend or holiday). Since this is a Stateimposed requirement, VDOE may implement

this State-established timeline for parties to 

file an appeal and the State’s decision on such 

an appeal and should make clear that this 

timeline is not measured in calendar days.

VDOE has acknowledged that the State’s 

regulatory definition of “calendar day” is 

inconsistent with the IDEA regulation. In 

response to OSEP’s 2019 monitoring of 

VDOE’s due process hearing procedures, 

VDOE assured OSEP that it will revise its 

regulatory definition for consistency with the 

IDEA’s definition in 34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a)

and (b). With its August 7, 2023 corrective 

action submission to OSEP, VDOE provided 

proposed language for the revised definition 

and draft communication to the public about 

the regulatory change. 

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. 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 14 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

1.2 State Complaint 

Procedures and 

Remedies for Denial of 

Appropriate Services: 

Addressing 

Noncompliance Found 

Through State 

Complaint Resolution 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151, 

the State must adopt written 

procedures for resolving any 

complaint, including a 

complaint filed by an 

organization or individual 

from another State, that meets 

the requirements of

34 C.F.R. § 300.153. Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153, the 

complaint, among other 

requirements, must be signed 

and written and contain a 

statement alleging that a 

public agency has violated a 

requirement of Part B of the 

Act or the Part B regulations, 

including the facts on which 

the statement is based. 

In resolving a complaint in 

which the State has found a 

failure to provide appropriate 

services, the State, pursuant to 

its general supervisory 

authority under IDEA Part B 

VDOE does not consistently address all 

noncompliance with IDEA requirements found 

through its State complaint resolution 

procedures. Specifically, OSEP observed and 

discussed with the State, an instance where 

although additional noncompliance was found, 

VDOE addressed only the noncompliance 

related to the allegations included in the State 

complaint. This practice is inconsistent with 

the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 

300.151, 300.153, 300.600 through 300.602, 

and OSEP guidance. 

OSEP reviewed a sample of State complaint 

files and found that the State did not 

consistently address noncompliance related to 

an IDEA requirement if that requirement was 

not specified by the complainant in the State 

complaint. For example, in one complaint 

decision, VDOE identified a violation 

regarding the notice provided to the parent 

about who would be in attendance in advance 

of an IEP Team meeting. In that decision, 

VDOE stated that, because “the complainant 

did not raise this allegation in her complaint it 

would be inappropriate to address this further 

in this Letter of Findings.” 

While the State has some discretion in how it 

addresses noncompliance with an IDEA 

requirement that was not specifically cited in a 

State complaint, it must ensure that it identifies

all noncompliance and ensures that it is 

corrected in a timely manner as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). Further, if the 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State, in resolving 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. This practice is 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 

300.151, 300.153, 300.600 

through 602, and OSEP 

guidance. 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 15 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

and consistent with the 

provisions in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b), must 

address the failure to provide 

appropriate services, 

including corrective action 

appropriate to address the 

needs of the child (such as 

compensatory services or 

monetary reimbursement),

and the appropriate future 

provision of services for all 

children with disabilities. 

To effectively monitor the 

implementation of Part B 

IDEA requirements, the State 

must have a system that is 

reasonably designed to ensure 

that the State can meet its 

general supervisory 

responsibility for monitoring 

the provision of IDEA Part B 

services as required under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 

300.600 through 300.602. 

In exercising its monitoring 

responsibilities under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e), the 

State must ensure that when it 

identifies noncompliance with 

IDEA Part B requirements by 

LEAs, the noncompliance is 

corrected as soon as possible, 

and in no case later than one 

noncompliance resulted in a failure to provide 

appropriate services to the child who is the 

subject of the complaint, the SEA must 

provide for corrective action appropriate to 

address the needs of the child and the 

appropriate future provision of services to 

children with disabilities, consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b). 

OSEP has advised that the State must, 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 

300.600 through 300.602, identify 

noncompliance when it determines that an 

LEA’s policy, procedure, or practice, 

including those that are child-specific, is 

inconsistent with an applicable IDEA 

requirement, another IDEA-related Federal 

requirement, or any specific IDEA grant award 

terms or conditions. See OSEP QA 23-01, 

Section B. 

VDOE explained it has a process whereby the 

State’s monitors are informed of such 

additional noncompliance. VDOE noted it had 

received objections from LEAs in the past 

about making a finding of noncompliance on 

an issue not included in the original complaint, 

and the LEA argued it was not on notice of the 

issue. In this instance, the State’s appeal 

reviewer found in favor of the LEA. 

Although the State reported it has other 

mechanisms for addressing the 

noncompliance, it is unclear to OSEP that 

those mechanisms are consistently used. 

VDOE acknowledged it must revise its 

monitoring report or if there 

are no such complaint 

decisions with these 

remedies, an explanation of 

how the State implemented 

its revised procedures. 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 16 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

year after the State’s written 

notification of 

noncompliance. See also 

OSEP’s Question and Answer 

document 23-01, State 

General Supervision 

Responsibilities under Parts B 

and C of the IDEA: 

Monitoring, Technical 

Assistance, and Enforcement

(July 24, 2023) (OSEP QA 

23-01). 

See Appendix for a listing of 

additional legal requirements.

practice and stated it will “work on a way to 

make sure its complaint procedure” is

implemented in a way that “affords a degree of 

fairness to the school division without 

compromising the responsibility to provide [a 

free appropriate public education] FAPE to the 

student.” 

1.3 State Model Forms

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.509(a), each 

State must develop model 

forms to assist parents and 

other parties in filing a State 

complaint under §§ 300.151 

through 300.153. However, 

the SEA or LEA may not 

require the use of the model 

forms. Parents, public 

agencies, and other parties 

may use the appropriate 

model form or another form 

or other document, so long as 

the form or document that is 

used meets, as appropriate, 

the content requirements in 

VDOE’s model State complaint form is 

inconsistent with the requirements in

34 C.F.R. § 300.509(a). Specifically, the model 

form includes data fields beyond those 

required by the IDEA regulation without 

specifying that the additional information 

asked for is optional. Further, VDOE imposes 

a requirement that complainants submit 

documentation to support their allegations and 

specific requirements for labeling documents 

and recordings. 

VDOE staff acknowledged that at the time of 

OSEP’s visit, the State’s model form included 

data fields beyond those required under IDEA 

without identifying those fields as optional 

information. For example, as part of the 

required content area providing the subject(s) 

the complaint involves, the form instructs the 

complainant to include information about the 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s model form for 

State complaints is 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.509(a) in that 

it requires information beyond

what is required by the IDEA 

regulation at 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b) 

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. 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 17 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

§300.153(b) for filing a State 

complaint.

child’s disability. The model form also 

instructs the complainant they must include 

any documentation that supports their

allegation(s) as an attachment: 

Should audio recordings (CD or cassette 

tape) or video recordings (DVD or 

videotape) be submitted to support an 

allegation(s), there must be a reference 

made, either in the complaint document or 

in the recording label, as to where on the 

recording the supporting information is 

located. 

An SEA may request information not required 

by 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b) but may not require 

it and must ensure that the failure to provide 

the additional information does not delay the 

resolution of the complaint. 

MEDIATION

2.1 Confidentiality of 

Mediation Discussions

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506, 

each public agency must 

ensure that procedures are 

established and implemented 

to allow parties to disputes 

involving any matter under 

this part, including matters 

arising prior to the filing of a 

due process complaint, to 

resolve disputes through a 

mediation process. If the 

Under State regulation 8VAC20-81-190.E.3, 

parties may be required to sign a 

confidentiality pledge before participating in 

mediation. OSEP has advised such a practice 

is inconsistent with the voluntary nature of 

IDEA’s mediation process and the 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8). 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-190.E.3 

states the following: 

Parties to the mediation process may be 

required to sign a consent form to 

mediate containing a confidentiality 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s procedure 

requiring parties to sign a 

confidentiality pledge prior to 

the commencement of 

mediation as permitted in 

8VAC20-81-190.E.3, is 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 18 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

parties resolve a dispute 

through the mediation 

process, the parties must 

execute a legally binding 

agreement that sets forth that 

resolution and that— (1) 

states that all discussions that 

occurred during the mediation 

process will remain 

confidential and may not be 

used as evidence in any 

subsequent due process 

hearing or civil proceeding; 

and (2) is signed by both the 

parent and a representative of 

the agency who has the 

authority to bind the agency. 

pledge prior to the commencement of 

the mediation process. 

IDEA and its implementing regulations require 

public agencies to establish and implement 

procedures to allow parties to resolve disputes 

involving any matter under IDEA and its 

implementing regulations, including matters 

arising prior to the filing of a due process 

complaint, through a mediation process. 

20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(1) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a). The public agency 

must ensure, among other requirements, that 

the mediation process is voluntary on the part 

of the parties. 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(1)(i). 

Additionally, mediation may not be used to 

deny or delay a parent’s right to a hearing on 

the parent’s due process complaint, or to deny 

any other rights afforded under Part B of 

IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(1)(ii). The goal 

of mediation is for the parties to resolve the 

dispute and execute a legally binding written 

agreement reflecting that resolution. See 

OSEP’s Letter to Anonymous (July 31, 2020). 

The requirement that discussions that occur 

during mediation remain confidential is fully 

applicable regardless of whether the parties 

sign a separate confidentiality pledge or 

agreement prior to commencing the mediation 

process. While mediation is voluntary on the 

part of the parties, it is impermissible under 

IDEA for a public agency to condition 

participation in mediation on the parties’ 

signing a confidentiality pledge. While nothing 

inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(8) and 

OSEP guidance. 

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: 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 19 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

in IDEA is intended to prevent States from 

allowing parties to sign a confidentiality 

pledge, public agencies may not condition 

their participation in mediation on such an 

agreement, because such a requirement is 

counter to the voluntary nature of the 

mediation process.

OSEP notes that Virginia’s procedural 

safeguards document does not include content 

related to the use of confidentiality pledges in 

mediation. See Your Family’s Special 

Education Rights (Rev. Sept. 2013), pages 16-

17. 

VDOE staff acknowledged that the State 

regulation is inconsistent with OSEP’s 

guidance on this issue. As a follow up to 

OSEP’s onsite visit, on October 5, 2023, 

VDOE sent electronic mail (email) 

correspondence to the State’s IDEA mediators 

alerting them of OSEP’s guidance that “parties 

cannot be required to sign a confidentiality 

agreement as a condition for participation in 

mediation.” 

1. A copy of the finalized 

changes to the State’s 

regulation and documentation 

of the revisions. 

DUE PROCESS

3.1 Filing a Due Process 

Complaint

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a), a

parent or a public agency may 

file a due process complaint 

on any of the matters 

The State’s regulation and due process 

procedures restrict the parties subject to the 

due process complaint. By using the term 

“LEA” or “school division” individuals and 

organizations do not have notice that the IDEA 

due process procedures are available to 

resolve allegations against not only LEAs, but 

also the SEA and other agencies included in 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 20 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a)(1) and 

(2) (relating to the 

identification, evaluation, or 

educational placement of a 

child with a disability, or the 

provision of FAPE to the 

child). (Emphasis added). The 

due process complaint must 

allege a violation that 

occurred not more than two 

years before the date the 

parent or public agency knew 

or should have known about 

the alleged action that forms 

the basis of the due process 

complaint, or, if the State has 

an explicit time limitation for 

filing a due process complaint 

under Part B of the IDEA 

regulations, in the time

allowed by that State law, 

except that the exceptions to 

the timeline described in

34 C.F.R. § 300.511(f) of the 

regulations apply. (Emphasis 

added). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.33, the 

definition of public agency 

includes the SEA, LEAs, 

ESAs, nonprofit public 

charter schools that are not 

otherwise included as LEAs 

or ESAs and are not a school 

the definition of public agency at 

34 C.F.R. § 300.33. 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-210.A 

states: 

The Virginia Department of Education 

provides for an impartial special education 

due process hearing system to resolve 

disputes between parents and local 

educational agencies with respect to any 

matter relating to: (22-214 of the Code of 

Virginia; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.121 and 

300.507 through 300.518)... (Emphasis 

added).

The State’s regulation and VDOE’s guidance 

document, Navigating the Maze of the Due 

Process Requirements, (Sept. 2020), state: 

Either a parent(s) or the local school 

division (LEA) may file a request for a due 

process hearing when a disagreement 

arises regarding the identification of a 

child with a disability, evaluation of a 

child with a disability (including 

disagreements regarding payment for an 

independent educational evaluation), 

educational placement and services of the 

child, and the provision of a free 

appropriate public education. (Emphasis 

added). p. 2. 

IDEA’s due process complaint and hearing

procedures are available to resolve allegations 

that a public agency violated a requirement of 

Part B of IDEA or its implementing 

The 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. 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 21 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

of an LEA or ESA, and any 

other political subdivisions of 

the State that are responsible 

for providing education to 

children with disabilities.

regulations. (Emphasis added). The term 

public agency as defined in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.33, includes not only LEAs, 

but also the SEA and other agencies. 

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. 

3.2 Due Process Timelines 

and Convenience of 

Hearings and Reviews

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) 

the public agency must ensure 

that not later than 45 days 

after the expiration of the 30 

day period under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b), or the 

adjusted time periods 

described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c)— 

(1) A final decision is 

reached in the hearing; 

and 

(2) A copy of the decision 

is mailed to each of the 

parties. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c) 

a hearing officer may grant 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-

210.P.9.b., and due process hearing 

procedures, permit 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). 

The State’s regulation at 8VAC20-81-

210.P.9.b. states:

In instances where neither party requests 

an extension of time beyond the period set 

forth in this chapter, and mitigating 

circumstances warrant an extension, the 

special education hearing officer shall 

review the specific circumstances and 

obtain the approval of the [VDOE] to the 

extension[.] 

The State’s regulation, which permits the SEA 

to provide approval for an extension of the due 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s regulation at 

8VAC20-81-210.P.9.b. 

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); 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 22 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

specific extensions of time 

beyond the periods set out in 

paragraph (a) of this section 

at the request of either party. 

process hearing timeline when neither party 

requests an extension of time, is inconsistent

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. 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 23 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS: PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE

4.1 Prior Written Notice

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a), the 

public agency must provide 

written notice to the parents 

of a child with a disability a 

reasonable time before the 

public agency proposes to 

initiate or change the 

identification, evaluation, or 

educational placement of the 

child or the provision of 

FAPE to the child; or refuses 

to initiate or change the 

identification, evaluation, or 

educational placement of the 

child or the provision of 

FAPE to the child. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b) 

the prior written notice must 

include the content required 

in 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b)(1) 

through 300.503(b)(7).

The State’s written guidance that advises LEAs 

they are not required to provide prior written 

notice 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). 

In Guidance on Prior Written Notice in the 

Special Education Process (May 2013), the 

State advises its LEAs on when and how prior 

written notice must be provided to parents. 

OSEP identified concerns with VDOE’s 

direction to its LEAs when there are multiple 

IEP Team meetings that do not result in a 

finalized IEP. In this circumstance, VDOE 

states in its guidance that: 

...the regulations do not require that prior 

written notice be provided after every IEP 

meeting in a series of meetings while the 

IEP is still under development, no final 

IEP is being proposed and parental 

consent is not being sought. Providing 

prior written notice in such a piecemeal 

fashion to simply document the 

discussions, agreements, disagreements, 

proposed and refused actions that 

occurred during each of the meetings is 

not required by [S]tate and/or [F]ederal 

special education laws and regulations. 

The IEP development process is a fluid 

process, wherein previously discussed and 

seemingly agreed upon items may be 

revisited and altered. Therefore, imposing 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and information 

provided by the State, and 

interviews with State staff and 

other interested parties. Based 

on this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s 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). 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 24 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

a requirement that an LEA provide prior 

written notice any time an IEP team 

meeting concludes without a proposed 

IEP and where subsequent [sic] meetings 

are anticipated and/or scheduled, would be 

premature and plainly unworkable. 

VDOE staff explained their view that because 

Virginia regulations require the parent’s 

consent before any changes to a child’s 

identified disability category, IEP, or 

placement can be implemented, the provision 

of prior written notice does not have the same 

effect as it would in States that do not require 

parental consent before making such changes. 

VDOE staff stated that if a parent makes a 

request during an IEP Team meeting and the 

LEA refuses that request, the parent should be 

provided documentation of the LEA’s decision 

on the parent’s request at the end of the 

meeting. 

OSEP finds no exception in the IDEA 

regarding the provision of prior written notice, 

simply because the IEP Team is expected to 

reconvene to complete its work – whether 

finalizing an IEP, reviewing the results of a 

reevaluation, discussing a parent’s concern 

about their child’s progress, or other matters.

To illustrate OSEP’s concern regarding the 

State’s written guidance, consider the 

following example. A parent could believe that 

the public agency’s offer of proposed services 

for their child at the first, in a series of IEP 

Team meetings, will not appropriately address 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

DISPUTE RESOLUTION | 25 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or 

Practice and OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required Actions

the child’s needs. The parent makes a specific 

request to add or remove a service from their 

child’s IEP. Under VDOE’s guidance 

document, the LEA would not provide the 

parent with prior written notice until the IEP 

had been finalized. This practice could delay 

resolution of, or fail to effectively document,

the parent’s disagreement with the LEA’s 

proposal. 

The State was unable to demonstrate that it has 

a mechanism in place to ensure that delaying 

prior written notice in the circumstance 

described in the State’s guidance does not 

infringe on parents’ timely access to dispute 

resolution options and resolving disagreements 

about their child’s educational program and 

placement.
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

CONFIDENTIALITY | 26 

CONFIDENTIALITY

Legal Requirements Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required 

Actions

5.1 Education Record 

Definition

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b), 

education record means the 

type of records covered 

under the definition of 

“education records” in 

34 C.F.R. part 99 (the 

regulations implementing 

the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act of 

1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g). 

Under FERPA, at 

34 C.F.R § 99.3, the term

education records means 

those records that are 

directly related to a student; 

and maintained by an 

educational agency or 

institution or by a party 

acting for the agency or 

institution. 

There is a discrepancy between the State’s definition 

of “education record” as it appears in the State 

regulation and in relevant guidance documents. 

Further, the State’s guidance is inconsistent with

IDEA and FERPA requirements. 

The State regulation at 8VAC20-81-10 includes the 

following definition of education record: 

“Education record” means those records that are 

directly related to a student and maintained by an 

educational agency or institution or by a party 

acting for the agency or institution. The term also 

has the same meaning as “scholastic record.” In 

addition to written records, this also includes 

electronic exchanges between school personnel 

and parent regarding matters associated with the 

child’s educational program (e.g., scheduling of 

meetings or notices). This term also includes the 

type of records covered under the definition of 

“education record” in the regulations 

implementing the Family Education Rights and 

Privacy Act. (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(3); 

8VAC22.1-289; 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b)). 

However, the State’s guidance document titled, 

Regulations Governing Special Education Programs 

for Children with Disabilities in Virginia Frequently 

Asked Questions (FAQ) (2022), includes language 

that expressly allows each locality (i.e., LEA or 

school division) to determine which electronic 

communications, if any, constitute an education 

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and 

information provided by the 

State, and interviews with

State staff and other 

interested parties. Based on 

this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The State’s 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
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

CONFIDENTIALITY | 27 

Legal Requirements Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required 

Actions

record. (Emphasis added). The language in the FAQ 

document specifically states:

It is up to each locality to determine which 

electronic data and communication (including 

communication between and among school 

personnel), if any, constitute an education record 

and how the school division will maintain 

electronic education records in ways that will 

allow parent(s) access to those records if they 

request a copy or want to inspect or review the 

student’s entire record. 

The State’s guidance in its FAQ gives LEAs 

flexibility to decide whether any electronic 

communications are an education record, thus 

permitting and accepting the possibility that LEAs 

could determine that no electronic communications 

are education records. This is inconsistent with the 

State’s regulatory definition of education record that 

specifically includes electronic exchanges between 

school personnel and parent regarding matters 

associated with the child’s educational program. The 

State’s FAQ is also inconsistent with the minimum 

requirements of what constitutes an education record 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.611(b) and FERPA, at 

34 C.F.R § 99.3. 

procedures and FAQ

guidance. 

5.2 Notice to Parents

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a), the 

SEA must give notice that is 

adequate to fully inform 

The State’s notice to parents related to the 

requirements for protecting the confidentiality of PII 

does not include all of the content required in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.612.

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and 

information provided by the 

State, and interviews with

State staff and other 

interested parties. Based on 

Policies and Procedures—

within 90 days of the date of 

this monitoring report, the 

State must submit to OSEP: 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

CONFIDENTIALITY | 28 

Legal Requirements Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required 

Actions

parents about the 

requirements of 

34 C.F.R. § 300.123 

including— 

(1) A description of the 

extent that the notice is 

given in the native 

languages of the various 

population groups in the 

State; 

(2) A description of the 

children on whom 

personally identifiable 

information [PII] is 

maintained, the types of 

information sought, the

methods the State 

intends to use in 

gathering the 

information (including 

the sources from whom 

information is gathered), 

and the uses to be made 

of the information; 

(3) A summary of the 

policies and procedures 

that participating 

agencies must follow 

regarding storage, 

disclosure to third 

parties, retention, and 

OSEP reviewed the following policies that VDOE 

cited for meeting this provision:

Procedural Safeguards Notice: Your Family's 

Special Education Rights – Virginia Procedural 

Safeguards Notice (Rev. Sept. 2013). 

Student Records | Virginia Department of 

Education (2022) (website landing page and 

multiple links cited on this page). 

The State’s notice to parents does not include all of 

the required content in 34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a)(1) and 

most of the required content in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a)(2), (3) and (4) (including the 

uses to be made of PII, allowable disclosures of PII to 

third parties, and destruction of PII when requested 

by parents). 

VDOE’s notice is not provided in a manner that is 

adequate to fully inform parents under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.612(a)(3).

this analysis, OSEP finds 

that: 

The 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. 

Specifically, OSEP found 

that 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). 

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.
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRGINIA PART B | 2024

CONFIDENTIALITY | 29 

Legal Requirements Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding Next Steps/Required 

Actions

destruction of personally 

identifiable information; 

and 

(4) A description of all of 

the rights of parents and 

children regarding this 

information, including 

the rights under FERPA 

and implementing 

regulations in 

34 C.F.R. part 99. 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRIGINA PART B | 2024

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS | 30 

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding

Next Steps/Required 

Actions

6.1 Independent 

Educational 

Evaluations 

Under IDEA, the parent of a 

child with a disability has 

the right to obtain an 

independent educational 

evaluation (IEE) of their

child, subject to certain 

conditions. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(1). 

Upon receiving a request for 

an IEE, the public agency 

must provide to parents, 

information about where an 

IEE may be obtained, and 

agency criteria applicable 

for IEEs. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(2). 

A parent has the right to an 

IEE at public expense if 

they disagree with an 

evaluation obtained by the 

public agency, subject to 

certain conditions. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1). 

If a parent requests an

IEE at public expense, the 

public agency must, without 

The State has not ensured that its LEAs comply with 

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. 

OSEP continues to receive inquiries from parents 

who report, and often provide documentation 

demonstrating, that their LEA is not following 

required procedures when responding to the parent’s 

request for an IEE at public expense. 

VDOE acknowledged it must take additional steps to 

ensure LEAs comply with 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. In its 

August 7, 2023, corrective action submission to 

OSEP, VDOE proposed to take the following actions 

pending approval from OSEP: 

(1) Require local school divisions to provide 

assurances that the required review of 

policies, procedures, and practices was 

conducted with certification and date to be 

provided by the local division superintendent 

or their designee. 

(2) Review the IEE policies and procedures from 

the five specific LEAs as requested by OSEP 

in its February 17, 2023, correspondence to 

VDOE. Any noncompliance will be 

identified, and a formal report issued to the 

LEA with required corrective action.

OSEP’s analysis is based on 

the documents and 

information provided by the 

State, and interviews with 

State staff and other 

interested parties. Based on 

this analysis, OSEP finds 

that:

The State 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. 

OSEP remains concerned 

about LEA compliance with 

this requirement and looks 

forward to seeing evidence

of their implementation. 

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 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRIGINA PART B | 2024

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS | 31 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding

Next Steps/Required 

Actions

unnecessary delay, either 

file a due process complaint 

to request a hearing to show 

that its evaluation is 

appropriate or ensure that 

an IEE is provided at public 

expense, unless the agency 

demonstrates in a hearing 

pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 

through 300.513 that the 

evaluation obtained by the 

parent did not meet the 

public agency’s criteria. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2). 

If the public agency files a 

due process complaint to 

request a hearing and the 

final decision is that the 

agency’s evaluation is 

appropriate, the parent still 

has the right to an IEE, but 

not at public expense.

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(3). 

A parent aggrieved by that 

decision would have the 

right to appeal the decision 

to the SEA pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. § 300.514, in a 

State with a two-tier due 

process hearing system, or 

in a State with a one-tier due 

process hearing system, to 

(3) Incorporate the review of policies, 

procedures, and practices regarding IEEs in 

the State’s cyclical general supervision and 

monitoring process in order to conduct a 

detailed review of each local school division 

in Virginia. 

During the onsite visit, OSEP recommended that 

VDOE implement the actions listed above.

Subsequent to the visit, VDOE provided 

documentation of its progress toward carrying out 

these actions. Specifically, the State provided a copy 

of the October 10, 2023 email that included a link to 

the survey it sent to its LEA Superintendents 

requiring each LEA to: (1) review its policies, 

procedures, and practices related to IEEs for 

consistency with the State’s revised Administrative 

Code; and (2) provide a certification by October 31, 

2023 to document that the review had been 

completed. In its November 9, 2023 email 

correspondence to OSEP, the State reported that it is 

conducting follow up monitoring activities with 14 of 

its LEAs based on the information contained in, or 

missing from, their certification submissions, along 

with concerns raised by the LEAs’ constituents. 

On November 3, 2023, VDOE submitted draft 

protocols to evaluate LEA compliance with the IEE 

requirements as a component of the State’s cyclical 

monitoring. In a November 17, 2023 telephone call, 

OSEP provided technical assistance and suggested 

revisions to the State’s draft monitoring protocols.

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.
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRIGINA PART B | 2024

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS | 32 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding

Next Steps/Required 

Actions

bring a civil action in an 

appropriate State or Federal 

court pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. § 300.516. 

While a public agency may 

request that the parent 

specify the areas of 

disagreement, a public 

agency may not require the 

parent to provide an 

explanation and may not 

unreasonably delay either 

providing the IEE at public 

expense or filing a due 

process complaint to defend 

the public agency’s 

evaluation. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(4). 

A parent is entitled to only 

one IEE at public expense 

each time the LEA conducts 

an evaluation with which the 

parent disagrees. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(5). 

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(c), if 

the parent obtains an IEE at 

public expense or shares 

with the public agency an 

evaluation obtained at 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRIGINA PART B | 2024

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS | 33 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding

Next Steps/Required 

Actions

private expense, the results 

of the evaluation— 

(1) Must be considered by 

the public agency, if it 

meets agency criteria, in 

any decision made with 

respect to the provision 

of FAPE to the child; 

and 

(2) May be presented by any 

party as evidence at a 

hearing on a due process 

complaint regarding that 

child. 

If a hearing officer requests 

an IEE as part of a hearing 

on a due process complaint, 

the cost of the evaluation 

must be at public expense.

Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(e)(1), if 

an IEE is at public expense, 

the criteria under which the 

evaluation is obtained, 

including the location of the 

evaluation and the 

qualifications of the 

examiner, must be the same 

as the criteria that the public 

agency uses when it initiates 

an evaluation, to the extent 
OSEP DMS REPORT VIRIGINA PART B | 2024

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS | 34 

Legal Requirements

Noncompliant Policy, Procedure, or Practice and 

OSEP Analysis OSEP Conclusion/Finding

Next Steps/Required 

Actions

those criteria are consistent 

with the parent’s right to an 

IEE. Except for the criteria 

established pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(e)(1), a 

public agency may not 

impose conditions or 

timelines related to 

obtaining an IEE at public 

expense.
APPENDIX | 35 

APPENDIX

Monitoring and Improvement Legal Requirements

In order to effectively monitor the implementation of Part B of the IDEA, the State must have policies and 

procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the State can meet:

1. Its general supervisory responsibility as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.149. 

2. Its monitoring responsibilities in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 through 300.602, and 

3. Its responsibility to annually report on the performance of the State and of each LEA, as provided in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(2).

A State’s monitoring responsibilities include monitoring its LEAs’ compliance with the requirements of IDEA 

Part B underlying the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) indicators, to ensure 

that the SEA can effectively carry out its general supervision responsibility under IDEA Part B, consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.149(a). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(b), the State’s monitoring activities must primarily focus on:

1. Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and

2. Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the IDEA, with a 

particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results 

for children with disabilities.

In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d), the State also must ensure that when 

it identifies noncompliance with IDEA Part B requirements by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as 

possible, and in no case later than one year after the State’s identification of the noncompliance. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). 

Further, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.149(b), the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that it 

complies with the monitoring and enforcement requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 through 300.602 and §§ 

300.606 through 300.608. 

In addition, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(1), the State must monitor the implementation of IDEA Part B, and 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(4) must report annually on the performance of the State and each LEA on the 

targets in the SPP. As a part of its monitoring responsibilities under these provisions, the State must use 

quantifiable and qualitative indicators in the priority areas identified in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d) and the 

SPP/APR indicators established by the Secretary, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(c). Each State also must 

use the targets established in the State’s performance plan under 34 C.F.R. § 300.601 and the priority areas 

described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d) to analyze the performance of each LEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.602. 

Dispute Resolution Legal Requirements

The State must have reasonably designed dispute resolution procedures and practices if it is to effectively 

implement:

1. The State complaint procedures requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153; 

2. The mediation requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506; and 
APPENDIX | 36

3. The due process complaint and impartial due process hearing and expedited due process hearing 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.500, 300.507 through 300.518 and 300.532.

Mediation

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a), each SEA must ensure that procedures are established and implemented to allow 

parties to disputes involving any matter under this part, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due 

process complaint, to resolve disputes through a mediation process. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(1), the 

State’s procedures must ensure that the mediation process:

1. Is voluntary on the part of the parties;

2. Is not used to deny or delay a parent’s right to a hearing on the parent’s due process complaint, or to 

deny any other rights afforded under Part B of the IDEA; and

3. Is conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator who is trained in effective mediation techniques.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(c)(1)(i)–(ii), an individual who serves as a mediator may not be an employee of the 

SEA or the LEA that is involved in the education or care of the child and must not have a personal or 

professional interest that conflicts with the person’s objectivity.

State Complaint Procedures

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151, each SEA must adopt written procedures for resolving any complaint, including a 

complaint filed by an organization or individual from another State, that meets the requirements of 

34 C.F.R. § 300.153. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153, the complaint, among other requirements, must be signed and 

written and contain a statement alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of the Act or 

the Part B regulations, including the facts on which the statement is based. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(c), the 

complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is 

received. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a), the minimum State complaint procedures must include a time limit of 

60 days after the complaint is filed to:

1. Carry out an on-site investigation, if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary;

2. Give the complainant the opportunity to submit additional information, either orally or in writing, about 

the allegations in the complaint;

3. Provide the public agency with the opportunity to respond to the complaint, including, at a minimum—

a. At the discretion of the public agency, a proposal to resolve the complaint; and

b. An opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily 

engage in mediation consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.506;

4. Review all relevant information and make an independent determination as to whether the public agency 

is violating a requirement of Part B of the IDEA or of this part; and

5. Issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint and 

contains—

a. Findings of fact and conclusions; and

b. The reasons for the SEA’s final decision.
APPENDIX | 37

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(b)(1), the State’s procedures must permit an extension of the 60-day time limit only 

if:

1. Exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint, or

2. The parent (or individual or organization, if mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution is 

available to the individual or organization under State procedures) and the public agency involved agree 

to extend the time to engage in mediation under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(3)(ii), or to engage in other 

alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.

The State must include procedures for effective implementation of the SEA’s final decision, if needed, 

including technical assistance activities, negotiations, and corrective actions to achieve compliant. 

34 C.F.R. § 300.152(b)(2).

Due Process Complaint and Hearing Procedures: Resolution Process

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a), the LEA must convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice 

of the parent’s due process complaint, and prior to the initiation of a due process hearing under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.511. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a)(3), the resolution meeting need not be held if the parent and 

the LEA agree in writing to waive the meeting; or the parties agree to use the mediation process described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.506.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b)(1), if the LEA has not resolved the due process complaint to the satisfaction of 

the parent within 30 days of the receipt of the due process complaint, the due process hearing may occur. Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c), the 30-day resolution period may be adjusted to be shorter or longer if one of the 

circumstances identified in that paragraph are present. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), the public agency must 

ensure that not later than 45 days after the expiration of the 30-day resolution period under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b), or the adjusted time periods described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c), a final decision is 

reached in the hearing; and a copy of the decision is mailed to the parties, 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 either party.

Expedited Due Process Complaint and Hearing Procedures

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a), the parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision regarding 

placement under 34 C.F.R §§ 300.530 and 300.531, or the manifestation determination under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e), or an LEA that believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is 

substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others, may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. 

The hearing is requested by filing a complaint consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 and 

300.508(a) and (b). Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(1), whenever a hearing is requested under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a), the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an 

impartial due process hearing consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507, 300.508(a) through (c), 

and §§ 300.510 through 300.514, except as provided in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) through (4). Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2), the SEA or LEA is responsible for arranging the expedited due process hearing, 

which must occur within 20 school days of the date the due process complaint requesting the hearing is filed. 

The hearing officer must make a determination within 10 school days after the hearing. A hearing officer is not 

permitted to extend the expedited due process hearing timeline.
APPENDIX | 38

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3), a resolution meeting must occur within seven days of receiving notice of the 

due process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or agree to use mediation. The 

due process hearing may proceed unless the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties within 

15 days of the receipt of the due process complaint. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(4), a State may establish 

different procedural rules for expedited due process hearings than it has established for other due process 

hearings, but, except for the timelines as modified in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3) (governing the resolution 

process), the State must ensure that the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510 through 300.514 are met.